Other things about the New Jersey Turnpike can go here. It doesn't have to be related to my post, but it does have to be related to the New Jersey Turnpike.
I was just on the New Jersey Turnpike today (exit 16E -> exit 4), and there were some strange things. Here are some questions I have.
1. Why Exit 15X? What does the X mean?
2. At one point, the speed limit was 35. There was traffic, too. If the speed limit had been 65, as normal, there would have been much less traffic!
3. Why are there separate sets of lanes? It can't just be 5 lanes in each direction normally?
4. What's with all the unused lanes on the side?
It sounds like the original poster was on a bus from the Port Authority to Philadelphia. I've done the route from Exit 16E in Secaucus to Exit 4 in Mount Laurel countless times myself. I have yet to take Exit 15X for the transfer station.
The one set of unused lanes which always piqued my interest was a (roughly) one-mile stretch near a northbound rest stop, somewhere between Mansfield (Exit 6) and New Brunswick (Exit 9).
Ignore Steve G's answers.
1. X is for eXchange, it was built for the train station. 15AE was another possibility. (15A, for some reason, wasn't.)
http://www.graveinfo.com/NJ/Secaucus/hcbg/news/JJ050703.html
"No one can identify any other roads with an X in the exit number. None at all," said Travis Johnson, information services manager at the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, whose members include 119 toll agencies from around the world. "You see things like exit 35A, but X is rare, if entirely unknown."
I always figured the X in 15X was the next letter after W. If they ever build another exit in that area and call it 15Y, I wouldn't be surprised. 15A would be really weird. Are there any places on any freeway where they needed to add another exit after E and W or N and S pairs? If so, what was it numbered?New York has used A in places like the Meadowbrook (M3AW, M3AE, just to be awesome).
2. The speed limit was 35 for a reason. I'm sure that same reason caused the traffic. If an accident causes congestion, the SL drops in advance of the accident, so that you're going slowly before you hit the rear of the backup. Once the congestion clears, the SL goes back to what it was.
It's all coordinated through the State Transportation Management Center, with human beings. There are protocols in place, but you have to have a human observing to make the decisions.2. The speed limit was 35 for a reason. I'm sure that same reason caused the traffic. If an accident causes congestion, the SL drops in advance of the accident, so that you're going slowly before you hit the rear of the backup. Once the congestion clears, the SL goes back to what it was.
Is the speed limit reduced (or increased) by computer or does a human being in the Turnpike's control center have to do something to change it?
I always figured the X in 15X was the next letter after W. If they ever build another exit in that area and call it 15Y, I wouldn't be surprised. 15A would be really weird. Are there any places on any freeway where they needed to add another exit after E and W or N and S pairs? If so, what was it numbered?New York has used A in places like the Meadowbrook (M3AW, M3AE, just to be awesome).
No, I was thinking of a different parkway - SM3W, SM3E, SM3A (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/smp/index.html). I had most of the letters right!I always figured the X in 15X was the next letter after W. If they ever build another exit in that area and call it 15Y, I wouldn't be surprised. 15A would be really weird. Are there any places on any freeway where they needed to add another exit after E and W or N and S pairs? If so, what was it numbered?New York has used A in places like the Meadowbrook (M3AW, M3AE, just to be awesome).
Since when does the Meadowbrook Parkway have exits M3AW and M3AE? Maybe you're thinking of the Southern Parkway with exits 28AN and 28AS. That's the only place where I'm aware of a double letter suffix.
No, I was thinking of a different parkway - SM3W, SM3E, SM3A (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/ny/smp/index.html). I had most of the letters right!
It's all coordinated through the State Transportation Management Center, with human beings. There are protocols in place, but you have to have a human observing to make the decisions.2. The speed limit was 35 for a reason. I'm sure that same reason caused the traffic. If an accident causes congestion, the SL drops in advance of the accident, so that you're going slowly before you hit the rear of the backup. Once the congestion clears, the SL goes back to what it was.
Is the speed limit reduced (or increased) by computer or does a human being in the Turnpike's control center have to do something to change it?
Surely you can't be serious!Don't call him Shirley
2. At one point, the speed limit was 35. There was traffic, too. If the speed limit had been 65, as normal, there would have been much less traffic!
But 35!? I remember seeing that last month, and all I could think was, "Surely you can't be serious!" Does anyone at the NJTA even expect people to slow down to below 55? I seem to remember traffic going closer to 65 when I saw that 35 zone.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the old-school variable speed limits only drop from 65 to 45 when there was a "REDUCE SPEED" condition?
A lot of this depends where and why the limit was reduced to 35 mph.
2 unknowns here:
A) If the normal limit is only 55 mph, which would be North of Interchange 12, along with the construction zone between Interchanges 6 & 9, there very well could be 35 mph limits.
B) What was the incident that brought the speed limit to 35 mph?
It's easy to say "there was nothing going on"...when one sees nothing. But there could've been a car accident, construction, or other incident that resulted in the speed reduction, which was cleared up prior to passing that point. The turnpike wouldn't have simply reduced the limit to 35 without reason. After the point where traffic has resumed normal speeds, the limit is returned to the normal limit as well.
Now, that may beg the question...if the limit is 35 mph, shouldn't traffic remain at that speed until they see a 65 (or 55) limit sign? Of course. But, reality is different than theory.
As for other limit reductions, it's dealt with case-by-case, based on the circumstances.
As for other limit reductions, it's dealt with case-by-case, based on the circumstances.
My sample size is admittedly small, but when I have seen wrecks on the New Jersey Turnpike (resulting in one or more lanes blocked), the 85th percentile speed has got to be less than 35 MPH in the queue that results.
Most-recently, I saw one on the northbound side north of 6 in the construction area that blocked the right lane (a tractor-trailer and an SUV had crashed) - taking away 1/3 of the capacity on a Sunday afternoon assures that traffic will be slow up to the point where the lane is blocked.
Does anybody know what is up with the "NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE OF THIS ROADWAY" signs on the outer roadways of the dual carriageways? I know that Jersey law states that the left lane on three or more lane highways is to prohibit trucks for obvious reasons on all roads with three or more general use lanes. However, being that a whole roadway is dedicated to cars only that lies next to it and the fact the three outer lanes are so that trucks can have their own (sort of) roadway, it makes no sense at all.The signs are posted in the inner roadways because the outer roadways could be closed for some reason (bad accident, construction, congestion, etc.) It may not happen frequently, but it can and does happen on occasion. For the record,I have ever entered the Turnpike, and after passing through the toll plaza encountered the outer roadway closed and all traffic funneled to the inner roadway.
I mean why bother to give three lanes away to trucks and only allow them to use two of them. It would have been better to make the dual section a 2-4-4-2 instead of 3-3-3-3.
Does anybody know what is up with the "NO TRUCKS IN LEFT LANE OF THIS ROADWAY" signs on the outer roadways of the dual carriageways? I know that Jersey law states that the left lane on three or more lane highways is to prohibit trucks for obvious reasons on all roads with three or more general use lanes. However, being that a whole roadway is dedicated to cars only that lies next to it and the fact the three outer lanes are so that trucks can have their own (sort of) roadway, it makes no sense at all.
I mean why bother to give three lanes away to trucks and only allow them to use two of them. It would have been better to make the dual section a 2-4-4-2 instead of 3-3-3-3.
Also, on to something else I noticed interesting. The PA Extension does not have a Jersey Barrier median like the rest of the Turnpike does. It actually has a grass median and all underpasses are actual two bridges. I doubt if anyone knows the answer to this one, but it is interesting to point out as parts of the original 118 mile Turnpike also had a wide median. In fact the Garden State Parkway underpass (with CR 514) had a very wide median with the same structure which is how the dual roadway was constructed without having to tear down the Main Street wrought iron bridge and the GSP bridge.
Another thing to note is on the PA Extension, the same truck prohibition signs are posted as the rest of the Turnpike used a No Truck and Buses restriction. It is odd that the NJTA does not care about buses on the short 6 mile extension like they do the 4-18 stretch.
Another thing to note is on the PA Extension, the same truck prohibition signs are posted as the rest of the Turnpike used a No Truck and Buses restriction. It is odd that the NJTA does not care about buses on the short 6 mile extension like they do the 4-18 stretch.
My theory as to why the PA extension is like that is simply, it was built later than the rest, and they had different standards by then, i think it is built to what the interstate highway standards are instead of NJTA standards, someone can correct me on that one. It also provides a massive contrast between the two turnpikes, PA with a narrow shoulder and jersey barrier with a toll booth on the bridge approach, to NJ with an exit before the barrier and a mi or two of road
Yes. Also, there are "left 2 lanes" signs for the 4-lane sections from 11-14.
As for the left lane restriction, I believe it's state law both buses & trucks can't use the left lane of a 3+ lane highway, unless posted otherwise. While "No Trucks in Left Lane" signs are common, buses are excluded as well.
NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc.
Jeffandnicole: Thank you for clarifying the location of the original NJ toll plaza. Every time I drive that road, I seem to remember that in the late 1950's when I first rode thru there with my parents as a little kid, that the toll was just before the bridge. And I figured in recent years that my memory must be wrong. Thanks again for validating my original memory from so long ago!
BTW, it's interesting that NJTA set up the toll plaza and the Route 130 interchange smarter than Penna. did re: the Levittown Interchange. Before E-Z Pass, I used to hate having to stop for the toll ticket in Penna. and then immediately pay the toll with the ticket a minute later on that first exit ramp. PTC should have thought a little smarter.
SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc. So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.
SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc. So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.
SteveG and Roadman, I too have often wondered why the Penna. Connector did not have a median barrier, especially given the NJTA's safety oriented engineering. I don't buy the idea that it was built to Interstate standards of the 1950's though. NJTA takes pride that it's projects exceed national standards for interstate highways. Like their wider, longer lane striping, their own BGS sign standards, etc. So if anything, you'd expect them to build more such barriers than the standards even call for. It remains a mystery to me why that section of the Turnpike is not suitably protected.
Bigger question I have is why the NJTA never used an overhead Exit sign like they used on all other interchanges. The diverge exit number sign was always in the gore up until the current 6-9 widening project. I do, however, liked the fact that on both extensions they did keep the art deco sign gantries over time. I do not know if they are kept with the 6-9 project, especially on the extensions proper. I do know that Grand Street in Jersey City was replaced with the new rusted sign gantries that NJTA has adopted as the norm, but on the 14A and 14B ramps if they're still there or not as well as the split in Mansfield for North and South.
Back in the 80's the grass median (with guardrail) was replaced with a paved median and concrete barrier. The barrier is much thicker and a bit higher than a standard jersey barrier - it was designed to withstand a truck hitting it on a 15 degree angle at 55 mph (remember - the turnpike was 55 in the 80's). I can't recall if the original mainline had dual bridges, with the center median area filled in when they added the concrete barrier.
In all but a very few instances, the wall has withstood those accidents. I've seen cars knock out sections of normal jersey barrier, but the Turnpike barrier has remained intact quite well.
The real question is - why was the NJ/PA Connector roadway's never upgraded?
BTW - the median wouldn't be used to add a travel lane - it would result in a 4 lane roadway without a left shoulder. The Turnpike won't even consider converting the left paved shoulder to a travel lane between Interchanges 1 & 4 because it'll result in a 3 lane roadway without a left shoulder.
Actually my question was why NB Turnpike at Exit 6 never upgraded with the rest of the Turnpike mainline when overheads were introduced to the scene. It was up until the 6 to 9 project that particular location is getting overhead signage.
Bigger question I have is why the NJTA never used an overhead Exit sign like they used on all other interchanges. The diverge exit number sign was always in the gore up until the current 6-9 widening project. I do, however, liked the fact that on both extensions they did keep the art deco sign gantries over time. I do not know if they are kept with the 6-9 project, especially on the extensions proper. I do know that Grand Street in Jersey City was replaced with the new rusted sign gantries that NJTA has adopted as the norm, but on the 14A and 14B ramps if they're still there or not as well as the split in Mansfield for North and South.
Both the Penn and Newark Bay extensions were opened in 1956 and featured the art deco overhead exit signs throughout, including at the gore for exit 6, 14, 14a, 14b, 14c. At the time, it was state of the art - there were either no or very few overhead signs anywhere else on the Turnpike at the time, especially the exit gore signs. The signs at each other exit at that time were ground mounted and only began to be replaced overhead in the mid 1960s with the now familiar traditional style. Hope that answers your question.
Looking carefully on the historic aerials photo, you can see the Connector's EB rightmost plaza lane was a free or low-cost single toll lane (I can't remember which), which took motorists on a long access ramp to Cedar Lane, a relatively small side road that eventually intersects with US 130 in the Florence area. There was no access to the WB connector (heading into PA) in the area at all.
When the plaza was rebuilt further east, that whole access road was removed. The newly rebuilt EB exit is a free exit connecting directly into US 130, just before the newer plaza.
Unsigned Exit 6A was indeed one toll booth of the Exit 6 plaza. You had to use Cedar Lane, which has a pig tail turn over the former Penn Line Railroad which I never understood its purpose. It was obviously designed by NJTA because the bridge over the tracks is a NJT design with those rounded pier caps underneath and green painted girders along with the typical NJT railing on top the concrete parapets.I dialed Historic Aerials back into the 50s, and found something interesting: no Florence ramp at all. The reason for the "pigtail" bridge is obvious - Cedar has to go up over the railroad, which puts it at the same elevation as the Pike, but then it has to get back down to ground level, so it goes under the Pike. (If it kept going over, it would be a lot more expensive and use a lot more land.) The pigtail is an elegant solution to the problem, considering the light volume on Cedar.
Anyway, it was signed as US 130 Florence, but not TO US 130 either, even though you had a long drive through city streets before reaching the intrastate US highway and vise versa. NJ at least thought of the right thing at the time than that stupid Delaware Valley Interchange set up where you grab a ticket and then pay just a few feet later and pay through the nose as the PTC charges you for the bridge use in addition to the small use of Turnpike ground pavement.
The Lincoln Tunnel Interchange complex, completed Feb. 25, 1964, handles traffic to and from the Lincoln Tunnel. Interchange 6A at Florence was opened Sept. 6, 1964 as a direct access to the toll plaza at interchange 6 on the Pa. Extension. A new Interchange 8A, designated Jamesburg-Cranbury, was opened on Feb. 14, 1966.http://books.google.com/books?id=-NhKAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Interchange+6A%22
NJ doesn't use cable barrier as a general rule. The turnpike definitely wouldn't use it.NJ 24 has a base of stone on which was placed a new steel guiderail, so that's your likely answer.
Glancing down from 295 yesterday, it looked like there was about a 2' wide stretch of stone in the middle of the connector median, which I know wasn't there just a few weeks ago. Not a clue what may become of that, if anything other than stone in the middle of the median!If it is where I think it is, it could be for guide rail protection for a new overhead sign structure. The new sign structures on the extension have not been constructed yet.
For those that have a problem with the N.J. Turnpike, Just follow directions and LISTEN. They are widening the turnpike between EXITS 6 and 8A to extend the outer lanes for the trucks and buses. That's why the speed is reduced in the construction zones to 55.
For those that have a problem with the N.J. Turnpike, Just follow directions and LISTEN. They are widening the turnpike between EXITS 6 and 8A to extend the outer lanes for the trucks and buses. That's why the speed is reduced in the construction zones to 55. The exits are easy to read (for those that CAN read). Once the widening is finished this year. The speed will go back up to 65. BUT, If some state lawmakers in New Jersey get the green light, The turnpike could go up to 70. That's a BIG if. I would recommend 70 between EXITS 1 and 9. And 65 from EXITS 10 to 14. And 60 from EXITS 15E & 15W to Ridgefield Park. And 55 from I-80 merge to Fort Lee near the George Washington Bridge. That's what I would recommend. As for the Newark Airport-Holland Tunnel (I-78 Turnpike Extension); That should remain at 50 until construction is done. Maybe (JUST MAYBE), It may go up to 55. Now, What's the problem with the Service Area just North past EXIT 11? Is the NORTHBOUND Service Area going to get back to NORMAL??
That service area in the Woodbridge vicinity was closed last time I passed there at the end of October 2013. I assume for renovations. I hope that's the case anyway, cause I use it on a lot of trips.
(The Grover Cleveland Service Area)
It's closed because of damage from Superstorm Sandy. It will soon be demolished and completely re-built at a higher elevation. The project will take two years.
(The Grover Cleveland Service Area)
It's closed because of damage from Superstorm Sandy. It will soon be demolished and completely re-built at a higher elevation. The project will take two years.
Note how close the plaza is to the Kill Van Kull river. So putting it on higher ground seems in order.
Note how close the plaza is to the Kill Van Kull river. So putting it on higher ground seems in order.
Why the heck is it so hard to build a welcome center? The one on the Turnpike is southbound only and in the middle of the state!There are plenty of unofficial ones at Carney's Point (also the site of some of the cheapest gas in the state) where the Turnpike begins/ends near the Delaware Memorial Bridge. For the north, I think Vince Lombardi is enough of a welcome center, though it's not officially called that either.
Does anybody have pics of the NEW EXIT 8 on the N.J. Turnpike along with new signage ?No pics but the Exit 8 BGS' now include NJ 133 shields.
And while we're off-topic I also gotta comment that those NYSDOT engineers must have been smoking something when they numbered those Sagtikos and Southern State Parkway exits. Ya' really hafta wonder when NYSDOT is going to get its act together and number exits on Long Island according to the MUTCD.Those numbers weren't decided by NYSDOT. They were decided by the Long Island State Park Commission.
And now back to the NJ Turnpike.Yes, let's do that. I still think the entire turnpike should be no less than six lanes.
Also the same ramp in the opposite direction doesn't even mention I-295, just CR-551 South. Talk about confusing. Helpful if you happen to be following 551, but I'd like to think that is the minority of drivers in that area.
That sign might be there to keep motorists who got off at Turnpike "Exit 1" from being confused since they can't get back on southbound where they got off. Hard to imagine, but not everyone realizes the NJ Turnpike ends right there at I-295 and the interchange is fairly complex. Anyone notice the brand new state name interstate shield on the sign across the road?Yeah, I imagine so as many people get off at Exit 1 for Gas, Food, and Lodging and forget they're at the point the NJT ends, so it would be confusing to someone not a road geek or not familiar with the area.
Also the same ramp in the opposite direction doesn't even mention I-295, just CR-551 South. Talk about confusing. Helpful if you happen to be following 551, but I'd like to think that is the minority of drivers in that area.
Also that isn't the only sign like that: http://goo.gl/maps/77gaX
Also the same ramp in the opposite direction doesn't even mention I-295, just CR-551 South. Talk about confusing. Helpful if you happen to be following 551, but I'd like to think that is the minority of drivers in that area.
Here's that 551 you're referring to: http://goo.gl/maps/80I4O
I almost think this sign is placed there in error, and should be on the opposite side of the roadway. At this gore point ( http://goo.gl/maps/80I4O ) where the I-295, 200 Feet (yes, in yellow) sign is located is the ramp exclusively to 551.
This should be reported to NJDOT, since Route 140 is a state highway. This is actually a major navigational issue.Recommend not pointing out any sign errors, only omitted signs. I like US 140.
Give this form a shot http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/potholeform.shtm
(You're email is not required. A simple dash will suffice if you don't want to give it out, or you can make one up!)
Also, the "contact us" section. That you will need your email if you want a legit response.
Over the years, New Jersey's three toll roads have turned to billboards, corporate sponsorships and other creative ways to generate more revenue without hitting motorists with another fare increase.
Now, the state Legislature is looking to wring more money out of the Atlantic City Expressway, Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike by tapping their rest stops and service plazas for transportation funding.
A bill making its way through the Statehouse directs the toll roads to develop plans for more commercial, business or retail ventures at the rest areas. They have 12 months to submit their ideas to the governor and Legislature once the bill becomes final.
[I wish journalists would learn that rest areas are not the same thing as commercialized service plazas that are usually only found on toll roads in the United States.](The general public refers to them as such - my family called them "rest areas" for long enough that I still refer to them as such.)
[I wish journalists would learn that rest areas are not the same thing as commercialized service plazas that are usually only found on toll roads in the United States.](The general public refers to them as such - my family called them "rest areas" for long enough
that I still refer to them as such.)
(This is also a great idea - maybe some businesses actually worth stopping for can populate them.)
[I wish journalists would learn that rest areas are not the same thing as commercialized service plazas that are usually only found on toll roads in the United States.](The general public refers to them as such - my family called them "rest areas" for long enough
that I still refer to them as such.)
I concede that point.(This is also a great idea - maybe some businesses actually worth stopping for can populate them.)
Agreed.
IMO, Delaware, Maryland and Ohio have taken steps in that direction at their reconstructed service plazas.
[I wish journalists would learn that rest areas are not the same thing as commercialized service plazas that are usually only found on toll roads in the United States.](The general public refers to them as such - my family called them "rest areas" for long enough that I still refer to them as such.)
(This is also a great idea - maybe some businesses actually worth stopping for can populate them.)
"Oasis" is the Illinois term. My general public is NJ-centric.[I wish journalists would learn that rest areas are not the same thing as commercialized service plazas that are usually only found on toll roads in the United States.](The general public refers to them as such - my family called them "rest areas" for long enough that I still refer to them as such.)
(This is also a great idea - maybe some businesses actually worth stopping for can populate them.)
Agreed that it is a great idea, but I've never heard the general public call a toll toad service area a "rest area". Most around Chicago call them "oases" (what the ISTHA calls them), and they're most certainly called "service areas" in northern Indiana.
It was amazingly frequent (a few times a month, and I only worked weekends) someone would utilize Interchange 3 of the NJ Turnpike, and they would be surprised it wasn't a rest area. They would even tell me the signs said the exit was a rest area.
[I wish journalists would learn that rest areas are not the same thing as commercialized service plazas that are usually only found on toll roads in the United States.](The general public refers to them as such - my family called them "rest areas" for long enough that I still refer to them as such.)
(This is also a great idea - maybe some businesses actually worth stopping for can populate them.)
Agreed that it is a great idea, but I've never heard the general public call a toll toad service area a "rest area". Most around Chicago call them "oases" (what the ISTHA calls them), and they're most certainly called "service areas" in northern Indiana.
It was amazingly frequent (a few times a month, and I only worked weekends) someone would utilize Interchange 3 of the NJ Turnpike, and they would be surprised it wasn't a rest area. They would even tell me the signs said the exit was a rest area.
Did any of them have a GPS unit? Many modern units will show services at the next upcoming exit on a split screen with the map. Since NJ-73 has a ton of fast food joints, it likely popped up with a ton of options compared to other exits.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg.html)
Two of the new hybrid lane control signs , this one on the ramps from Int 7A to the southbound NJTPK. Looks to be a 4 panel drum with a 2 line VMS board. I'm addition to the 2 panels shown, I'd guess the other two panels are "Cars Only" (for the left ramp; "All Traffic" on the right ramp), and a blank green panel, which I saw on another, uninstalled sign.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg.html)
Two of the new hybrid lane control signs , this one on the ramps from Int 7A to the southbound NJTPK. Looks to be a 4 panel drum with a 2 line VMS board. I'm addition to the 2 panels shown, I'd guess the other two panels are "Cars Only" (for the left ramp; "All Traffic" on the right ramp), and a blank green panel, which I saw on another, uninstalled sign.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg.html)
Two of the new hybrid lane control signs , this one on the ramps from Int 7A to the southbound NJTPK. Looks to be a 4 panel drum with a 2 line VMS board. I'm addition to the 2 panels shown, I'd guess the other two panels are "Cars Only" (for the left ramp; "All Traffic" on the right ramp), and a blank green panel, which I saw on another, uninstalled sign.
That gantry looks extremely old.
Well, in most cases, the worst that'll happen is a truck winds up in the cars only lanes. And when any ramp is closed for any reason, that's going to happen. I guess the absolute worst is a vehicle gets on a closed road, but there'll be stuff further down the road to block them.
If they have to, they can just use barrels to shut down a ramp that's closed as well.
They should go back to how they signed it originallyRound exit tabs popping out of the middle?
Odd, they're still not putting the exit number on a separate tab. And yeah, those down arrows look a little small. I guess NJTA is still getting the hang of this MUTCD stuff, but you'd think the sign manufacturers would know how to do it from experience elsewhere. Those right-pointing up arrows don't look like MUTCD spec to me though. What's with that?The signs on this particular contract were still designed to the old standard. Believe it or not, those arrows were there before the MUTCD compliance kicked in.
Odd, they're still not putting the exit number on a separate tab. And yeah, those down arrows look a little small. I guess NJTA is still getting the hang of this MUTCD stuff, but you'd think the sign manufacturers would know how to do it from experience elsewhere. Those right-pointing up arrows don't look like MUTCD spec to me though. What's with that?
While I don't doubt that; but it certainly looks like that NJTP was indeed throwing a bone towards MUTCD w/that pull-through BGS.Odd, they're still not putting the exit number on a separate tab. And yeah, those down arrows look a little small. I guess NJTA is still getting the hang of this MUTCD stuff, but you'd think the sign manufacturers would know how to do it from experience elsewhere. Those right-pointing up arrows don't look like MUTCD spec to me though. What's with that?The signs on this particular contract were still designed to the old standard. Believe it or not, those arrows were there before the MUTCD compliance kicked in.
Well, in most cases, the worst that'll happen is a truck winds up in the cars only lanes. And when any ramp is closed for any reason, that's going to happen. I guess the absolute worst is a vehicle gets on a closed road, but there'll be stuff further down the road to block them.
If they have to, they can just use barrels to shut down a ramp that's closed as well.
In my observation they usually block off the closed roadway (whether at the split or on a ramp) whenever possible to deter the situation where people decide to ignore the sign. I wouldn't admit to it if I'd ever ignored the sign in my younger and dumber days. (It may have been a heck of a lot of fun if I did, though, given the lack of other vehicles and the resulting insanely high speeds that would have occurred.)
I can't wait for the Exit 6 sign to have an I-95 south shield on there - that'll confuse the hell out of drivers for the first few months.
Odd, they're still not putting the exit number on a separate tab. And yeah, those down arrows look a little small. I guess NJTA is still getting the hang of this MUTCD stuff, but you'd think the sign manufacturers would know how to do it from experience elsewhere. Those right-pointing up arrows don't look like MUTCD spec to me though. What's with that?
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg.html)
Two of the new hybrid lane control signs , this one on the ramps from Int 7A to the southbound NJTPK. Looks to be a 4 panel drum with a 2 line VMS board. I'm addition to the 2 panels shown, I'd guess the other two panels are "Cars Only" (for the left ramp; "All Traffic" on the right ramp), and a blank green panel, which I saw on another, uninstalled sign.
I think it is interesting it is "ALL EXITS" and not "ALL TRAFFIC" -- the VMS may indicate which vehicle classes are permitted.
ALL EXITS
=======
CARS ONLY
I think it is interesting it is "ALL EXITS" and not "ALL TRAFFIC" -- the VMS may indicate which vehicle classes are permitted.
ALL EXITS
=======
CARS ONLY
I am 100% certain that I remember, when I was a little kid in the 1970s and the split was located near Exit 9, the large overhead sign at the actual split reading "ALL TRAFFIC FOR ALL EXITS" when one roadway was closed. I don't have any pictures of it and I can't find any online, nor does the paperback book I have with historical Turnpike photos contain a picture of that usage. Nobody else on this forum remembered that either the last time I mentioned it. So maybe the cobwebs of another 30 years have distorted my memory, but I also remember either my brother or I making a paper sign with that wording and taping it over a Lego "sign gantry" once.
Regarding the new hybrid signs on the ramps, my understanding is that because the dual-dual section will extend from 6 to 14 when all is said and done, it may not be practical to close an entire barrel (55 miles or so) in the case of work or emergency. One sign would say All Exits, as it is likely that one of the two roadways would be open all the way through, while the other would indicate in the VMS portion what exit the other roadway closes. I am not up on all the specifics, but there are a number of different conditions that can be covered by the new panels.
Regarding the new hybrid signs on the ramps, my understanding is that because the dual-dual section will extend from 6 to 14 when all is said and done, it may not be practical to close an entire barrel (55 miles or so) in the case of work or emergency. One sign would say All Exits, as it is likely that one of the two roadways would be open all the way through, while the other would indicate in the VMS portion what exit the other roadway closes. I am not up on all the specifics, but there are a number of different conditions that can be covered by the new panels.
This is exactly what the reasoning has to be. It also takes the NJSP more than an hour to physically run (back and forth) the length of a barrel closing say in planned construction to give the "all clear" so that workers can proliferate the roadway. For a 6 to 14 barrel, this could take upwards of 3 hours essentially ruining the purpose of an 8 hour construction window. So the Turnpike must be ready to do partial closings up to EXIT X on the opposite VMS and then the confimatory message for positive guidance on the sign shown is ALL EXITS.
In the event a roadway was closed both North & South, I would hope they wouldn't have one officer running the whole length both ways. One could start at the south end, and one would start at the north end. And 55 miles for a cop on a closed roadway could be driven completely in a little more than a half hour! (Hell...as fast as they move on that road, they could drive 55 miles in just over 30 minutes on an open roadway...and that's only slightly exaggerating!!!!)
Although the run that far would only be necessary if the reason for the closure was at the far end of the roadway's closure. If the issue for the closure was on the inner drive in the vincinity of Exit 7 Northbound, only the diverage point apporaching Int. 6, Int 6 itself and Int. 7 would need to divert traffic to the outer roadway. From 7A North, motorists could enter either roadway.This scenario is not different than what happens today north of the diverge near exit 8A - the traffic entering at exit 6 and 7 will only enter one roadway (for all exits) and from 7A north can enter both as usual - hence no need for the new VMS signs if the scenario below would not happen.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg.html)
Regarding the new hybrid signs on the ramps, my understanding is that because the dual-dual section will extend from 6 to 14 when all is said and done, it may not be practical to close an entire barrel (55 miles or so) in the case of work or emergency. One sign would say All Exits, as it is likely that one of the two roadways would be open all the way through, while the other would indicate in the VMS portion what exit the other roadway closes. I am not up on all the specifics, but there are a number of different conditions that can be covered by the new panels.
Without knowing the details but driving it, I have wondered if there are plans to keep the current merge/split at 8A as a means to close only a portion of the highway. That way one roadway could be closed say northbound from 8A-14, but still have both roadways from 6-8A northbound. Anyone have any idea?They may put in slip ramps halfway through the dualized section.
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BBF05116-ED6B-4139-B4E6-CA1FACD9DDA0.jpg.html)
Did they change these signs from last year? I haven't had to go that way in a very long time since the office my company had in Hamilton closed, but the last time I was going onto the NJTP from 7A, they had a different sign gantry that I thought was going to be the split between the car and truck lanes. This looks more like their new design for the LED VMS's and the new MUTCD signage (similar at least). I would imagine that the VMS parts here make it easier to offer detour directions if one roadway is closed. I should also point out that NJTPA erected signs similar to this at the local/express split of 95 going into the GWB. Top half is a regular BGS and the bottom half is a LED VMS that lists travel times to the upper and lower levels of the bridge. Nicer looking than the signs they put up in 2000 and hopefully the VMS's last better than the older orange LCD ones did.
The NJ Turnpike 511 alerts now reference the inner (and outer) roadways down to Interchange 6:NJ 511 gets its alerts from the NJ Turnpike Authority, so it's up to the NJTA what roadways get mentioned.
"As of 5:10pm, there's Roadwork on the New Jersey Turnpike inner roadway southbound exiting at Interchange 6 - Pennsylvania Turnpike in Mansfield Twp. Left lane closed until 8:00 A.M."
As far as one roadway being closed and what happens after the point of nature of the close, I once saw the Car Lanes (Inner roadway) closed north of the former split in East Brunswick where work was done between Exits 9 and 11, but north of Exit 11 the ramp split going north had all traffic diverted to the Cars Only lanes and closed the ramp to the outer Truck- Bus lanes.
I do not know what Exits 12 to 13A did at the time, but it makes sense, to fill both roadways with as much traffic as they can. This was a sound idea. Exit 11 sees a lot of traffic entering the Turnpike, and to add more to the truck lanes already over crowded with through traffic would really create a bottleneck north of there, so having the unused road is a very logical solution.
While such a system may bring a lot of head scratching to motorists as they wonder "why is there so much traffic on that road when the sign said it was closed", the Turnpike does tend to do a good job of managing traffic. The only ones that probably really disapprove are those that really, really want to use the car only lanes to keep away from the trucks. In your example above, both roadways would have cars and trucks, so they wouldn't be able to avoid the trucks anyway.
...I'm curious what other folks prefer as to which lanes to use in that situation...
^^This. I've been doing such for decades. I believe I can count the number of times I've used the separate car lanes (when the truck lanes are open to traffic) on one hand. And, no, I wasn't driving a truck either....I'm curious what other folks prefer as to which lanes to use in that situation...
Like you, I have jumped in the truck lanes to avoid the car traffic. 8A to 9 (Northbound) is better now as it's 3 lanes wide, although you get the occasional truck that doesn't get it for a little bit that the left lane is still off limits to traffic.
FYI, the newest version of Google Maps (available from newer versions of browsers) now has recent satellite pictures of the exit 6-9 widening area.Why would they only put the imagery in the new Google Maps but not the old one? And this isn't the first time they've withheld recent satellite imagery on Maps either (and they always do it on areas that have changed a lot since the imagery was refreshed, too; they'll update an area where the imagery is identical, but not ones where it shows decade-old road configurations).
I'm curious what other folks prefer as to which lanes to use in that situation.
I'm curious what other folks prefer as to which lanes to use in that situation.
I generally drive in the "truck" lanes, because traffic seems to be lighter there, and the nutcase-type drivers are usually in the cars-only lanes.
I also prefer the inner (cars only) lanes. I tend to be one of the faster vehicles on the road, like Steve. I have had similar experiences to him in the outer lanes. In the outer carriageway I find myself doing a lot more lane changing and slalom course type driving. While this can be fun at times, it gets old mile after mile and can be dangerous.The eastern spur is much better because it has six overall lanes its whole length as the western spur is four lanes north of Exit 16W. I prefer it for the lack of changing lanes due to the fact most through motorists use the western spur.
Another question...do folks here prefer the eastern or western spur? Assuming one is going through and is not destined for an exit only accessible on one spur. I prefer the eastern. There tends to be less traffic, in my experience. This is mostly due to how NJTA signs it. The signs certainly encourage thru traffic to use the western spur. They are almost misleading to make one think that they can't travel through on the eastern spur.
I used to prefer the Eastern Spur unless I were heading for the Meadowlands. However, the addition of ORT lanes on the Western Spur changed that. I'd rather use ORT lanes if available.The addition of ORT might be a deciding factor today as to whether I'd use the eastern or western spur. Although, I have no reason to use the turnpike north of 16W for any reason these days. (I can use a number of interchanges to access or exit the turnpike...10, 11, 14, 15W or 16W) I've only driven both spurs to the northern terminus for clinching purposes. But back when I clinched the NJ Turnpike, ORT was not available yet, so my decision as to which spur I liked better simply boiled down to traffic (or lack there of). When I do use the NJ Turnpike I'm headed south, or returning home from some point south, so I generally enter/exit at 10 or 11 to keep my toll as low as possible.
Are there any plans to widen the truck lanes between 8A and 9 to three lanes each way? I don't think I was really looking when I was through there last year.Yes. I believe it's supposed to be 3x3x3x3 when the 6-9 widening project is complete.
Are there any plans to widen the truck lanes between 8A and 9 to three lanes each way? I don't think I was really looking when I was through there last year.Yes. I believe it's supposed to be 3x3x3x3 when the 6-9 widening project is complete.
Thanks for sharing the photos. Once again, the Turnpike Authority snubs their noses at the MUTCD (no separate exit tab - or even a divider separating the exit number from the rest of the sign, and exit number and distance to interchange on the same line). I'd also be curious to know if the Authority plans to install a 2 mile advance sign (at least southbound) once the I-95 connection is opened.
Since the Exit sign conformity requirement occurred after the designing of this widening project
The 2 Mile Ahead signs do exist for Interchange 6 in both directions.
This is mostly due to how NJTA signs it. The signs certainly encourage thru traffic to use the western spur. They are almost misleading to make one think that they can't travel through on the eastern spur.
Heading south the eastern spur is signed "To exit 17 Lincoln Tunnel" I-95 nor the NJ Turnpike are mentioned at all. Heading north, I-95 is mentioned for both spurs.This is mostly due to how NJTA signs it. The signs certainly encourage thru traffic to use the western spur. They are almost misleading to make one think that they can't travel through on the eastern spur.
This is true. My only forays on the NJTP in that area have been southbound. I had to specifically ask how to access the eastern spur (which exit to take) because it's not signed on the overheads that both are through routes. I wanted to access I-280 for a clinch and needed to use the eastern spur to do so. Can't remember offhand how the exits are signed at the split but I think the eastern spur is signed as an exit for one of the tunnels into NYC.
Thanks for sharing the photos. Once again, the Turnpike Authority snubs their noses at the MUTCD (no separate exit tab - or even a divider separating the exit number from the rest of the sign, and exit number and distance to interchange on the same line). I'd also be curious to know if the Authority plans to install a 2 mile advance sign (at least southbound) once the I-95 connection is opened.I'll repeat - rerepeat, for that matter - that any sign associated with the 6-9 Widening was designed before the decision was made to comply. Slightly different wording than what Jeff said.
My guess is "Roadway Divides 1000 Feet" (or whatever distance).
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/853C3C69-676F-41E7-A77C-0BA77A439058.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/853C3C69-676F-41E7-A77C-0BA77A439058.jpg.html)
The signage at the SB Exit. On the left will be the first signs seen for the Northbound Inner/Outer drives. The top of each of the 2 signs is a flip panel; the bottom is a VMS panel. No clue what the wide covered sign at the top is going to say.
Thanks for sharing the photos. Once again, the Turnpike Authority snubs their noses at the MUTCD (no separate exit tab - or even a divider separating the exit number from the rest of the sign, and exit number and distance to interchange on the same line). I'd also be curious to know if the Authority plans to install a 2 mile advance sign (at least southbound) once the I-95 connection is opened.I'll repeat - rerepeat, for that matter - that any sign associated with the 6-9 Widening was designed before the decision was made to comply. Slightly different wording than what Jeff said.My guess is "Roadway Divides 1000 Feet" (or whatever distance).
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/853C3C69-676F-41E7-A77C-0BA77A439058.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/853C3C69-676F-41E7-A77C-0BA77A439058.jpg.html)
The signage at the SB Exit. On the left will be the first signs seen for the Northbound Inner/Outer drives. The top of each of the 2 signs is a flip panel; the bottom is a VMS panel. No clue what the wide covered sign at the top is going to say.
Finally... the correct terminology is Inner Roadway, Outer Roadway, Easterly Alignment (and Westerly).
The PA Turnpike Extension is generally referred to as the PHMTE by Turnpike people.
The PA Turnpike Extension is generally referred to as the PHMTE by Turnpike people.
"Fimtee"? :confused: :)
Looks like the NB outer drive isn't open yet. Are both SB roadways open?
"Inner Drive" and "Outer Drive"? "Eastern..." and "Western Alignment"? Better tell the traffic team at WCBS-AM. They tend to use "car lanes" and "truck lanes" (and "Eastern..." and "Western Spur"). BTW "Inner Drive" and "Outer Drive" sounds like KYW traffic reporters describing developments on Northeast Philly's Roosevelt Boulevard".
Thanks for the pics. Now I know what to look for when I join a bus group for our trip to NYC next month (my first time anywhere on the NJ Tpk. in 3 years).
ixnay
How has access to the service plazas been affected during the Exit 6-9 widening project? Did any of them close?
ixnay
Looks like the NB outer drive isn't open yet. Are both SB roadways open?
I hope to god they replace ALL of these light fixtures: http://goo.gl/maps/PBHIo to these: http://goo.gl/maps/c6W3F or maybe even the LED ones at 13A which unfortunately I don't have an image of since the Google Street View images are from 2011-2012 and these were installed sometime around early 2013.Do they not illuminate properly? That's the only reason light fixtures exist.
Do they not illuminate properly? That's the only reason light fixtures exist.
I hope to god they replace ALL of these light fixtures: http://goo.gl/maps/PBHIo to these: http://goo.gl/maps/c6W3F or maybe even the LED ones at 13A which unfortunately I don't have an image of since the Google Street View images are from 2011-2012 and these were installed sometime around early 2013.Do they not illuminate properly? That's the only reason light fixtures exist.
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP – Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.
Usually, there are no workers stationed at Exit 9 heading westbound onto the Atlantic City Expressway in Egg Harbor Township. It is one of the expressway’s automated, exact-change toll booths that depend on the honesty of motorists to pay their fares if they don’t have the electronic E-ZPass system.
But occasionally, an expressway employee hides inside the cramped booth, and peers out from a tiny window at unsuspecting drivers who violate the toll. When that happens, the employee uses a hand-held radio to call a State Police trooper stationed ahead to nab the toll cheat.
Gotcha.
The crackdown is part of a pilot program that began in 2012 targeting the most egregious toll violators on the expressway, the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike. Encouraged by the success of the program, the expressway is going to make it even tougher by imposing bigger fines that match those already handed out on the parkway and turnpike.
If you don't want to pay for any of NJ's toll roads, learn new routes. They might take you more time and they might take you slightly out of your way, but at least you don't run the risk of getting nabbed at a toll booth for not paying.
Unless you're trying to get out of New Jersey by crossing the Hudson or Delaware.
Press of Atlantic City: For New Jersey toll cheats, no more free rides (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/for-new-jersey-toll-cheats-no-more-free-rides/article_4cea6666-ca2e-11e3-be8c-0019bb2963f4.html)QuoteEGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.QuoteUsually, there are no workers stationed at Exit 9 heading westbound onto the Atlantic City Expressway in Egg Harbor Township. It is one of the expressway’s automated, exact-change toll booths that depend on the honesty of motorists to pay their fares if they don’t have the electronic E-ZPass system.QuoteBut occasionally, an expressway employee hides inside the cramped booth, and peers out from a tiny window at unsuspecting drivers who violate the toll. When that happens, the employee uses a hand-held radio to call a State Police trooper stationed ahead to nab the toll cheat.QuoteGotcha.QuoteThe crackdown is part of a pilot program that began in 2012 targeting the most egregious toll violators on the expressway, the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike. Encouraged by the success of the program, the expressway is going to make it even tougher by imposing bigger fines that match those already handed out on the parkway and turnpike.
Unless you're trying to get out of New Jersey by crossing the Hudson or Delaware.
If you don't want to pay for any of NJ's toll roads, learn new routes. They might take you more time and they might take you slightly out of your way, but at least you don't run the risk of getting nabbed at a toll booth for not paying.
Unless you're trying to get out of New Jersey by crossing the Hudson or Delaware.
The EB to/from toll was a relatively recent addition. I don't remember exactly why, but I think it had something to do with capturing people going to the airport, plus the locals trying to keep people from taking the free exit and adding traffic to their road.And yet the locals don't care that using their road is the best way to the airport? You'd think that's where most of the volume at that exit would be coming from. The rest would be local traffic (my excursion to the gas station was quite local too. I'm coming from Egg Harbor Township too, after all). Where else would all that traffic be going, cutting through Delilah Road? Free access to the beach? Why not use GSP then?
BTW, this interchange is supposed to be undergoing a major reconstruction in the future.Would that include freeway access to the airport by any chance?
Would that include freeway access to the airport by any chance?I saw plans for such several years ago. I'd be surprised if that's not the case.
Glancing at the NJ Turnpike construction schedule, it appears the switch over to the outer roadway then back to the inner roadway where a local road and rail line run at a very acute angle beneath the turnpike between Int 8 & 8A will be eliminated this weekend. ...this overpass required a lot more time, and thus got a bit of special treatment.The irony is, those tracks end just a few hundred yards south of the underpass. However, there is a switch in that small area which leads to a spur that serves a warehouse on the SB side of the pike. I think it was built in the '70s as a tire distribution center. But whether that spur is in use or not, documents I've read say that the tracks are indeed still active, and the rails will be rebuilt as part of the widening project. I also noticed some recent forest clearing in the area; maybe that's for new potential rail customers? Still, it seems like a pricey effort was made for tracks that may or may not see further use.
Would that include freeway access to the airport by any chance?I saw plans for such several years ago. I'd be surprised if that's not the case.
Press of Atlantic City: For New Jersey toll cheats, no more free rides (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/for-new-jersey-toll-cheats-no-more-free-rides/article_4cea6666-ca2e-11e3-be8c-0019bb2963f4.html)QuoteEGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP – Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.QuoteUsually, there are no workers stationed at Exit 9 heading westbound onto the Atlantic City Expressway in Egg Harbor Township. It is one of the expressway’s automated, exact-change toll booths that depend on the honesty of motorists to pay their fares if they don’t have the electronic E-ZPass system...The crackdown is part of a pilot program that began in 2012 targeting the most egregious toll violators on the expressway, the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike...
Press of Atlantic City: For New Jersey toll cheats, no more free rides (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/for-new-jersey-toll-cheats-no-more-free-rides/article_4cea6666-ca2e-11e3-be8c-0019bb2963f4.html)QuoteEGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP – Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.QuoteUsually, there are no workers stationed at Exit 9 heading westbound onto the Atlantic City Expressway in Egg Harbor Township. It is one of the expressway’s automated, exact-change toll booths that depend on the honesty of motorists to pay their fares if they don’t have the electronic E-ZPass system.QuoteBut occasionally, an expressway employee hides inside the cramped booth, and peers out from a tiny window at unsuspecting drivers who violate the toll. When that happens, the employee uses a hand-held radio to call a State Police trooper stationed ahead to nab the toll cheat.QuoteGotcha.QuoteThe crackdown is part of a pilot program that began in 2012 targeting the most egregious toll violators on the expressway, the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike. Encouraged by the success of the program, the expressway is going to make it even tougher by imposing bigger fines that match those already handed out on the parkway and turnpike.
I don't believe the Parkway reconstruction in that area is going to change the ramp configuration. It might add a lane to one or two of the ramps or realign them, but no flyover. To my knowledge.
It's hard finding anything current, but this document from 2009 lays out one of the ideas for the AC Expressway Exit 9 connector to the AC Airport. http://www.njcrda.com/uploads/1/1/6/5/11659441/acrtpvolumeii.pdf Go to PDF pages 37 & 38 to read a description of the project. The timeline shows construction was scheduled for 2014, but it's nearly impossible to find anything relating to this project now, which pretty much means it's pushed back.
Something I never knew was offically discussed is on PDF page 44: a much needed flyover ramp from the GSP NB to the ACX WB. Again, nothing currently is in the works for this project, as far as I know.
I don't believe the Parkway reconstruction in that area is going to change the ramp configuration. It might add a lane to one or two of the ramps or realign them, but no flyover. To my knowledge.
It's hard finding anything current, but this document from 2009 lays out one of the ideas for the AC Expressway Exit 9 connector to the AC Airport. http://www.njcrda.com/uploads/1/1/6/5/11659441/acrtpvolumeii.pdf Go to PDF pages 37 & 38 to read a description of the project. The timeline shows construction was scheduled for 2014, but it's nearly impossible to find anything relating to this project now, which pretty much means it's pushed back.
Something I never knew was offically discussed is on PDF page 44: a much needed flyover ramp from the GSP NB to the ACX WB. Again, nothing currently is in the works for this project, as far as I know.
From the PDF, they're just realigning the EB-SB ramp and adding an offshoot ramp for 37.I don't believe the Parkway reconstruction in that area is going to change the ramp configuration. It might add a lane to one or two of the ramps or realign them, but no flyover. To my knowledge.
It's hard finding anything current, but this document from 2009 lays out one of the ideas for the AC Expressway Exit 9 connector to the AC Airport. http://www.njcrda.com/uploads/1/1/6/5/11659441/acrtpvolumeii.pdf Go to PDF pages 37 & 38 to read a description of the project. The timeline shows construction was scheduled for 2014, but it's nearly impossible to find anything relating to this project now, which pretty much means it's pushed back.
Something I never knew was offically discussed is on PDF page 44: a much needed flyover ramp from the GSP NB to the ACX WB. Again, nothing currently is in the works for this project, as far as I know.
It's listed here:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html
R.I.P. 1956-2014
http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M
http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz
R.I.P. 1956-2014
http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M
http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz
R.I.P. 1956-2014
http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M
http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz
I thought the SB mainline one was already gone. Most recent Google areal does not show it.Saving as in museum.
I thought the SB mainline one was already gone. Most recent Google areal does not show it.Saving as in museum.
Is there such a thing as a New Jersey Turnpike Museum?
I thought the SB mainline one was already gone. Most recent Google areal does not show it.Saving as in museum.
Is there such a thing as a New Jersey Turnpike Museum?
I forget where it's ultimately going, but it's definitely to be preserved.I thought the SB mainline one was already gone. Most recent Google areal does not show it.Saving as in museum.
Is there such a thing as a New Jersey Turnpike Museum?
Thirty-five miles long with freshly painted, white, dotted lines, new traffic lanes opened on the New Jersey Turnpike this weekend as part of its five-year-long widening project.
The $2.3 billion project was launched in 2009 and, for five years, New Jersey Turnpike Authority contractors have been clearing land and paving and painting new lanes in each direction on the highway between Interchange 9 in New Brunswick and Interchange 6 in Chesterfield.
The widening project takes the 8a choke point and moves it into Burlington County, farther south from Interchange 7A in Robbinsville – where thousands of Trenton-based state workers often transfer between the Turnpike and Interstate 195.
“The idea, the purpose of this widening project was to relieve congestion in a very congested area,” Feeney said. “This is the biggest widening in the Turnpike’s 52-year history.”
During the last five years, people living near and around the Turnpike have had their own battles with the highway.
There's the normal "New Traffic Pattern" ahead signage, which is generally used whenever a traffic pattern has changed.What's there that's really changed? It's still three lanes, the exits/entrances are identical, etc. It's as if someone picked up a lego set and moved it over a few feet. It's not as if lanes were added or exit ramps rearranged or anything like that.
There's also lane shift signage as you mentioned, such as the W1-4c.
Remember...the current traffic pattern has been in place for about 40 - 50 years (since the time the highway was widened from 2 to 3 lanes per direction).
While I was messing around on Google Maps Street View, I came across this NJTP sign placed over top an I-276 shield (presumably) west of the I-76/I-276 interchange. I don't remember this being there before, but it doesn't make sense since it should say either "I-276" or "To NJTP" or both. Anyone validate that it's still there?
http://goo.gl/V5B8WL (http://goo.gl/V5B8WL)
What's there that's really changed? It's still three lanes, the exits/entrances are identical, etc. It's as if someone picked up a lego set and moved it over a few feet. It's not as if lanes were added or exit ramps rearranged or anything like that.
None of which is cause for a "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERNS" sign. The Turnpike Authority was correct not to use it. Drivers will notice they're on the new outer lanes, but it's not going to affect their decision-making.
What's there that's really changed? It's still three lanes, the exits/entrances are identical, etc. It's as if someone picked up a lego set and moved it over a few feet. It's not as if lanes were added or exit ramps rearranged or anything like that.
How about:
- Exit 8 was totally re-built on the other side of the Turnpike with all new ramps, a new toll plaza, a new connection to NJ 133 over the first full SPUI in NJ
- Exit 7A has a totally new trumpet (opposite direction of old one) with ramps going over I-195, plus other new ramps to/from the inner lanes
- Exit 7 has massive viaducts that carry the outer roadways over the existing ramps as well as long ramps going up/down two levels to connect the outer roadway to exit 7
- Exit 6 has many new ramps in the Y-style interchange
- Exit 8A has a new flyover ramp
- Two service areas have new ramps to/from the inner lanes (the ones at the area between 7 and 7a are very long)
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8a
- New overhead signs at all exits and service areas - some unique with new information
- Brand new hybrid VMS for inner/outer roadways at every entrance
- Retirement of the funky art-deco Exit 6 sign on it's way to a museum apparently
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8aWith the notable exception of NJ-133, since someone had the foresight to build that with two additional spans suitable for truck lanes. Methinks the widening plan was already on the drawing board when it was built in the late 1990s.
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8aWith the notable exception of NJ-133, since someone had the foresight to build that with two additional spans suitable for truck lanes. Methinks the widening plan was already on the drawing board when it was built in the late 1990s.
With the inner lanes up for reconstruction, I wonder how many, if any, of the bridges will be rebuilt where the Turnpike does the crossing.
On GMSV, I looked at the bridge for Monmouth St., which is near Interchange 8. I noticed that while the bridge for the original inner lanes have support columns on both side of the road, the new outer lane bridges have no columns at all. The beams are thicker, of course, to compensate. Also, there is a wide gap between the old and new bridges, while the inner lanes are practically a continuous structure. (I say "practically" because, as a child, when riding under the NJ-33 bridge, I made a point of noticing a tiny sliver of daylight coming through at the median, about halfway through. Yes, I had some odd interests back then :cool: )
The bridges for NJ-33 have no columns, new or old. But the new bridges are set back from NJ-33 on the north side while flush on the south side. While this is probably in anticipation of a NJ-33 widening or adding sidewalks, I noticed that the old bridge was widened as part of the project, apparently to add accel/decel lanes for the exit. As such, I think that overpass will remain as is for a while.
And additionally, most/all of those were already open before the shift to the outer lanes occurred... exits 7 and 8 and the flyovers for 8A and the service areas especially (being pre-requisites to finish the outer lanes in the first place).None of which is cause for a "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERNS" sign. The Turnpike Authority was correct not to use it. Drivers will notice they're on the new outer lanes, but it's not going to affect their decision-making.
What's there that's really changed? It's still three lanes, the exits/entrances are identical, etc. It's as if someone picked up a lego set and moved it over a few feet. It's not as if lanes were added or exit ramps rearranged or anything like that.
How about:
- Exit 8 was totally re-built on the other side of the Turnpike with all new ramps, a new toll plaza, a new connection to NJ 133 over the first full SPUI in NJ
- Exit 7A has a totally new trumpet (opposite direction of old one) with ramps going over I-195, plus other new ramps to/from the inner lanes
- Exit 7 has massive viaducts that carry the outer roadways over the existing ramps as well as long ramps going up/down two levels to connect the outer roadway to exit 7
- Exit 6 has many new ramps in the Y-style interchange
- Exit 8A has a new flyover ramp
- Two service areas have new ramps to/from the inner lanes (the ones at the area between 7 and 7a are very long)
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8a
- New overhead signs at all exits and service areas - some unique with new information
- Brand new hybrid VMS for inner/outer roadways at every entrance
- Retirement of the funky art-deco Exit 6 sign on it's way to a museum apparently
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8aWith the notable exception of NJ-133, since someone had the foresight to build that with two additional spans suitable for truck lanes. Methinks the widening plan was already on the drawing board when it was built in the late 1990s.
With the inner lanes up for reconstruction, I wonder how many, if any, of the bridges will be rebuilt where the Turnpike does the crossing.
Two new construction contracts will rehabilitate the roadways and the
work will consist of: milling and resurfacing; reconstruction ofthe northbound and southbound left
shoulders; repair of approximately 24 miles of median barrier; construction of a new median
barrier to close off the existing median U-Turn openings; perform select bridge deck and
substructure repairs, drainage system repairs and other miscellaneous items of work.
On GMSV, I looked at the bridge for Monmouth St., which is near Interchange 8. I noticed that while the bridge for the original inner lanes have support columns on both side of the road, the new outer lane bridges have no columns at all. The beams are thicker, of course, to compensate.
Not your normal test sign...especially when you have a full-color VMS at your disposal.
Not your normal test sign...especially when you have a full-color VMS at your disposal.
Looks to between between the south end of the New Jersey Turnpike and Exit 4, since that is the only part of the "original" four-lane Turnpike that is left.
Are those NJTP and GSP markers actually part of the display? That's awesome. Interesting to see what that can be used for...Any sign can be reproduced. Think super-large screen TV.
Using that stretch of the NJTP this past weekend, I noticed something different signage-wise. The Z 1000 signs that one sees roughly 1000 ft. before the median opening between the inner & outer corridors are now black lettering/numerals on a white background rather than the traditional white on green background.
Is such an application (the black-on-white) an intentional design change (new standard) or a design/fabricator mistake?
While the NJTA Standard Drawings don't explicitly list the Z XXXX signs, I did find that mileage signs are still supposed to be white on green.If you're referring to mile marker signs, the Z 1000 and its >< 1000 companion (for openings between northbound & southbound lanes or full-overpass cross-overs) are totally different animals and are only intended for police and emergency vehicle reference & usage.
Taking a long, hard look at the standard drawings and other info the NJ Turnpike makes public, it is interesting that the U 1000 & Z 1000 signs are nowhere to be found. They are referenced numerous times for one reason or another, but the actual drawing or description of such signs seem to be omitted...at least online.
Taking a long, hard look at the standard drawings and other info the NJ Turnpike makes public, it is interesting that the U 1000 & Z 1000 signs are nowhere to be found. They are referenced numerous times for one reason or another, but the actual drawing or description of such signs seem to be omitted...at least online.They're not in the Standard Drawings, and it was a conscious decision to exclude them. It's possible that they won't be using them anymore, although that would surprise me because they do reference them so often. That said, they are supposed to be white on green - someone was probably looking at a black/white plan and messed up.
I'll miss those variable speed limit signs that had italicized numerals made up of flippable panels.Back in the 70s & early 80s, speed limit signs along the NJTP used to have a red/orange neon 55 for normal conditions and white digital readout (w/incandescent bulbs) for reduced speeds due to construction, accident, weather conditions, etc. on the same sign.
Same for the neon sign "REDUCE SPEED" signs announcing hazardous conditions.
They were so NJ Turnpikeish.
I'll miss those variable speed limit signs that had italicized numerals made up of flippable panels.Back in the 70s & early 80s, speed limit signs along the NJTP used to have a red/orange neon 55 for normal conditions and white digital readout (w/incandescent bulbs) for reduced speeds due to construction, accident, weather conditions, etc. on the same sign.
Same for the neon sign "REDUCE SPEED" signs announcing hazardous conditions.
They were so NJ Turnpikeish.
While I wasn't on the NJTP at all until 1981; I do know that the opposite set-up was indeed the case: red/orange neon for the normal speed limit and white scoreboard incandescents for the slower speeds.Back in the 70s & early 80s, speed limit signs along the NJTP used to have a red/orange neon 55 for normal conditions and white digital readout (w/incandescent bulbs) for reduced speeds due to construction, accident, weather conditions, etc. on the same sign.
I recall (and this might have been prior to the NMSL) that the "normal" limit was in white (with "scoreboard-style" incandescents), and the "slow down" limit was in red/orange neon.
Seen on VMS in Edison: "MAJOR DELAYS SOUTH OF TOLL 9."
Toll 9?
Also, the interchanges on the new dual-dual section feel so much... beefier than the older ones. Though I know it wasn't dual-dual before, the new Interchange 6 makes the old one seem bucolic by comparison.
Is the new lighting LED?
J & N, I completely agree with you about the tapered acceleration lanes. I don't like them and I've never understood why NJTA uses them instead of (in my opinion) the safer and more "driver-friendly" parallel accel. lane. It's interesting that they always use parallel deceleration lanes which again I think is better than tapered. I hold the NJTA in pretty high regard for their engineering smarts, and I really wonder what their reasoning is.For the record, both types are shown in the MUTCD and both types are presented in the Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO "Green Book", with no preference ever given between them. Given the amount of traffic research over the last 40 years, if there were any true advantage to one type over the other, we'd know by now.
My personal observations have been that drivers tend to accellerate and merge into traffic sooner with a tapered accelleration lane than with a parallel one. Then again, you also have drivers who continue past the end of the accelleration lane and into the shoulder before merging.
...Given the amount of traffic research over the last 40 years, if there were any true advantage to one type over the other, we'd know by now.
My personal observations have been that drivers tend to accellerate and merge into traffic sooner with a tapered accelleration lane than with a parallel one. Then again, you also have drivers who continue past the end of the accelleration lane and into the shoulder before merging.
I imagine if the NJ Tpk. were under planning/construction in 2014, the NIMBYS in Elizabeth would see to it that it would end at exit 13 and resume at exit 13A, no?
ixnay
I drove from Exit 6 north to Exit 11 yesterday and was happy to see the progress that has been made on the dual-roadway construction. It's been a couple of years since I've driven through there.The combination of different contracts, different designers, and different sign fabricators would result in this happening. I did hear of design contracts in this program that were split by roadway, rather than by length of all roadways.
One thing I did notice is that the matching signs on the inner and outer roadways can vary in construction, some of the signs have rounded corners while the matching sign on the other roadway has a squared-corner with rounded borders. I don't know why the discrepancy, but the Turnpike usually has just rounded corner sign panels.
I didn't hear of such a thing. I was actually looking through the signing/striping plans today, and they're of course broken down by section. That doesn't mean the contracts weren't let for signing with multiple sections, Inner and Outer separately. The only rationale I can picture is that they wanted to get all the signs installed on the Outer while it was under construction, and now will get all the signs installed on the Inner, and they decided to do it with separate contracts that could be opened and closed quickly, rather than have a few contracts open for a few years. Of course, they could just have had the signs and supports fabricated under the contract, and given it to the various constructors for erection.I drove from Exit 6 north to Exit 11 yesterday and was happy to see the progress that has been made on the dual-roadway construction. It's been a couple of years since I've driven through there.The combination of different contracts, different designers, and different sign fabricators would result in this happening. I did hear of design contracts in this program that were split by roadway, rather than by length of all roadways.
One thing I did notice is that the matching signs on the inner and outer roadways can vary in construction, some of the signs have rounded corners while the matching sign on the other roadway has a squared-corner with rounded borders. I don't know why the discrepancy, but the Turnpike usually has just rounded corner sign panels.
Strange Turnpike sighting of the month:Perhaps the goat was hitchhiking to Alanland.
When heading south to NC a week ago, a goat was wandering on the southbound shoulder just north of Exit 5 at around 6am. Didn't know Alanland was in Burlington County!
While I was messing around on Google Maps Street View, I came across this NJTP sign placed over top an I-276 shield (presumably) west of the I-76/I-276 interchange. I don't remember this being there before, but it doesn't make sense since it should say either "I-276" or "To NJTP" or both. Anyone validate that it's still there?
http://goo.gl/V5B8WL (http://goo.gl/V5B8WL)
That sign did exist into the early 2000s (as best as I can recall); it has since been replaced by an I-276 sign (not sure when that took place).The replacement (shield only, not the BGS itself) took place within the past year or so. The NJTP shield erroneously was placed over the I-276 shield sometime during the mid-90s; yes, it's been that long since it was finally corrected.
^ Even though I'm going to miss the Turnpike's former standard of signs, I do think the new ones are decent looking.
What I can't understand is this: Are the gantries intentionally done with that rusted look? Also, I thought the NJ state route shields had the black square behind them?
Although, what's up with the extra light numerals in the NJ 3 and NJ 495 shields?My comments regarding the numerals is that why is Series C used for NJ 3 and why the elongated Series D for that 9 on the NJ 495 shield?
What I can't understand is this: Are the gantries intentionally done with that rusted look?
Also, I thought the NJ state route shields had the black square behind them?Not any more than any other state's shields do. NJDOT just doesn't believe in using cutouts on guide signs. They also have the black background on US route shields and a yellow background on county route shields.
Weathering Steel does look a bit...cheap, but it does seem to last a lot longer when properly engineered. Only major issue they had with a major project was the Omni in Atlanta, it never stopped rusting. The US Steel tower in Pittsburgh is made of the stuff, and their sidewalk has browining.
Weathering Steel does look a bit...cheap, but it does seem to last a lot longer when properly engineered. Only major issue they had with a major project was the Omni in Atlanta, it never stopped rusting. The US Steel tower in Pittsburgh is made of the stuff, and their sidewalk has browining.
Corten (a brand of weathering steel) was used extensively in Virginia and nearby states by Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) and predecessor companies (VEPCO) for pylons to hold up high-voltage transmission lines (including some circuits to the Mount Storm, W.Va. generating station next to the route of ADHS Corridor H). Corten has not worked out especially well in this application, and DVP is in the process of replacing the Corten pylons with ones made of grey galvanized steel.
Weathering Steel does look a bit...cheap, but it does seem to last a lot longer when properly engineered. Only major issue they had with a major project was the Omni in Atlanta, it never stopped rusting. The US Steel tower in Pittsburgh is made of the stuff, and their sidewalk has browining.
Corten (a brand of weathering steel) was used extensively in Virginia and nearby states by Dominion Virginia Power (DVP) and predecessor companies (VEPCO) for pylons to hold up high-voltage transmission lines (including some circuits to the Mount Storm, W.Va. generating station next to the route of ADHS Corridor H). Corten has not worked out especially well in this application, and DVP is in the process of replacing the Corten pylons with ones made of grey galvanized steel.
Is that why MDSHA stopped using them on I-95 in Baltimore? Also, I remember a lot more of them in the Chicagoland area that seemed to have diminished over the last few decades.
Is Secaucus Junction mentioned at all for exit 15X anymore? I expect that's the main reason anyone would use that exit.I have not seen the signing plans, but I would imagine that there would be auxiliary signs for it.
Is Secaucus Junction mentioned at all for exit 15X anymore? I expect that's the main reason anyone would use that exit.I think this sign is pretty current for 15X:
Is Secaucus Junction mentioned at all for exit 15X anymore? I expect that's the main reason anyone would use that exit.I think this sign is pretty current for 15X:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.758221,-74.082334&spn=0.000016,0.013078&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.758189,-74.084474&panoid=ax4iMzMTOy--UZmcWcoN4A&cbp=12,49.91,,0,-3.15 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.758221,-74.082334&spn=0.000016,0.013078&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.758189,-74.084474&panoid=ax4iMzMTOy--UZmcWcoN4A&cbp=12,49.91,,0,-3.15)
I use this exit from time to time, and it's actually pretty handy to get to the Secaucus industrial area. Of course this means looping around one of the longest railroad overpasses I have ever encountered. The Secaucus Junction I believe was originally intended as a transfer-only station, and the roadway access to station clearly reflects this with the way it seems to have been wedged in when they later installed the turnpike exit.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)
The two appear to be at the same general location, but the scenery around the signs doesn't match up.
The two appear to be at the same general location, but the scenery around the signs doesn't match up.
Edit: as for your second point, I'm sure you can use the exit for other purposes, but it was built and is mostly used for the train station. The "X" supposedly stands for "eXchange", though my theory is that "15W" and "16W" were already taken, and "X" is the next letter after "W".
The two appear to be at the same general location, but the scenery around the signs doesn't match up.
Would the E's and W's stay in a mileage-based system? I'm not aware of any other roadway that signs its exits that way (with a direction suffix based on which roadway you're on), nor of any other highway with such a configuration at all, really.More likely they'd pick a spur and number it I-x95 (probably the Easterly Alignment) and reset the numbers at 0 for it.
When I was on the NJ Tpke recently I noticed a lot of new signage and but some older originals still mixed in around the Vince Lombardi Service area and NJ-495. Anybody have any news on signing contracts, I'm trying to see if their days are "numbered." If they are, I wanna swing through and get pics.
The white button copy NJ Tpke entrance sign on the NJ-3 frontage road is gone.
These were still there:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3911/14547667665_c80f76a040.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5278/14405714149_cecb3643f4.jpg)
this was getting off at US-46.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3865/14591614042_f52bba4f3a.jpg)
Plans are afoot to replace all signage north of Exit 11 with MUTCD compliant signage. If you look through this thread, you can see some examples peppered throughout. So, yes, those signs you showed are definitely going to change.
Plans are afoot to replace all signage north of Exit 11 with MUTCD compliant signage. If you look through this thread, you can see some examples peppered throughout. So, yes, those signs you showed are definitely going to change.
Do you know the timetable of the replacement project?
The NJ Turnpike (along with newspapers and other agencies) are alerting people to a phishing scam in which people receive an email that they have not paid for driving on a toll road, and that they should service their debt in the shortest possible time. Any real New Jerseyian knows that these notices aren't send via email. They are sent care of Fats Tony from the Newark Mafia, and Bubba ain't leaving till you pay up, or else you and your EZ Pass will be swimming with the fishies!
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_ezpass_phishing_scam.pdf
To me, the most chilling thing is that the scammers spell “E-ZPass” right. Almost nobody outside of government can do that.
The two appear to be at the same general location, but the scenery around the signs doesn't match up.
Whoa, that's trippy. The GMSV shows a giant mountain-ish piece of terrain to the west of the road, but in the image posted it doesn't seem to be there. The skyline of Newark(?) is visible in both of them though in relatively the same location, which means that the location isn't significantly different between the two pictures.
So am I to understand that all signs north of the GSP will soon be replaced? If that is so why did the NJTA allow the 6-9 signage to be of original then? It really makes no sense unless the NJTA was making one last ditch effort to keep the existing signs they always had.
I've always found those "obey local speed laws" signs amusing because I've always thought they imply you don't have to do so on the Turnpike.
I had an interesting conversation with something from their maintenance department several months back.
Some of the issues with the Turnpike maintenance can be related to the money that the NJ Turnpike has quietly turned over to the state the past few years for use in NJDOT transportation projects, the state's general fund, etc. While PA has the formal Act 44, NJ doesn't have anything formal per se, but when the governor needs to find money somewhere, the Turnpike Authority is a nice little piggy bank. The maintenance employee I talked with was truly frustrated by the turnpike's condition, as he knows things like paving on the southern part of the Turnpike is badly needed, but they simply don't have the funds available to do what is needed to be done.
When a series of lights are out in a location, usually that indicated a power supply or wiring issue. The individual lights themselves are most likely OK.
Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
Due keep in mind that whenever the cost of gas goes up and stays up; the cost of everything else typically follows.Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
People neglect inflation and don't think long term.
Take a look at this. (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp) Gas prices in the 80s and 90s were lower than any other time in the past hundred years. Indeed, they are the only time the price has ever been under $2/gallon in 2013 dollars. It seems considerably less painful if you look at the red line on that graph.
....
That said, maybe it's time for a percentage-based gas tax rather than a flat rate. MA actually tried such circa 1982 (King Administration) and had some success; but it started backfiring when prices fell a few years later (Dukakis changed the state gas tax back to a flat rate in 1986 or 1987) to a point where less money was coming in than prior to 1982.
While some could say that prices today will not fall like they did back then; one needs to keep in mind that during the late 70s/early 80s, nobody thought for a second that gas would fall just a few short years later either. History can sometimes repeat itself.
If a percentage gas tax is considered (not just in NJ but anywhere); a flat minumum amount may need to be factored in; provided that a particular state's constitution allows for such practice.
The PA Turnpike was warning of the same EZ-Pass scam on the various news channels around here yesterday as well.
Gas has pretty much stayed above $3/gallon here in upstate NY ever since Hurricane Katrina - in other words, ever since I entered high school. Even the media hoopla that happened when gas initially hit $2/gallon is but a distant childhood memory. Gas has been above $1.50/gallon for as long as I can remember.Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
People also tend to neglect to realize inflation exists when their paychecks are static.Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
People neglect inflation and don't think long term.
Take a look at this. (http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp) Gas prices in the 80s and 90s were lower than any other time in the past hundred years. Indeed, they are the only time the price has ever been under $2/gallon in 2013 dollars. It seems considerably less painful if you look at the red line on that graph.
You are right, though. Perception unfortunately is more important than reality and in most people's minds gas has gotten insanely expensive compared to what they grew up expecting it to be. For New Jersey their second-lowest in the nation gas tax is an especially sacred cow and the current administration has done some insane and possibly illegal cartwheels to avoid having to raise it. It's not just NJTA that's been used as a piggy bank, it's the Port Authority as well (the current subject of an investigation against the governor (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-office-probed-pulaski-skyway-funds-report-article-1.1841378)), and the reason why the ARC tunnel was cancelled.
Eventually NJ is going to have to wake up and raise their gas tax, or find some other way to raise dedicated revenue for transportation. They already have the nation's lowest per capita state highway mileage, they can't well shed more costs.
Gas has pretty much stayed above $3/gallon here in upstate NY ever since Hurricane Katrina - in other words, ever since I entered high school. Even the media hoopla that happened when gas initially hit $2/gallon is but a distant childhood memory. Gas has been above $1.50/gallon for as long as I can remember.Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
Hear Hear.Gas has pretty much stayed above $3/gallon here in upstate NY ever since Hurricane Katrina - in other words, ever since I entered high school. Even the media hoopla that happened when gas initially hit $2/gallon is but a distant childhood memory. Gas has been above $1.50/gallon for as long as I can remember.Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
I recall in the fall of 2004 when the price of gas (this is in New York State, so higher than New Jersey) shot up to $1.80/gallon. Prior to this, $1.50 in New Jersey was not uncommon.* In the late 1990s, in fact, prices under $1.00 popped up on occasion, and it was noteworthy but not shocking, given our expectations.
It's safe to say that most drivers have been driving longer than ten years, so most have the memory of the pain of the transition from that to the current price range.
So I guess be thankful this is normal to you. I went from paying about $18 to fill the tank to about $55 in just a handful of years. It was vastly different to be interested in exploring roads in those days.
* I still dream a little of a return to December, 2008, when prices dropped from over $3 to under $1.20 in New Jersey before climbing back up.
Bold emphasis added:Hear Hear.Gas has pretty much stayed above $3/gallon here in upstate NY ever since Hurricane Katrina - in other words, ever since I entered high school. Even the media hoopla that happened when gas initially hit $2/gallon is but a distant childhood memory. Gas has been above $1.50/gallon for as long as I can remember.Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
My interpretation of this is that the average motorist spent most of their driving career with gasoline prices under $1.50/gallon. $3.50 still stings, and politicians hear about it when they talk about raising it higher.
I recall in the fall of 2004 when the price of gas (this is in New York State, so higher than New Jersey) shot up to $1.80/gallon. Prior to this, $1.50 in New Jersey was not uncommon.* In the late 1990s, in fact, prices under $1.00 popped up on occasion, and it was noteworthy but not shocking, given our expectations.
It's safe to say that most drivers have been driving longer than ten years, so most have the memory of the pain of the transition from that to the current price range.
So I guess be thankful this is normal to you. I went from paying about $18 to fill the tank to about $55 in just a handful of years. It was vastly different to be interested in exploring roads in those days.
* I still dream a little of a return to December, 2008, when prices dropped from over $3 to under $1.20 in New Jersey before climbing back up.
Actually in Southeastern PA, prices dropped to about $1.70-$1.80 in late 2008. While prices in NJ have always been lower than neighboring PA, that $1.20 reference I think's an exaggeration even for then. I still have some old gas credit card receipts for my winter travels to/from New England back then at home (I keep credit card receipts up to 7 years before shredding them) and can confirm/correct tomorrow if need be.
During that time, the cheapest gas I encountered in Massachusetts was around the Auburn/Oxford line, where Wal-Mart had started selling gas and began a price war with the Cumberland Farms across the street. Those two got at least down into the $1.40s that month. Sadly, Wal-Mart's gas station has since closed, and prices there are again like prices everywhere else.
Actually in Southeastern PA, prices dropped to about $1.70-$1.80 in late 2008. While prices in NJ have always been lower than neighboring PA, that $1.20 reference I think's an exaggeration even for then. I still have some old gas credit card receipts for my winter travels to/from New England back then at home (I keep credit card receipts up to 7 years before shredding them) and can confirm/correct tomorrow if need be.
Actually in Southeastern PA, prices dropped to about $1.70-$1.80 in late 2008. While prices in NJ have always been lower than neighboring PA, that $1.20 reference I think's an exaggeration even for then. I still have some old gas credit card receipts for my winter travels to/from New England back then at home (I keep credit card receipts up to 7 years before shredding them) and can confirm/correct tomorrow if need be.
It went as low as $1.29/gal in these parts. Prices are usually a few cents lower in the Philly area of South Jersey, so its possible.
Gas has pretty much stayed above $3/gallon here in upstate NY ever since Hurricane Katrina - in other words, ever since I entered high school. Even the media hoopla that happened when gas initially hit $2/gallon is but a distant childhood memory. Gas has been above $1.50/gallon for as long as I can remember.
The lowest price, after getting my driver's license in 1982, I remember seeing was $0.62/gallon for Regular Leaded (such was still on the market back then) in Swansea, MA circa 1986.
The lowest price, after getting my driver's license in 1982, I remember seeing was $0.62/gallon for Regular Leaded (such was still on the market back then) in Swansea, MA circa 1986.
I still say "fill it up with regular unleaded" when I go to a full serve station, because I remember when the three grades on the price sign were Regular, Unleaded, and Super Unleaded.
Regarding the comment bzakharin makes about "cash or credit same price," I gather from your post this was in the 1990s. When I first got my license in 1989, it was pretty standard in the DC area for most gas stations to charge more for credit, typically about 5¢ per gallon more, and it seemed to be the norm pretty much everywhere we ever drove. I seem to remember it started changing in the mid- to late 1990s, but it didn't change everywhere at once. I wouldn't be surprised that even if all the stations in your area didn't charge more for credit, they still advertised "same price" because of out-of-area drivers who might not expect that. (Nowadays charging extra for credit seems to be the norm in South Carolina. Every time we drive to Florida I wind up stopping for gas somewhere in South Carolina and it always winds up costing extra for the credit transaction.)
The Exxon stations around here always used to have the price display topped with the word "Self" on the left (you paid more for full serve when it was still offered) and the word "Cash" in yellow characters on the right (because you paid more for credit).
I still say "fill it up with regular unleaded" when I go to a full serve station, because I remember when the three grades on the price sign were Regular, Unleaded, and Super Unleaded.Although I was too young to drive at the time, I still remember when the 3 gas choices were Regular, Unleaded (then at 89 Octane) and Premium (Leaded) aka High-Test.
I still say "fill it up with regular unleaded" when I go to a full serve station, because I remember when the three grades on the price sign were Regular, Unleaded, and Super Unleaded.Although I was too young to drive at the time, I still remember when the 3 gas choices were Regular, Unleaded (then at 89 Octane) and Premium (Leaded) aka High-Test.
Was the high-test leaded? I wasn't sure about that one. I also remember the Sunoco stations that had the dial with 5 or 6 different types.During the late 70s (possibly even the very early 80s) and back, you better believe it was.
When I was in Elkton, MD for the first time, they also sold racing fuel there! That's a grade you don't see on the NJ Turnpike!!!That's largely because there's a racetrack not too far away (Cecil County Dragway in Rising Sun, MD).
Was the high-test leaded? I wasn't sure about that one. I also remember the Sunoco stations that had the dial with 5 or 6 different types.During the late 70s (possibly even the very early 80s) and back, you better believe it was.
Sunocos alreadys had several different grades (the old-style pumps indeed had a round knob that one would turn to set towards the desired type), including a lower than normal regular grade. The only difference between now and then was that the various grades used to be all leaded.
Sunoco's Economy Unleaded was 86 (which is more useless than the standard 87 for today's vehicles but that's another topic for the OT threads); their Economy Leaded, when they used to offer such, was 88.I've heard about that, but by the time I remember, regular was the same as everywhere else, but there was economy (86 I think)Was the high-test leaded? I wasn't sure about that one. I also remember the Sunoco stations that had the dial with 5 or 6 different types.During the late 70s (possibly even the very early 80s) and back, you better believe it was.
Sunocos alreadys had several different grades (the old-style pumps indeed had a round knob that one would turn to set towards the desired type), including a lower than normal regular grade. The only difference between now and then was that the various grades used to be all leaded.
Even if the GSV drove the outer lanes on day 1, you probably wouldn't see the images until autumn at the earliest.
Even if the GSV drove the outer lanes on day 1, you probably wouldn't see the images until autumn at the earliest.
So I probably shouldn't bother checking GSV for awhile to see myself waving at exit 109 on the GSP? At least I already got my internet fame by showing up on GSV in Jersey City last year...
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority wants a Florida pizza shop to pay a big toll for using a logo similar to the Garden State Parkway’s green and yellow signs.
New Jersey sues over Florida pizza shop logo (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/money/business/2014/07/23/new-jersey-sues-florida-pizza-shop-logo/13073729/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority wants a Florida pizza shop to pay a big toll for using a logo similar to the Garden State Parkway’s green and yellow signs.
Even if the GSV drove the outer lanes on day 1, you probably wouldn't see the images until autumn at the earliest.All I wanted to know - thankya kindly...
Now I have to check them out. Morristown's nice and close.New Jersey sues over Florida pizza shop logo (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/money/business/2014/07/23/new-jersey-sues-florida-pizza-shop-logo/13073729/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority wants a Florida pizza shop to pay a big toll for using a logo similar to the Garden State Parkway’s green and yellow signs.
And they don't care about Tito's Burritos? (http://www.titosburritos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TB_NJTBmensTee2.jpg (http://www.titosburritos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TB_NJTBmensTee2.jpg))
Now I have to check them out. Morristown's nice and close.
Is this all the NJTA's lawyers have to worry about? Everything else at NJTA must be running pretty darned well.
Drove the Turnpike from Exit 12 all the way to the Del Mem Br this past weekend. Kind of boggling how inconsistent they are with the pullthrough signs at each interchange in the expanded dual-dual section now. Some list a city name (keeping with the new MUTCD compliant signing they're going with elsewhere on NJTPA property) but others list THRU TRAFFIC as a control city. I know the decision to go with MUTCD signage came after they started this project, but the fact that some list one while others list differently is weird and annoying.Probably still working on signs while revamping the original (inner) carriageway (the last part of the project), to be completed by (I believe) Thanksgiving or so, when both roadways will be open and available...
Drove the Turnpike from Exit 12 all the way to the Del Mem Br this past weekend. Kind of boggling how inconsistent they are with the pullthrough signs at each interchange in the expanded dual-dual section now. Some list a city name (keeping with the new MUTCD compliant signing they're going with elsewhere on NJTPA property) but others list THRU TRAFFIC as a control city. I know the decision to go with MUTCD signage came after they started this project, but the fact that some list one while others list differently is weird and annoying.What could happen is that once the major construction projects draw to a close; one could see several of those newer THRU TRAFFIC BGS legends get masked over with a city destination.
Not to bitch, but when did this discussion of the NJTP disintegrate into a comparison of gas prices? Sure, there's some relevance about funding the road, utilizing whatever Trenton has in mind, but can we get back to the highway itself, please? Would greatly appreciate...
Like, for example, has GSV been able to provide road-level coverage of the new outer carriageways in the 6-9 expansion? Would like to see...
....
It's not GSV, but I took pictures from Exit 7A-9 back in July. https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/sets/72157646259913074/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/sets/72157646259913074/) Traffic was shifted onto the outer roadway as the inner roadway is being reconstructed.
Interesting to see the new sign for the carriageway split says "TRUCKS BUSES CARS" instead of the "CARS-TRUCKS-BUSES" they've used for as long as I can remember. I assume from looking at the photo the change is simply due to the new signs' size and the need to configure the text to fit it all in with the Turnpike logo that wasn't present on the old flip signs?I think it makes more sense that way at the very least, to emphasize trucks and buses for the outer lanes. Obviously the amount of traffic at peak periods (and of course any closures of the inner lanes) would mean a certain amount of cars in the outer lanes, but generally cars should be prodded to the inner lanes.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/14471780757/in/set-72157646259913074/Typo alert: the gantry in that photo is the one for Exit 9.
I like the way this sign gantry has the old button copy for the pull through sign and the reflective copy sign for Exit 10. Mixing and matching end up here due to changes on Exit 10's guide signs, but no change (yet anyway) for the through movement over the years as that panel was most likely there since 1971 when NJTA widened that stretch and placed that whole structure.
Fixed it. It was not much of a typo as it was placing the right photo for the right link. I wanted this photo here anyway, but for some reason I was thinking about Exit 10 at the time. Maybe because I remember that area so well as to have lived there for many years.https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/14471780757/in/set-72157646259913074/Typo alert: the gantry in that photo is the one for Exit 9.
I like the way this sign gantry has the old button copy for the pull through sign and the reflective copy sign for Exit 10. Mixing and matching end up here due to changes on Exit 10's guide signs, but no change (yet anyway) for the through movement over the years as that panel was most likely there since 1971 when NJTA widened that stretch and placed that whole structure.
Nice shots - they did well for the time...outer CWs looking pretty good. :nod:Not to bitch, but when did this discussion of the NJTP disintegrate into a comparison of gas prices? Sure, there's some relevance about funding the road, utilizing whatever Trenton has in mind, but can we get back to the highway itself, please? Would greatly appreciate...
Like, for example, has GSV been able to provide road-level coverage of the new outer carriageways in the 6-9 expansion? Would like to see...
It's not GSV, but I took pictures from Exit 7A-9 back in July. https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/sets/72157646259913074/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/sets/72157646259913074/) Traffic was shifted onto the outer roadway as the inner roadway is being reconstructed.
OKroads photos are awesome! Nice shots of the new signage. I am disappointed, though, that Princeton is not added for Exit 8 being that it now connects directly to NJ 133. However, I like that NJ 32 is finally acknowledged by NJTA as for years it was just Jamesburg and Cranbury with no routes listed. Even to place a US 130 shield is nice as well.
And then the advance Exit sign soon after the first picture:Didn't they use to double sign exit 6 for US 130 / Florence as well? Is there any other new advance signage indicating 130? The new sign kind of implies the really old days, when exit 6 was really Pennsylvania Turnpike only with no exit before the bridge. (I realize they are saving the blank left half of the sign for I-95 South when that connection is complete...)
And then the advance Exit sign soon after the first picture:Didn't they use to double sign exit 6 for US 130 / Florence as well? Is there any other new advance signage indicating 130? The new sign kind of implies the really old days, when exit 6 was really Pennsylvania Turnpike only with no exit before the bridge. (I realize they are saving the blank left half of the sign for I-95 South when that connection is complete...)
NJ Turnpike does not like to sign county routes for some reason. Look at Exit 5 for CR 541?OKroads photos are awesome! Nice shots of the new signage. I am disappointed, though, that Princeton is not added for Exit 8 being that it now connects directly to NJ 133. However, I like that NJ 32 is finally acknowledged by NJTA as for years it was just Jamesburg and Cranbury with no routes listed. Even to place a US 130 shield is nice as well.
Considering NJ 32's sole purpose is connecting US 130 with the Turnpike, it kinda makes sense to not sign it, being that it's only like 2 or 3 miles long. Personally, I would sign maybe Cranbury and East Windsor for Exit 8 instead of what they have now since East Windsor is a bit more major than Jamesburg IMO. I believe Jamesburg is just a community within Monroe Township anyway, sort of how like Somerset is a community within Franklin Township. I'm amazed they don't have a CR 535 shield on the exit sign too because one of the ramps provides access to it.
And then the advance Exit sign soon after the first picture:When did those BGS' get erected? Unllike the majority of the ones posted in the southbound direction; the northbound ones feature properly-shaped 3di-shields; most of the I-276 along on the southbound BGS' feature a slightly asymmetrical shield. The new Exit 7A BGS' feature similar-shaped shields (for I-195) and some I-287 pull-through BGS also have such.
(http://i.imgur.com/RmBf76C.jpg)
It was strange when the outer lane was speed limit 55 and the inner lane was 65 near exit 12.It was probably due to congestion on the outer roadway or perhaps an accident further ahead. The inner roadway was not affected by it, so there was no reduced speed.
A few locations, such as the NJ-133 and AC Expwy crossings, have solid "wall" piers, something usually reserved for RR bridges (these are sometimes used when pier space is narrow, or for certain heavy duty urban highways.)
I stand corrected. At that point it's called the "North-South Freeway". I didn't realize that AC Expwy didn't branch off until further southeast of there.A few locations, such as the NJ-133 and AC Expwy crossings, have solid "wall" piers, something usually reserved for RR bridges (these are sometimes used when pier space is narrow, or for certain “heavy duty” urban highways.)
Do you mean NJ 133 & NJ 42? The NJ Turnpike doesn't cross over the AC Expressway.
It's an easy mistake to make as the N/S Freeway is operated by the ACE.
Especially since NJ 42 exits itself. I'd just truncate NJ 42 and extend the AC Expressway up.My alternative history keeps 42 on 168 and gives the new route its own number, since the ACE was well into the planning stages by the time the N-S freeway made it down that far. Step 1 would be to return 42 to the 168 route.
And Step 2 is then extending I-76 straight down to Atlantic City and we're good to go. (just in time for the last casino to close)Especially since NJ 42 exits itself. I'd just truncate NJ 42 and extend the AC Expressway up.My alternative history keeps 42 on 168 and gives the new route its own number, since the ACE was well into the planning stages by the time the N-S freeway made it down that far. Step 1 would be to return 42 to the 168 route.
And Step 2 is then extending I-76 straight down to Atlantic City and we're good to go. (just in time for the last casino to close)Especially since NJ 42 exits itself. I'd just truncate NJ 42 and extend the AC Expressway up.My alternative history keeps 42 on 168 and gives the new route its own number, since the ACE was well into the planning stages by the time the N-S freeway made it down that far. Step 1 would be to return 42 to the 168 route.
Might even "rescue" a casino or two - especially if the NJTA could be persuaded to build an Exit 2A on the Turnpike to provide a direct connection.
Of the many reasons why people stopped going to Atlantic City, the less-than 3 mile detour one must take to go from the Turnpike to Rt. 42 (please, please, please, stop suggesting it's going to be I-76) has never come up. Since this direction would impact those from Delaware, Maryland and points south, ever since both those states got casinos/racinos, it started drying up the market from down there.Yes, I realize I'm probably the 200th person on the forum who has proposed 76 to AC**. But we all know NJDOT takes it cues for where to spend its limited budget from reading internet forums, so it's likely to happen.
I'd definitely like the connection, but it ain't on anyone's horizon anytime soon.
The current construction project with 295/76 only addresses the deficient, existing movements. The actual missing moves are from 295 - 42, and that project won't begin construction until at least 2016 (and that project has been pushed back so many times that 2017/2018 seems likely).I-295 to I-195 is out of the way though, as I-295 veers left north of the Turnpike extension. Plus, the extension will be I-95 in the future, and thus one of the few places where two interstates cross but have no interchange.
I-295 to I-195 provides the all-freeway routing to the NJ Turnpike. Depending on time-of-day, 295 to 73 to the NJ Turnpike involves only one traffic light, and you can often catch the green light at that.
Of the many reasons why people stopped going to Atlantic City, the less-than 3 mile detour one must take to go from the Turnpike to Rt. 42 (please, please, please, stop suggesting it's going to be I-76) has never come up.
The current construction project with 295/76 only addresses the deficient, existing movements. The actual missing moves are from 295 - 42, and that project won't begin construction until at least 2016 (and that project has been pushed back so many times that 2017/2018 seems likely).I-295 to I-195 is out of the way though, as I-295 veers left north of the Turnpike extension. Plus, the extension will be I-95 in the future, and thus one of the few places where two interstates cross but have no interchange.
I-295 to I-195 provides the all-freeway routing to the NJ Turnpike. Depending on time-of-day, 295 to 73 to the NJ Turnpike involves only one traffic light, and you can often catch the green light at that.
Yes, this - take NJ 73 from the north, take US 40 or 322 from the south. The real utility to an "Exit 2A" would be for local traffic that's getting stuffed on 168 - "local" including Philadelphia, which right now faces all that mess or the equal mess along NJ 38/70 getting to US 30.Of the many reasons why people stopped going to Atlantic City, the less-than 3 mile detour one must take to go from the Turnpike to Rt. 42 (please, please, please, stop suggesting it's going to be I-76) has never come up.
It doesn't help either that venturing too far from the boardwalk area (just like The Strip in Las Vegas) isn't a great idea, especially at night...
Honestly, if you're coming from the Turnpike, the best bet is to take 73 all the way to US 30 or the Atlantic City Expressway if AC is your destination. It's not that terribly inconvenient, as others have pointed out. I don't expect to see a connection between the N/S Freeway and the Turnpike anytime soon or even in the next 35 years.
All of this talk about an interchange with 295 and the Turnpike made me make this...In addition to the loops getting smaller as you head north, to the point of unreality, you also have terrible weaving issues between the two sides of the interchange. Ideally, you want all your offramps to happen before all your onramps.
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Interchanges/NJTP-I295-Concept-f_zpsc3164ca0.png)
Feel free to improve on it in any way you see fit. I am aware that my distances may be way too small for realism, but that's why I said improve it if you wish. This was a joint effort between Merkaartor, Inkscape and GIMP. Ignore the fact the highway seems to disappear at the right edge of the screen - that was just me being a bit lazy. I assumed people would guess where the tollbooths were (this is the Turnpike we are talking about after all!).
EDIT: Just noticed one of the ramp goes THROUGH I-295.. ugh. Too lazy to fix...
In addition to the loops getting smaller as you head north, to the point of unreality, you also have terrible weaving issues between the two sides of the interchange. Ideally, you want all your offramps to happen before all your onramps.
Also, please change the color. The ramps on the right lookvaguelyextremely phallic.
Thanks to Alps' comments, I made a new version of the interchange, where I more or less converted the phallic looking ramp configuration to a trumpet.Any reason for the two sets of double trumpets? 195/Turnpike (and many other interchanges) accommodate a toll booth with just one double trumpet. The only advantage I can see is that you eliminate a weave before/after the tollbooths since only one direction of 276 or 295 exits to each tollbooth area (assuming you are placing the tollbooths between the trumpets in the traditional fashion, and not separating them out onto the ramps themselves such that might work as an EZ-Pass/ORT only interchange). Otherwise, save some real estate with a standard double trumpet, eliminate the weaves on the mainlines and let people cut each other off at the toll plaza area as usual.
I think I made it more realistic, but I also probably made the weaving issue much worse.
I know it's been 20+ years but I used to cut over from the NJTP to 295 using the US 206 ramps and found it super easy.Me too. I did exactly that almost 20 years ago going between Rutgers and home in South Jersey when 295 used to temporarily end at 130 before they punched it through to 195. I would squeeze as much free freeway as I could before jumping over to the Turnpike, and many times would just stay on 130 all the way up to New Brunswick. The various cross-over points between the Turnpike and 295 actually work just fine - especially at 206 and 73 - but yes like all the other road nuts the connectivity OCD demands an interchange that will never happen.
Speaking of the 195/Turnpike interchange, does anyone know when they removed one of the the loop ramps and instead made a bridge instead?The new bridge has been there for a few years, although not open to traffic for that long. The Turnpike's widening website shows at least the bridge in place over 195 in 2011. Some clearing and the piers at 195 were there for a long while before they got moving on the rest of the ramp and its distance from the Turnpike mainline had me thinking then that they were putting in a new overpass for some other purpose before it became obvious they were eliminating the trumpet configuration on that end.
Easy way to eliminate weaving on I-276: The first entrance ramp folds along the outside of the trumpet and THEN merges in.In addition to the loops getting smaller as you head north, to the point of unreality, you also have terrible weaving issues between the two sides of the interchange. Ideally, you want all your offramps to happen before all your onramps.
Also, please change the color. The ramps on the right lookvaguelyextremely phallic.
Thanks to Alps' comments, I made a new version of the interchange, where I more or less converted the phallic looking ramp configuration to a trumpet.
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Interchanges/NJTPK-I295-Concept-fixed2-f_zps8a5fbd7a.png)
I think I made it more realistic, but I also probably made the weaving issue much worse.
A full interchange isn't warranted at the Turnpike extension and I-295. You just need a loop ramp from NJTP West (South) to I-295 South, and a slip ramp from I-295 north to NJTP East (North). Ramp plazas could be used, or it could be E-ZPass only.Agreed that a full interchange isn't really warranted, and the above serves the purpose of allowing an easy connection to hop between the two for N-S traffic. However, it might also be useful for a partial interchange to allow traffic from 295 to access the PA Turnpike, to allow more local traffic better access to the bridge, similar to what they finally did at the 130 interchange a short distance west along the extension.
"The I-295"? :rolleyes:"connexion?" It's English, but it's not American.
Anybody know what's going on at interchange 10, the ramps to I-287/NJ-440 and CR-514 just after the toll plaza? I see jersey barriers and grading.There's a little paragraph about this here:
Has anyone eaten at any of the service areas on the Turnpike? I'm thinking of going down into Baltimore to see a friend and on the way back maybe hit a service area for dinner. I figure their food can't be much worse than the fast food I snarf down on a weekly basis, so it's not like that matters.
If the fast food doesn't offend you, the prices should. Grossly inflated to exploit a captive audience.
If the fast food doesn't offend you, the prices should. Grossly inflated to exploit a captive audience.
Err, how expensive are we talking here? "Grossly inflated" makes me think I'm going to pay $15 for a burger and fries from McDonalds...
Has anyone eaten at any of the service areas on the Turnpike? I'm thinking of going down into Baltimore to see a friend and on the way back maybe hit a service area for dinner. I figure their food can't be much worse than the fast food I snarf down on a weekly basis, so it's not like that matters.
If the fast food doesn't offend you, the prices should. Grossly inflated to exploit a captive audience.
Err, how expensive are we talking here? "Grossly inflated" makes me think I'm going to pay $15 for a burger and fries from McDonalds...
What, you want me to back up my wild accusation with hard info? I thought this was the internet.
If I had to ballpark it I'd say the toll road prices are ~40% higher than street price. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
Has anyone eaten at any of the service areas on the Turnpike? I'm thinking of going down into Baltimore to see a friend and on the way back maybe hit a service area for dinner. I figure their food can't be much worse than the fast food I snarf down on a weekly basis, so it's not like that matters.
Gas is about 11cents higher on the Tpke in my experience.
The food prices are high for what it is. Can anyone say little respect for body or wallet? You have to have a certain inherent resignation to eat Popeye's, for example, at all. You have to bargain further against common sense to pay nine dollars for it.Eating out is expensive no matter where you do it. Plus I travel alone, so that eliminates pretty much anything that isn't fast food anyways... and trips long enough where I'd have to eat our are relatively rare. Pretty much just roadmeets, though I'll stop at Sbarro on the Thruway for some trips to/from Rochester just for something different. Btw, the price for a slice of cheese and a breadstick or two on the Thruway is around $6.
I'm far from cheap – I'm just too smart to not only accept crap but pay extra at a place where if anything the margins are so high on the volume that said crap should be cheaper than elsewhere.
It's 2014. I have the technology in my pocket to find quality food at appropriate prices using countless specific parameters just about anyplace without great disruption to my travel.
When you are on the road a lot, and you end up using that as an excuse to regularly eat badly and expensively, no one is to blame but you.
I never have the luxury of avoiding gassing up on the Thruway. I'm always driving across to either the MA or VT line so I'm stuck the entire way.
The NY Thurway is a terribly boring drive.
How many have noticed that at least some of the NJ Turnpike service areas have two convenience stores - the 'official' store next to the fast food, rest rooms, etc. as well as a second Sunoco store which is your typical gas station quickie-mart.:wave:
I never have the luxury of avoiding gassing up on the Thruway. I'm always driving across to either the MA or VT line so I'm stuck the entire way.
The NY Thurway is a terribly boring drive.
NY 5? US 20?
Well, guess I'll stick to conventional methods and hunting for food off the Turnpike (or before I re-enter New Jersey) because a lot of reviews are saying the prices are higher than I would want...Simple explanation. (Apologies if I've described this one here before) Originally, the Molly Pitcher Service Plaza had two separate restaurant buildings on the SB side. One was the building that still stands there today, plus the "snack bar" hut. The other was to the south of there and set at about a 60-degree angle to the highway. This restaurant was exclusively for chartered bus tours. As such, it probably had a cafeteria style setup to absorb busloads at once, something impractical at the sit-down restaurant that the regular Howard Johnson's were. (From what I saw on HistoricAerials, the building itself had a unique design for the purpose, possibly with 2 levels; anyone know for sure?) But getting back to the ramps, this "Charter Bus Stop" as they called it was accessible from the NB lanes via a trumpet interchange. A sign indicated whether or not it was open, and prominently proclaimed "Buses Only". When the bus stop closed (not sure when, but the building disappeared around the mid-'90s) the trumpet ramp remained as access to the State Police barracks also on that side. Although it was well-marked as "official use only", I suspect that a lot of motorists tried to use it to access the Molly Pitcher plaza, despite Joyce Kilmer being about 5 miles ahead. So in the current truck-lane widening project, the interchange remained, but now with the right-angle type turns that are used in most other "official use only" ramps, less likely to be used accidentally than a trumpet loop ramp. Apparently, Google Maps has not yet updated this ramp style modification.
Unrelated, does anyone know what the hell is going on here?
(http://i.imgur.com/m5ALZN6.png)
Molly Pitcher Service Area on the Turnpike. I'm assuming the stuff in the middle is related to the widening of the Turnpike, but what's up with the ramp shown by Google Maps?
I agree with vdeane on this. I almost always travel alone, so I live on fast food and convenience store junk. Going to a sit down type place alone is awkward to me (and I know that I'm not alone on here with that mentality). If I'm using a toll road it's likely for clinching purposes, so if it comes time to eat or refuel I will use a service plaza. I acknowledge that I may be getting screwed out of a couple bucks, but it's convenient and I am already paying a little extra to drive on said toll road. I feel as though if you're that strapped for cash, then you can't realisitcally afford to take a road trip.The food prices are high for what it is. Can anyone say little respect for body or wallet? You have to have a certain inherent resignation to eat Popeye's, for example, at all. You have to bargain further against common sense to pay nine dollars for it.Eating out is expensive no matter where you do it. Plus I travel alone, so that eliminates pretty much anything that isn't fast food anyways... and trips long enough where I'd have to eat our are relatively rare. Pretty much just roadmeets, though I'll stop at Sbarro on the Thruway for some trips to/from Rochester just for something different. Btw, the price for a slice of cheese and a breadstick or two on the Thruway is around $6.
I'm far from cheap – I'm just too smart to not only accept crap but pay extra at a place where if anything the margins are so high on the volume that said crap should be cheaper than elsewhere.
It's 2014. I have the technology in my pocket to find quality food at appropriate prices using countless specific parameters just about anyplace without great disruption to my travel.
When you are on the road a lot, and you end up using that as an excuse to regularly eat badly and expensively, no one is to blame but you.
I agree with vdeane on this. I almost always travel alone, so I live on fast food and convenience store junk. Going to a sit down type place alone is awkward to me (and I know that I'm not alone on here with that mentality). If I'm using a toll road it's likely for clinching purposes, so if it comes time to eat or refuel I will use a service plaza. I acknowledge that I may be getting screwed out of a couple bucks, but it's convenient and I am already paying a little extra to drive on said toll road. I feel as though if you're that strapped for cash, then you can't realisitcally afford to take a road trip.
Has anyone eaten at any of the service areas on the Turnpike? I'm thinking of going down into Baltimore to see a friend and on the way back maybe hit a service area for dinner. I figure their food can't be much worse than the fast food I snarf down on a weekly basis, so it's not like that matters.You don't even need the NJ Turnpike at all for your trip. From your area, save a few bucks and take 295 all the way down to DE. You can even post some nice pictures of the work at 76/42. If you want a City view and a little traffic depending on the day, swing down 95 through PA and avoid paying a bridge toll. Easier food options off 295 too.
What are the available options on the Turnpike? I've only eaten at Roy Rogers and Burger King.Here's a link for the service areas (click on the gas pumps):
I've never left the Turnpike and gotten back on so this may seem like a dumb question but:
Do you lose money if you get off and get back on? I hope the question makes sense, but is the distribution of charges equitable throughout the state? I could imagine a situation where I get on at the start, get off a few miles later, get back on and the price to the terminus from that exit isn't a direct continuation so there may be an additional dollar or two added because someone at the NJ Turnpike Authority can't do math or wanted to penalize people for getting off to avoid the service plazas.
Hope that makes sense.
Gas is about 11cents higher on the Tpke in my experience.
Wawa is terrific at turning around freshly-prepared foods in minutes at low prices. The Turnpike should have Wawas.
What are the available options on the Turnpike? I've only eaten at Roy Rogers and Burger King.Here's a link for the service areas (click on the gas pumps):
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-roadways.html (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-roadways.html)
It varies per plaza. Typically a Roy's or BK, a pizza place like Sbarro, sometimes a Starbucks, etc.
Side note: It looks like Roy's is making a comeback in the northeast. Until recently, the only Roy's left in NJ (or pretty much anywhere north of MD) that wasn't in a service plaza was near me just south of Toms River:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=39.933127,-74.179961&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.933128,-74.180474&panoid=BmGWhyP0o0uF_IZ_7s1glw&cbp=12,358.82,,0,1.91 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=39.933127,-74.179961&spn=0.000004,0.00327&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.933128,-74.180474&panoid=BmGWhyP0o0uF_IZ_7s1glw&cbp=12,358.82,,0,1.91)
It was always a bit of nostalgia to go in there. I now hear the franchise owner of this location is opening a second one a few miles north in Brick.
Do you lose money if you get off and get back on? I hope the question makes sense, but is the distribution of charges equitable throughout the state? I could imagine a situation where I get on at the start, get off a few miles later, get back on and the price to the terminus from that exit isn't a direct continuation so there may be an additional dollar or two added because someone at the NJ Turnpike Authority can't do math or wanted to penalize people for getting off to avoid the service plazas.
Basically, yes, there is a small additional charge. It's done on purpose, and not because someone can't do math. The Turnpike would have course want you to remain on the turnpike, so they're going to provide the incentive to remain on the turnpike by charging a bit extra to get off.
Drivers of Tesla electric cars will be able to charge up at two stations the auto maker plans to install at New Jersey Turnpike service areas
Authority commissioners approved an agreement Tuesday morning with Tesla to install charging stations in the Molly Pitcher and Joyce Kilmer services areas –both in Middlesex County – at no expense to toll payers.
Four parking stalls will be wired for Tesla charging stations, which O’Hern said won’t interfere with parking or traffic in the service areas. Tesla also will wire the charging stations in case other manufacturers of electric cars decide to install charging stations, he said.
Teslas use a charger that is specific to their vehicles, which doesn’t fit other electric cars. The charging stations could be operational by the end of the year, depending on how long it takes for Tesla to obtain permits needed to do the work, O’Hern said. Tesla owners would not be charged to power up their vehicles, he said.
Future expansion to other turnpike service areas or to the Garden State Parkway will depend on driver demand, he said.
On the turnpike southbound, the 1 mile sign for Exit 13A is not 1 mile to the interchange. This is an error which should be corrected to 1/2 mile. I looked it up on Google Maps measuring tool.
Teslas use a charger that is specific to their vehicles, which doesn’t fit other electric cars.
I really don't mind there being chargers for electric cars. Makes those cars more usable. More and better infrastructure is only a good thing.
But this:QuoteTeslas use a charger that is specific to their vehicles, which doesn’t fit other electric cars.
is not OK. I can fill my gas tank at any gas station, car manufacturers do not have proprietary fuel pumps that only their vehicles can use. Indeed, this universality is part of what makes gasoline-powered cars so usable. For electric cars to not follow the same open model is a hindrance to their proliferation since you are artificially reducing the number of charge points available to any given person.
I get that Tesla is installing and operating these things entirely at their expense and isn't going to want their competition taking advantage. But it would seemingly be uncomplicated and more civilized to simply charge for the electricity and give Tesla owners special debit cards that allow them to get it on the house. Could even make Tesla some extra money that way. But no, the brand is all about elitism and "this is my charging station, you can't use it" has too much douchebag appeal to turn down.
As of 3:58pm, there's an Accident on the New Jersey Turnpike southbound North of Interchange 8A - NJ 32 in South Brunswick Twp. All lanes blocked.I guess this either at the current merge or just south of it since they don't mention which roadway is blocked. The merge is currently north of exit 8A right?
I went with a friend to the Maker Faire in New York this weekend. On the way, I caught a few shots along the Turnpike.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3872/15129545900_d4848b04f1_c.jpg)
Northbound, approaching the beginning of the dual carriageways.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5555/15315916602_6f8228c36a_c.jpg)
I wish my camera's sensor could process the LED background, but in person, these look great. I like the borderless appearance of the electronic sign.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3853/15293226006_9b006acf29_c.jpg)
Leaving the Woodrow Wilson Service Area.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3891/15316262745_095f5f0539_c.jpg)
VMS displaying travel time information in a format that is not only informative, but simple to understand at speed. One of the strengths of the Turnpike, from my experience, is to provide effective feedback to its users. While I miss the RSAs, the newest generation of VMSes is being used in many ways which I find the change to be worth it.
Why does the solid green in the VMS section look like Creeper texture?
I wish my camera's sensor could process the LED background, but in person, these look great.
Quote from: RoadsguyWhy does the solid green in the VMS section look like Creeper texture?Quote from: ChezeHed81I wish my camera's sensor could process the LED background, but in person, these look great.
From the looks of it, they are taking advantage of the fully shutdown roadway and paving across the entire roadway at one shot, which eliminate the seams.
So I was thinking of applying to be a toll collector at the Turnpike. I meet all the requirements, and I might be close to acquiring my own vehicle so I can get there. Looking at it, they try and place you to a close interchange (so I guess it would be from about 6-9 for me) to your house. They pay $12 an hour which is way better than the minimum wage crap in Hillsborough and surrounding towns, and you get at least 20 hours a week. I'm just looking for something to generate revenue for a bit. Anyone have any experience with this? I see the NJTA also provides training for the job, so on a scale of 1-10, how easy is the job? I can't honestly see it being harder than a 4, considering you just collect tolls.
So I was thinking of applying to be a toll collector at the Turnpike. I meet all the requirements, and I might be close to acquiring my own vehicle so I can get there. Looking at it, they try and place you to a close interchange (so I guess it would be from about 6-9 for me) to your house. They pay $12 an hour which is way better than the minimum wage crap in Hillsborough and surrounding towns, and you get at least 20 hours a week. I'm just looking for something to generate revenue for a bit. Anyone have any experience with this? I see the NJTA also provides training for the job, so on a scale of 1-10, how easy is the job? I can't honestly see it being harder than a 4, considering you just collect tolls.
I'm not sure if Rob Sargent is on this forum or not, but he works for the NJTP. He'd be a good contact.
....
I think the equipment is still the same as when I left the turnpike - it's easy stuff - you punch in the classification of vehicle, put in the ticket, it tells you the amount. Obviously, you can look at the ticket yourself and figure it out. And once you're in an interchange for a few weeks or less, you start to memorize the toll rates anyway. People will ask for directions and such. It's a great job...you sit on your ass and collect money, and can play on your phone when no one is at the booth. Supervisors are generally friendly and will back you up in my experiences.
The biggest issue for some is that you have to calculate the change yourself. Some people bring a calculator to do this.
....
As I have posted many times (and comments like this make me wonder if my posts are ignored by everyone), I have worked the Turnpike Tolls from 2001 - 2004. Rob actually did work alongside me as well during that time period, before taking a full time position with the Turnpike.
I think the equipment is still the same as when I left the turnpike - it's easy stuff - you punch in the classification of vehicle, put in the ticket, it tells you the amount. Obviously, you can look at the ticket yourself and figure it out. And once you're in an interchange for a few weeks or less, you start to memorize the toll rates anyway. People will ask for directions and such. It's a great job...you sit on your ass and collect money, and can play on your phone when no one is at the booth. Supervisors are generally friendly and will back you up in my experiences.
The biggest issue for some is that you have to calculate the change yourself. Some people bring a calculator to do this.
The job otherwise is easy. I worked the weekends at Interchange 1 and 3, and for the most part it was traffic coming thru on vacations, rather than motorists that use the Turnpike every day to/from work. I've said it here before - if you get the job, you will be in for an awaking at how bad people are out there on the roads, and how clueless as to where they are. It makes it quite interesting, actually.
When you apply, I think you can put down what toll plazas you will be willing to travel to for work. Interchange 1 was further away from me than 2, 3 or 4, but the chances of getting actual employment there was easy. After a year or so, I asked for and eventually got a transfer to 3. I never worked 2 (the least busiest interchange of the Turnpike). I was asked a few times to work 4 & 7A as an overtime shift, which they paid for my travel to/from (I don't know if they still do that). Other than that, I was always at my main interchange.
For you, you can ask them what interchanges are in the most need of help. 7A and 9 are large interchanges and would probably be your best bets. 11, if you can travel up there, may even be better.
EZ Pass has certainly changed things, and usage is way higher than when I worked there. Plus, EZ Pass vehicles can go thru any lane. During my time there, EZ Pass vehicles could only use EZ Pass lanes, and it was fairly frequently that people would have no clue what EZ Pass was.
Remember though - you are a part time employee. The Full Timers can have a bit of an attitude, especially as their pay and benefits have been slashed over the past several years. So when you get the job, just go in and respect them, and it'll help in the long run when you need a hand!
If you apply for a position - good luck! Be patient...it may take a few weeks (or longer) for them to get back to you!
Do not get your hopes up for this.
Do not get your hopes up for this.
Considering that my applications to multiple jobs have so far been completely fruitless - my hopes when it comes to being hired are as low as you can imagine... of course, this is in Hillsborough. If I can get a vehicle, I would go as far as Trenton, New Brunswick, or Newark if I got a decent paying job... and if I weren't at risk for getting slaughtered. This is just something I noticed a few days ago and thought about it.
The biggest issue about the environment is the traffic. You're sitting in a 3' wide booth, watching traffic come at you or behind you. They are always going faster than the speed limit allows...or they stop in an EZ Pass lane when they're not supposed to. They often have no idea what they're doing.After seeing the video of that guy plowing into the GSP Somers Point toll booth at high speed, there's no way I would do that job. At least the majority of the Turnpike booths are not on the mainline, and they should be going much slower since they're on an interchange ramp. Cars zip through the booths at 11 pretty fast though. Not to discourage you Zeffy, but safety is a big concern there. Also, as Alps has noted, that job is disappearing fast....
Why doesn't the Turnpike have blue guide signs for restaurants and gas stations, only lodging? The ACE does. In fact, the Expressway recently put these up. Is it competition with the rest areas?They're service plazas, and that's exactly right. No toll road authority is going to advertise the off-highway food and fuel options. Remember, toll road authorities get a piece of the action from sales at the service plazas. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to advertise the competition that's often right off the toll road at an exit.
Why doesn't the Turnpike have blue guide signs for restaurants and gas stations, only lodging? The ACE does. In fact, the Expressway recently put these up. Is it competition with the rest areas?They're service plazas, and that's exactly right. No toll road authority is going to advertise the off-highway food and fuel options. Remember, toll road authorities get a piece of the action from sales at the service plazas. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to advertise the competition that's often right off the toll road at an exit.
I was especially amused when I noticed the ACE advertising a gas station off of exit 9, considering that I'm pretty sure that exit is the only one to have a toll at both the exit and the entrance in both directions. Not to mention it's right next to exit 7 where you can get off and back on for free in either direction (even if you need to deal with the Garden State Parkway, there are exits off of that with nearby gas stations no further than 2 miles away in either direction).
My guess is, the ACX does this because of its toll structure. Let's say someone going East from Rt. 42 gets off at Cross Keys Rd. They pay a 40 cent toll there (depending on the plaza, some exits are 75 cents). Then they re-enter the ACX and go East towards the shore...they still have to pay the $3.00 toll. So by the vehicle exiting the Expressway, they actually incurred a toll of $3.40, not $3.00. (Note, this works going Westbound also. Say they pay the $3 toll...then exit for dinner. When they re-enter, they have to pay another 40 cents or 75 cents).
More than that, would you buy a contract with the service plazas if the company you're buying from advertises your competition off exits?Why doesn't the Turnpike have blue guide signs for restaurants and gas stations, only lodging? The ACE does. In fact, the Expressway recently put these up. Is it competition with the rest areas?They're service plazas, and that's exactly right. No toll road authority is going to advertise the off-highway food and fuel options. Remember, toll road authorities get a piece of the action from sales at the service plazas. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to advertise the competition that's often right off the toll road at an exit.
More than that, would you buy a contract with the service plazas if the company you're buying from advertises your competition off exits?I realize that this is a rhetorical question, but of course not. I was merely trying to point out to J Route Z why there's no food/fuel advertisements on toll roads.
Florida's Turnpike has gas food and lodging signs at interchanges.
Lately its been rainy.Florida's Turnpike has gas food and lodging signs at interchanges.
Must be the air down there.
ixnay
Florida's Turnpike has gas food and lodging signs at interchanges. Even with the many service plazas with gas and food, they still advertise the competition.This could be for a number of reasons.
are there any new contract plans online for signing projects?
Are there any plans to change interchange numbers and mile markers on the Turnpike to an I-95 basis upon the completion of the widening? Or, will they just wait until the I-95/PA Tpk connexion is completed over in PA?
are there any new contract plans online for signing projects?
Generally, the NJ Turnpike Authority online docs only mention the expected advertising date, and later when the projects go out to bid, and eventually the winning bid and amount. I generally don't see anything as to what would be of interest: the actual signs.
Excellent, JeffandNicole. I will definitely look it over. Trying to see how long the ancient Exit 17 signs SB will be around for.are there any new contract plans online for signing projects?
Generally, the NJ Turnpike Authority online docs only mention the expected advertising date, and later when the projects go out to bid, and eventually the winning bid and amount. I generally don't see anything as to what would be of interest: the actual signs.
Doofy...here's that treasure chest of info that you want...or at least close enough...
Go here: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/construction.html . Click on the 'Click Here' to access the NJTA BidX website. Scroll down the BidX page until you get to the "What's New" section, which has many of the recent bid documents. For one signing project on the Parkway, you can go to 14092301 (currently the 5th one down) and click on that. On the next page, click on the P600.337. On the next page, under the available downloads section, click on Reference Material. It'll take a few moments to open. Then, click on the file for "Reference Drawings (Listed on Title Sheet)" This will bring you to a number of files. While they are all interesting, one you can view is C0910. Now you have information regarding some of the signs they will be installing.
Enjoy!
Are there any plans to change interchange numbers and mile markers on the Turnpike to an I-95 basis upon the completion of the widening? Or, will they just wait until the I-95/PA Tpk connexion is completed over in PA?
AFIAK, there have never been any plans for such. They don't change the mileage numbers north of int 10 where 95 officially joins the Turnpike now, so I don't see why they would do that once the 95/PATP connection is completed.
I recall a rumor saying they would go mile-based (using I-95 numbers?) if they went AET.So, Exit 117 (currently 17, funny how that lines up) will be followed by Exit 68 (or 70A, or whichever one is currently signed)? That would be kind of confusing, since there will now possibly be an exit 68 further south on the Turnpike. Though, renumbering according to I-95 won't line up very well either (it's close, though), though if they keep exits sequential south of I-95, Exit 6 will line up roughly with Mile 6 on I-95
I would imagine that since the Turnpike Authority owns the "free" part of I-95 nearly all the way to the GWB, the exit numbers would go up to 122. The strange part would be the Port Authority exits (73 and 74) if that agency doesn't change to match. Would be interesting to see how it all plays out.I recall a rumor saying they would go mile-based (using I-95 numbers?) if they went AET.So, Exit 117 (currently 17, funny how that lines up) will be followed by Exit 68 (or 70A, or whichever one is currently signed)? That would be kind of confusing, since there will now possibly be an exit 68 further south on the Turnpike. Though, renumbering according to I-95 won't line up very well either (it's close, though), though if they keep exits sequential south of I-95, Exit 6 will line up roughly with Mile 6 on I-95
I would imagine that since the Turnpike Authority owns the "free" part of I-95 nearly all the way to the GWB, the exit numbers would go up to 122. The strange part would be the Port Authority exits (73 and 74) if that agency doesn't change to match. Would be interesting to see how it all plays out.I recall a rumor saying they would go mile-based (using I-95 numbers?) if they went AET.So, Exit 117 (currently 17, funny how that lines up) will be followed by Exit 68 (or 70A, or whichever one is currently signed)? That would be kind of confusing, since there will now possibly be an exit 68 further south on the Turnpike. Though, renumbering according to I-95 won't line up very well either (it's close, though), though if they keep exits sequential south of I-95, Exit 6 will line up roughly with Mile 6 on I-95
So I was thinking of applying to be a toll collector at the Turnpike. I meet all the requirements, and I might be close to acquiring my own vehicle so I can get there. Looking at it, they try and place you to a close interchange (so I guess it would be from about 6-9 for me) to your house. They pay $12 an hour which is way better than the minimum wage crap in Hillsborough and surrounding towns, and you get at least 20 hours a week. I'm just looking for something to generate revenue for a bit. Anyone have any experience with this? I see the NJTA also provides training for the job, so on a scale of 1-10, how easy is the job? I can't honestly see it being harder than a 4, considering you just collect tolls.Zeffy - Now's your chance: A slot just opened up in the GSP toll booths (just don't bless motorists as they come through):
The only question will be do they number from the southern point of the NJ Turnpike in Deepwater/Carney's point, or from the southern point of I-95 in NJ (at the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge).
Zeffy - Now's your chance: A slot just opened up in the GSP toll booths (just don't bless motorists as they come through):
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/10/toll-taker_waited_a_month_before_complaining_about_god_bless_comment_turnpike_says.html#incart_river (http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2014/10/toll-taker_waited_a_month_before_complaining_about_god_bless_comment_turnpike_says.html#incart_river)
I would see that the I-95 sector of the Tpk would have its own mile markers/mileage based exit numbers. Likewise, the Newark Bay Extension would have I-78 based mms and exit numbers. The Tpk south of Exit 6 could stay as is for it would not be part of the Interstate system.Thee only place I know that does it this way is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension which continues free I-476's mileage and exit numbers. The mainline does not do that for I-70 or I-276 (arguably I-70 should be the primary route where it overlaps with I-76). Do other examples of this type of setup exist anywhere?
I would envision the numbers based on I-95 for the mainline, the Turnpike south of exit 6, I-78 for that extension, and the current northern I-95 numbers changed to match the new ones. The Port Authority would renumber, but they might hold it to the next sign replacement. I don't think NJDOT will have any part of I-95 once the PTC interchange is done.
I would see that the I-95 sector of the Tpk would have its own mile markers/mileage based exit numbers. Likewise, the Newark Bay Extension would have I-78 based mms and exit numbers. The Tpk south of Exit 6 could stay as is for it would not be part of the Interstate system.Thee only place I know that does it this way is the Pennsylvania Turnpike Northeast Extension which continues free I-476's mileage and exit numbers. The mainline does not do that for I-70 or I-276 (arguably I-70 should be the primary route where it overlaps with I-76). Do other examples of this type of setup exist anywhere?
Here's my question though - do more people refer to this as the Turnpike or (I-)95? I would think everyone calls this the Turnpike, even when the Turnpike is signed as I-95.
Here's my question though - do more people refer to this as the Turnpike or (I-)95? I would think everyone calls this the Turnpike, even when the Turnpike is signed as I-95.
Overall, I think more people call it the Turnpike. BUT...if you're coming up from Delaware, you are specifically looking for signs for the Turnpike if you want to continue north towards NYC. If you're coming down from NYC, many people are following signs for I-95. It's not a big deal until they got down to Interchange 1...and wanted to know how far to Philadelphia. When told they past it a half-hour ago, they wondered how they could have already passed it, and aren't they still on 95. It was a bit easier to explain that Interchanges 4 & 3 were signed for Philly, compared to how 95 just kinda disappeared from the Turnpike.
Many knew they had to get back to I-95 to continue south to Baltimore - that was fairly easy as well. My standard answer was 95 is 6 miles away (7 after the new Int. 1 plaza was built), and after you cross into Delaware, you will see the signs for 95 South.
If the NJTA follows I-95's mileage to the tee, then it will for sure confuse all of NJ Drivers. We have always called it the Turnpike even where I-95 is cosigned with it.
Here's my question though - do more people refer to this as the Turnpike or (I-)95? I would think everyone calls this the Turnpike, even when the Turnpike is signed as I-95.
Overall, I think more people call it the Turnpike. BUT...if you're coming up from Delaware, you are specifically looking for signs for the Turnpike if you want to continue north towards NYC. If you're coming down from NYC, many people are following signs for I-95. It's not a big deal until they got down to Interchange 1...and wanted to know how far to Philadelphia. When told they past it a half-hour ago, they wondered how they could have already passed it, and aren't they still on 95. It was a bit easier to explain that Interchanges 4 & 3 were signed for Philly, compared to how 95 just kinda disappeared from the Turnpike.
Many knew they had to get back to I-95 to continue south to Baltimore - that was fairly easy as well. My standard answer was 95 is 6 miles away (7 after the new Int. 1 plaza was built), and after you cross into Delaware, you will see the signs for 95 South.
Exactly. What a clusterfuck. The current situation is nothing but one. When the PA Turnpike and I-95 interchange in Bristol is completed, I wonder if people will take that looking for Philadelphia instead of using Exits 3 and 4 to get to I-76? Philadelphia will most definitely be signed as such on the Exit 6 guide signs. Do they have any supplementary signage near Exit 4 saying something along the lines of 'PHILADELPHIA - USE EXITS 3,4" (and vice versa)? As it currently stands, I would probably use NJ 73 to NJ 90 to the Betsy Ross Bridge if I were coming from the Turnpike (which I usually don't) to get to Philadelphia. Much better option IMO than riding NJ 168 up until it ends in Camden and then taking the surface streets all the way to I-676. Better scenery too - it doesn't look too pleasant riding through that area of Camden as opposed to avoiding it all together by using NJ 90.
Exactly. What a clusterfuck. The current situation is nothing but one. When the PA Turnpike and I-95 interchange in Bristol is completed, I wonder if people will take that looking for Philadelphia instead of using Exits 3 and 4 to get to I-76? Philadelphia will most definitely be signed as such on the Exit 6 guide signs. Do they have any supplementary signage near Exit 4 saying something along the lines of 'PHILADELPHIA - USE EXITS 3,4" (and vice versa)? As it currently stands, I would probably use NJ 73 to NJ 90 to the Betsy Ross Bridge if I were coming from the Turnpike (which I usually don't) to get to Philadelphia. Much better option IMO than riding NJ 168 up until it ends in Camden and then taking the surface streets all the way to I-676. Better scenery too - it doesn't look too pleasant riding through that area of Camden as opposed to avoiding it all together by using NJ 90.It's sort of the flipside of what the situation with Atlantic City. As it stands, Exit 3 is signed for "Atlantic City Exp" in both directions, while the US-40 exit is signed "Atlantic City" from the south (as it should be). It's not at all obvious that the best way to get to Atlantic City coming from the north (south of the GS Parkway, anyway) is actually Exit 4 for NJ-73 South. In fact, Atlantic City is present as a control city for NJ-73 South once you leave the mainline at Exit 4.
I highly doubt that will confuse drivers at all. The Tri-State Tollway is split between I-94 and I-294 and uses the mileposts of each, yet the average Chicagoland driver is not confused at all. We still call it the Tri-State Tollway from end to end. It may help that no one uses the exit numbers on them (they lacked them for years) and just uses the interchange names (which coincidentally happen to be that of the street they interchange with).That is exactly the problem. The "what exit?" stereotype is one that has a lot of truth to it in NJ. For this reason, any exit renumbering along the Turnpike will be very very confusing for a lot of people.
Then why not change the Kansas Turnpike to fout different set of numbers as well.
I-35, I-335, I-470, and I-70
The Philadelphia destination from Exit 3 had already been removed completely when the signage was updated and they had to come up with 2 destinations for each exit (compared to previous signage, when up to 4 destinations were listed).
168 South: Woodbury / Atlantic CityWoodbury? The best way to get to Woodbury from there is to take NJ 168 north to I-295 south to NJ 45 south. A correct control city for that spot would either be Blackwood or Turnersville where NJ 168 ends.
I'd argue the best way to get to the AC Expressway (and Turnersville...and Blackwood) is to take 168 North to Benigno Blvd or 295 South. 168 South is more direct, but lower speed limits, lots of lights, and a tight accel lane onto 42 South.
But as I've mentioned in the past (and based on the lack of comments to it I think you all don't believe me), 95 is already at or over capacity at multiple times throughout the day in PA. It won't be able to handle the load of traffic from those intending on following 95 from North Jersey thru Philly & Chester and down into Delaware.seconded for overcapacity in Chester, especially during rush hour.
Drove up the Turnpike last night and I noticed that they replaced the sign for 13A. They put it up on one of the new LED VMS gantries. The thing that surprised me that is that they used the older NJTA style signage instead of newer MUTCD style. Was this a mistake on the part of the contractor putting up the gantries and signs? I figured they would just replace that sign with a MUTCD sign since that will be happening on the Turnpike at some point soon.Any contract that had already been let before the conversion, they haven't touched.
Many people do call it The Turnpike just as the GSP is The Parkway.Sadly, I was one of those people until the late-1970's or early 1980's when I realized NJT wanted to relocate I-95 onto the Trenton Freeway. Since then, I've always been careful not to call the Turnpike I-95 and have struggled to get other people to do the same. More often than not, it's a futile effort.
You can not get rid of ignorance as it happens for every type of thinker. Some people in NJ think that I-95 is the entire turnpike...
And yet, overhead signage of I-95 is nonexistent south of the northernmost toll plaza. The reassurance shields aren't all that frequent either. Even if you follow the "To 95" signage on I-295 South and I-195 East, there is no follow-through once you actually enter the Turnpike. Not only that, but there is no signage about which *direction* you're going either (well, there wasn't. I think they added "North [NJ Turnpike Shield]" to the pull-thrus in the construction area) until the eastern-western spur split (where I-95 is also signed on the overhead) or, if you ended up going in the wrong direction somehow, Exit 6.
The current stretch of I-95 north of the new interchange will be redesignated as I-295. All of the components of the project except the new bridge are expected to be complete in 2014; the construction period for the bridge is expected to be 2014-2018.
When the original Turnpike widening between Interchanges 10 and 14 occurred in the late 1960s, the outer roadways were not designed as three lanes to be restricted to commercial traffic, but were created with a three-lane cross section, similar to the inner roadways, to afford the flexibility to route traffic around points of congestion. This dual-dual design also permitted the balancing of traffic during accidents or the complete closure of one roadway for maintenance activities or incidents while maintaining traffic flow on the parallel roadway, thus enhancing safety for workers.
Why wouldn't it be? The whole 33/133 reconfiguration was the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 8 reconfiguration project, including signage.I am not saying that its not possible, but I have seen one project by one and signs on the adjacent road put up by the other road's agency. In Florida the original US 17, 92, & 441 and FL 417 interchange built with FL 417 had the signs on the US routes for the ramp installed by FDOT who maintains the triplex. Only the shields were put up by the OOCEA at the time, but FDOT took it one step further and added their own in addition.
To my knowledge, the structures and panels on the State roadways were designed to DOT standards, but installed by the Turnpike's contractor for the entire interchange reconfiguration project.Why wouldn't it be? The whole 33/133 reconfiguration was the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 8 reconfiguration project, including signage.I am not saying that its not possible, but I have seen one project by one and signs on the adjacent road put up by the other road's agency. In Florida the original US 17, 92, & 441 and FL 417 interchange built with FL 417 had the signs on the US routes for the ramp installed by FDOT who maintains the triplex. Only the shields were put up by the OOCEA at the time, but FDOT took it one step further and added their own in addition.
NJDOT maybe thought it would wise to do so as I have seen many GSP and NJT entrance ramp signs substandard because the NJTA and the now defunct NJHA that originally ran the Parkway would only install the gore ramp signs at the entrances to their roads. The NJTA, other than statewide shields, does not really like to install signs on off turnpike roadways.
Anything is possible. However, those sign bridges are the plain metal and not the rust kind, so I would have to assume NJDOT put them up.
It looks like at the interchange for the Turnpike on I-195, I-95 is indeed signed with the Turnpike (http://goo.gl/maps/bdGi7). As is here (http://goo.gl/maps/jSUQ7) on NJ 33 approaching the interchange with NJ 133. Here (http://goo.gl/maps/ijhqk) though, I-95 is NOT signed (and I'm perfectly fine with leaving that wonderful Turnpike sign up). I'm fairly certain once the interchange in Bristol is built, we should start to see I-95 trailblazer assemblies pop up at this interchange.Based on the above-information, I've since modified my previous post. However, it's worth noting that the I-95/NJTP BGS along NJ 33 approaching NJ 133 are a fairly recent installation.
There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension. A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.
While such is true for those heading to NJ; do keep in mind that for one heading into PA is more likely than not going to whacked with DRPA's $5 bridge toll (EZ-Pass discounts only apply for those who use those bridges at least 20(?) times per month).There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension. A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.Might that be because traffic going that way has to cross the (expensive) Delaware River—Turnpike Toll Bridge?
There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension. A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.
Might that be because traffic going that way has to cross the (expensive) Delaware River—Turnpike Toll Bridge?
There's no separate toll for that bridge. After you pay to leave the one states's turnpike, you cross the bridge and enter the next state's turnpike.Although this is directed towards the PA side of the Delaware; IMHO, whoever decided to not integrate the eastern toll plaza of the PA Turnpike mainline w/the Delaware Valley toll plaza (Exit 358) should've been put to the wall and shot. It's absolutely ludicrous that one entering PA and exiting off at US 13 has to go through two plazas in just 0.27 miles.
If you tried to calculate the cost of the bridge crossing by removing it from the cost you pay on the turnpike, it would be about a $2 toll.
There's no separate toll for that bridge. After you pay to leave the one states's turnpike, you cross the bridge and enter the next state's turnpike.Although this is directed towards the PA side of the Delaware; IMHO, whoever decided to not integrate the eastern toll plaza of the PA Turnpike mainline w/the Delaware Valley toll plaza (Exit 358) should've been put to the wall and shot. It's absolutely ludicrous that one entering PA and exiting off at US 13 has to go through two plazas in just 0.27 miles.
If you tried to calculate the cost of the bridge crossing by removing it from the cost you pay on the turnpike, it would be about a $2 toll.
Westbound traffic exiting (and entering eastbound) at 6A pay the full toll rate for Exit 6. Traffic entering 6A going to PA pays a toll, but returning they pay nothing.Yes but why is there a toll on the ramp from US 130 to WB Turnpike extension (toward bridge) here?
The US 130 situation can be a bit unfair, but oh well. They can drive a few miles to pick up the NJ Turnpike at Exit 7 if they want to save a few bucks.I looked over the toll rate chart here:
The locals can always use the nearby Burlington-Bristol Bridge as an alternate crossing. The PA-bound toll for that bridge is only $2.The US 130 situation can be a bit unfair, but oh well. They can drive a few miles to pick up the NJ Turnpike at Exit 7 if they want to save a few bucks.I looked over the toll rate chart here:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/c1sched-2012.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/c1sched-2012.pdf)
If I'm reading this right, the toll booths I'm referring to (entry at 130 toward bridge) are "6A" and the toll from '6A to 6A' is 3 bucks. Meanwhile if I got on at 7 I can get to the bridge for only $1.65. So the Turnpike Authority is charging a big premium to people along the 130 corridor in that area just to drive that mile of turnpike. Now I understand what you meant by the above.
I realize they got a shiny new interchange, but they originally had access to and from the bridge before, although with a slightly more circuitous route from 130. Looking at an older aerial showing the original barrier tolls closer to the bridge, I can see that the earlier entrance WB from 130 also went through the toll plaza, and if I recall it was separated from the mainline lanes which were on the ticket system, so that someone entering from Florence only paid the cash toll. Were they socked with the premium rate in those days?
The locals can always use the nearby Burlington-Bristol Bridge as an alternate crossing. The PA-bound toll for that bridge is only $2.I like the Burlington-Bristol and use it occasionally. Save some money and get that element of danger excitement - Am I getting in a head-on collision today?
I also noticed on the Turnpike's website there is a discount available for Florence and Roebling residents for exit 6...unclear if it's for 6 going EB to the turnpike mainline only or also for 6A to offset some of the fleecing at that booth.Chances are, it's likely the latter.
What is covered up on this sign? I-95 shield?...but wouldn't the direction be showingIf you look closely at the photo, there's actually two green covers: one for the I-95 shield, the other for the SOUTH (and maybe a TO) cardinal.
or a US-130 shield?
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_z.jpg)
The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago. The new toll plaza opened around January 26 2014.
Not to worry, Zeffy. There are other things you can now do on your 21st birthday.
Study results of N.J. Turnpike widening project through East Windsor to be presented (http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/10/study_results_of_new_jersey_turnpike_widening_project_through_east_windsor_to_be_presented_later_thi.html)
The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago. The new toll plaza opened around January 262014.
Clearly this year has gone by WAY too fast. And clearly I need to be more careful about posting after driving for seven hours.The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago. The new toll plaza opened around January 26The new interchange opened in 2013.2014.
What is covered up on this sign? I-95 shield?...but wouldn't the direction be showingProbably covering South I-95 (and maybe To US-130); lousy re-making of the classic NJTP arrow, by the by...
or a US-130 shield?
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_z.jpg)
There is no 'To US 130' coverup. It's just South 95.
There is no 'To US 130' coverup. It's just South 95.
Correct. They've put up some secondary signage indicating that you can reach 130 from Exit 6. There is a coverup for 95 and a second coverup that says Philadelphia.
What's wrong with it?
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' (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3c.html)
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/FA2x4kc.png)
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' (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3c.html)
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...
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' (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3c.html)
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.
Not everybody/roadgeek looks at Google maps on a frequent basis. I thought you were pointing out an interchange geometry/layout issue/error.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...
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.
....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.
....
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.
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.
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.
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:
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJTpkFutureInterchange_2_zpsec2314f0.png)
This is what a toll-road interchange should look like on the New Jersey Turnpike:This one is shit too.
(http://i.imgur.com/Sw5WLhb.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/HOSVMSl.png)Here the jughandle is incorrectly marked as toll. "This route has tolls" (http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Cranbury+South+River+Rd&daddr=Thatcher+Rd&hl=en&sll=40.345301,-74.478593&sspn=0.023386,0.049567&geocode=FfeTZwIdQHmP-w%3BFeyxZwIdPH6P-w&mra=me&mrsp=1,0&sz=15&t=m&z=15) my ass.
Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?
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.Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?
:banghead: I'm too pre-occupied trying to warm up my hands which are for some reason frigid as fucking hell right now...
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJTpkFutureInterchange_1_zpsf046a3e7.png)
As for the second sign - I forgot Bordentown is signed on Exit 7.
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' (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3c.html) 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.
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.
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).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:
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJTpkFutureInterchange_2_zpsec2314f0.png)
Did you not see my post two posts up from yours? :-) It already exists.
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:
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJTpkFutureInterchange_1_zpsbe8a9fdb.png)
...with a supplemental sign directing towards US 130:
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJTpkFutureInterchange_2_zpsec2314f0.png)
Yes, I know the Turnpike is switching to the MUTCD-mandated signs. I don't care. This is how I want it to look.
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.Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?
:banghead: I'm too pre-occupied trying to warm up my hands which are for some reason frigid as fucking hell right now...
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJTpkFutureInterchange_1_zpsf046a3e7.png)
As for the second sign - I forgot Bordentown is signed on Exit 7.
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.
So will there be any new I-95 shields on the newly widened section (NB at least)? Or will it be more years before that happens?
I don't know how many I-95 shields that aren't mounted on overhead signs exist on the Turnpike - I remember seeing one at the exit 10 toll plaza about half of year ago. Along the route I don't think I see any reassurance shields.Never noticed them before...and here they are:
Never noticed them before...and here they are:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.524404,-74.339445&spn=0.000004,0.002736&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.524348,-74.340049&panoid=mr_6vWNPBUwhdjyNYE19JQ&cbp=12,279.19,,0,1.48 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.524404,-74.339445&spn=0.000004,0.002736&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.524348,-74.340049&panoid=mr_6vWNPBUwhdjyNYE19JQ&cbp=12,279.19,,0,1.48)
It's hard to view because of the rain and wet roads, but the lines are painted on the NB turnpike to the extent they could be painted without interfering with traffic. Here is where the 3 lanes merge right to the outer roadway at the diverge point: You can barely see the yellow left shoulder line and the left skip line has been painted. At some point in the next few days, the current line stripping will need to be removed and restriped to properly designate the movements for 3 lanes becoming 6 lanes.Good progress, I believe, towards opening up the newly widened stretch in full by Thanksgiving; almost 2 weeks or so after the extended I-49 is completed and opened from Dodderige to LA 1 (late Autumn seems to be the time frame of choice for openings: I-69 SIU 3 and Missouri I-49 last November/December)...
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/4551A167-FEC3-4310-9EED-2216D9D1486F.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/4551A167-FEC3-4310-9EED-2216D9D1486F.jpg.html)
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/2BB97AC9-81C7-4F0F-A01A-50A9C83BDB18.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/2BB97AC9-81C7-4F0F-A01A-50A9C83BDB18.jpg.html)
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.
HEADS UP !!!!! AND I MEAN HEADS UP !!!! The N.J. Turnpike widening construction is "FINALLY DONE" !!!! NEW Traffic patterns are now in place between Exits 6 and 9 !!! The new dual lanes are now open between EXIT 6 (Pa. Turnpike-Florence) and EXIT 9 (Rt. 18 - U.S. 1 New Brunswick) NORTHBOUND OPENED TODAY !!!! Southbound next week. Anyone with CLEAR pictures of the NEW NORTHBOUND traffic patterns on the N.J. Turnpike; "BRING 'EM" !!!! New exit signs and all !!!!
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.
Now NORTHBOUND : NJTP NORTH (Newark - New York) from Del. Mem Bridge to Exit 5
95/NJTP NORTH (Newark - New York) from Exit 6 to Newark Airport (EXIT 14)
95/NJTP NORTH (Eastern Spur) Lincoln Tunnel - New York
(Western Spur) Fort Lee - G. Washington Br. - New York
Or, we can just use New York. They're control cities, not "let's sign every medium sized city in the stat cities.
Or, we can just use New York. They're control cities, not "let's sign every medium sized city in the stat cities.
I would like to at least think the state capital as well as the state's largest city should be signed. On the flip side, if you're heading south, what do you sign? Wilmington?
What is the next project going to be for the Turnpike? Three lanes south of Exit 4?
Trust me, if you have a complaint about it, it's on the Authority's radar. In terms of what's coming up next, though, after a huge project like the Widening there's a lot of bridge rehab to be done. The priority is to keep every roadway open and safe! As the tolls continue to come in and the revenue builds back up, projects like the ones you mention will pop back onto the radar.What is the next project going to be for the Turnpike? Three lanes south of Exit 4?
I hope to god at a minimum it is the widening of the Western Spur north of 16W. Giving the southbound Western Spur essentially a new bridge to accomodate a climbing lane for trucks entering from 15 W would be awesome too. So i guess what i'm saying is blow up the Western Spur and start all over except between 15 W and 16W. F that south of Interchange 4 garbage.
Projects south of Exit 7A should be given priority!Based on knowledge of structural conditions and traffic volumes, I question this.
Projects south of Exit 7A should be given priority!
First off, the PA Turnpike is kinda screwing up the master plan for the area. By this time the 95/PA Tpk ramps should've been open. Since that'll take another centuryfew yearsto complete, keep that in mind as to the need of other projects in the South Jersey area.
Of course, the big improvement everyone has asked for is a connection with 42 just south of Interchange 3. I'm not sure where the resistance has been from most: NJDOT, NJ Turnpike, or both. It probably needs to become a priority with some of the South Jersey politicians in order to get such a project moving. I would like to think that making this an AET interchange would help with the land issues in the area too, as much of the interchange can thus be built on bridges and overpasses without the need for a toll plaza.
Another project I would like to see, and it could be done in connection with the above, is a direct link between the Turnpike with 295...but not where most people have suggested it. Because of the ever-building traffic volumes on 295 especially between 42 & 73, slip ramps between the two highways could be built in the area between 73 & 38, which would be a few miles north of the Exit 4 ramp. My idea would be just simple North to North ramps, and South to South ramps; no "U-turn" ramps where traffic on one road would switch directions onto the other road. This would allow traffic on either road to bypass congestion (especially 295 congestion) or to make it easy to continue further north or south, depending on their ultimate destination. Again, EZ Pass only.
Regarding a connexion between the Turnpike and Route 42, I always envisioned that Exit 3 would be utilised and then connecting ramps would be built over the Turnpike. This would eliminate (some of) the wetlands issues that would exist.
Another potential project would be a tolled connecting road between Exit 2 and the COMO Barry Bridge. It would pick-up paying shore traffic from US 322 and would complete a "belt way" around Philadelphia. (PA Tpk - Blue Route - I-95 - COMO Barry Bridge - new connecting road - NJ Tpk)
Or, we can just use New York. They're control cities, not "let's sign every medium sized city in the stat cities.
I would like to at least think the state capital as well as the state's largest city should be signed. On the flip side, if you're heading south, what do you sign? Wilmington?
While it would be nice to see an interchange with 42 and the Turnpike built, I thought one of the chief problems was the wetlands located where the ramps would need to be built? Plus, the Turnpike hasn't used AET yet (at least not to my knowledge), so I doubt they would start now.I think it's just a multitude of issues in that area: Environment, funding, who wants to take on the lead role, the fight between roads vs mass transit, the confluence of 3 high-use interchanges in the area (295, 55, Creek Rd), closeness with Interchange 3, etc.
Then of course you have the issue of exit numbering, and since the Turnpike Authority signs include the exit number on the main signs themselves, you would have to greenout each of them (or label it 2X, like I proposed before with a rather shitty rendition of what it could look like).
For the interchange with 295, I thought the FHWA didn't like partial interchanges anymore. Though maybe you could reconfigure Exit 40 on I-295 in a way that provides access to and from the Turnpike - of course that is probably unlikely because there is a shopping mall right next to this interchange.
Another potential project would be a tolled connecting road between Exit 2 and the COMO Barry Bridge. It would pick-up paying shore traffic from US 322 and would complete a "belt way" around Philadelphia. (PA Tpk - Blue Route - I-95 - COMO Barry Bridge - new connecting road - NJ Tpk)
A control cities discussion:Given that many of the Turnpike's northern connections link directly to Manhattan; I would not use New York as a northbound destination beyond Exit 13.
For NJTP north, New York should be the control city all the way to the GWB. Other cities can be added in as secondary cities. E.g. Camden/New York or Trenton/New York or even Newark/New York.
For NJTP south, Trenton/Philadelphia should be the control city all the way to I-195. Then, the control city should be Philadelphia / Baltimore to the PA Turnpike Ext. South of that point, the control city should be Del Mem Bridge / Baltimore.
I always thought that the BGS at the beginning of the I-80, where the Turnpike exits the Bergen-Passaic Expressway, should symbolically have San Francisco as the destination. This would give motorists a greater appreciation of the Interstate highway system.
Sent from the eastern sector of Cherry Hill.
I always thought that the BGS at the beginning of the I-80, where the Turnpike exits the Bergen-Passaic Expressway, should symbolically have San Francisco as the destination. This would give motorists a greater appreciation of the Interstate highway system.Similar to this sign at the beginning of US-50 in Ocean City, MD for Sacramento, which I encountered not that long ago - giving us a greater appreciation for the US Highway system as well...
I always thought that the BGS at the beginning of the I-80, where the Turnpike exits the Bergen-Passaic Expressway, should symbolically have San Francisco as the destination. This would give motorists a greater appreciation of the Interstate highway system.Similar to this sign at the beginning of US-50 in Ocean City, MD for Sacramento, which I encountered not that long ago - giving us a greater appreciation for the US Highway system as well...
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.331692,-75.086794&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.331728,-75.088035&panoid=rab9ie8UYSN0HRMWDDqgkA&cbp=12,270.17,,0,2.14 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=38.331692,-75.086794&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.331728,-75.088035&panoid=rab9ie8UYSN0HRMWDDqgkA&cbp=12,270.17,,0,2.14)
I always thought that the BGS at the beginning of the I-80, where the Turnpike exits the Bergen-Passaic Expressway, should symbolically have San Francisco as the destination. This would give motorists a greater appreciation of the Interstate highway system.
Sent from the eastern sector of Cherry Hill.
I think a ground mounted sign with the milage to SF would be more appropriate. California actually does that with a number of their highways, it would be nice if NJ would do it as well.
Plans have been posted on the NJTA website describing a set of improvements to Exit 14A on the Turnpike (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/20130822_Overall_Graphic.pdf).Holy clusterfuck. One thing that disappears: local access between 53rd Street and Port Jersey. Eastbound this is replaced by Centre Street, but there's nothing westbound without going up 440 to Avenue C.
Plans have been posted on the NJTA website describing a set of improvements to Exit 14A on the Turnpike (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/20130822_Overall_Graphic.pdf).Holy clusterfuck. One thing that disappears: local access between 53rd Street and Port Jersey. Eastbound this is replaced by Centre Street, but there's nothing westbound without going up 440 to Avenue C.
One of the studies included alternatives analysis (approximately 10 or so) which included some cool concepts - one or two even included relocating Exit 14A into Jersey City right next to 14B. Not sure if this is still out there...http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/EO%20215%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement,%20November%202011.pdf Appendix D.
Besides the fact that there's low demand for that (and can be filled by the next connection to the south for more popular movements), yeah, those of us who were involved with, reviewed, bid on, etc. the design in earlier phases either saw or proposed some designs that would have fixed that. Not to say that there weren't other issues with those designs, though.Plans have been posted on the NJTA website describing a set of improvements to Exit 14A on the Turnpike (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/20130822_Overall_Graphic.pdf).Holy clusterfuck. One thing that disappears: local access between 53rd Street and Port Jersey. Eastbound this is replaced by Centre Street, but there's nothing westbound without going up 440 to Avenue C.
Re: Your new "Signature" of Fla. Gov. "Prick" Scott...Plans have been posted on the NJTA website describing a set of improvements to Exit 14A on the Turnpike (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/20130822_Overall_Graphic.pdf).Holy clusterfuck. One thing that disappears: local access between 53rd Street and Port Jersey. Eastbound this is replaced by Centre Street, but there's nothing westbound without going up 440 to Avenue C.
I heard about this delay on KYW even at 2:30. Why were the outer lanes closed for costruction? They were just opened a few months ago.
I heard about this delay on KYW even at 2:30. Why were the outer lanes closed for costruction? They were just opened a few months ago.
Is buckling pavement possible even when the temp is in the upper 40s? Randy Chappigan on KY' was saying at 5:43 last night that it was emergency construction on the new truck lanes.
ixnay
That's what happens when you construct a permanent roadway for a temporary traffic pattern. NYSDOT usually uses cheap pavement and orange wooden construction signage that's easy to remove.
That's what happens when you construct a permanent roadway for a temporary traffic pattern. NYSDOT usually uses cheap pavement and orange wooden construction signage that's easy to remove.
How often has New York expanded a 2 roadway, 6 lane highway to a 4 roadway, 12 lane highway? And of those highways, how many have an ADT of over 100,000 vehicles?
Did you say none? OK then. Come back to us when you have a more relevant example. I'm sure a few days of traffic congestion is worth the price to pay for 5 years of road construction which barely impeded normal travel.
It would be one thing if the inner lanes were express lanes. But they aren't.Sure they are. The outer lanes are also express lanes. The Turnpike has few enough interchanges that it has no need for local lanes.
Actually the big question is why does not any other state follow New Jersey's lead.That's what happens when you construct a permanent roadway for a temporary traffic pattern. NYSDOT usually uses cheap pavement and orange wooden construction signage that's easy to remove.
How often has New York expanded a 2 roadway, 6 lane highway to a 4 roadway, 12 lane highway? And of those highways, how many have an ADT of over 100,000 vehicles?
Did you say none? OK then. Come back to us when you have a more relevant example. I'm sure a few days of traffic congestion is worth the price to pay for 5 years of road construction which barely impeded normal travel.
That's a bit harsh. The question is why you'd need to expand so much so quickly. No other road in the world has the same exact setup, but you're forgetting about the LIE and Northern State Parkway/Grand Central Parkway, which effectively function the same way with a combined AADT of well over 300,000 at parts.
Again, New York (and most other places in North America) uses other methods to increase capacity that are lower in cost. The New Jersey Turnpike method does little more than separate cars and trucks, in effect creating two lanes out of six that are for slow drivers instead of one and trapping people if an accident occurs. Yeah, one roadway will move freely, but the impacted one will come to a standstill if 2 lanes are closed. Funneling 3 lanes into 1 does more damage than having all 6 lanes merge into two. That's just traffic flow theory. And what if something happens on the truck lanes? They can't even get around a mess.
It would be one thing if the inner lanes were express lanes. But they aren't. New York has several highways with an AADT of well over 100,000 and there are quite a few upstate. The NJTA might have their reasons for doing things, but there's a reason why the rest of the world doesn't use separate truck-car carriageways (or jughandles, if we include NJDOT).
Actually the big question is why does not any other state follow New Jersey's lead.A few reasons I can think of:
Southbound Turnpike Lanes are now open for business on the Turnpike between Exits 6 and 9! (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/new_southbound_lanes_turnpike_lanes_opened_monday.html#incart_river)As of last night (Nov. 9) there's still only two lanes open along the outer southbound roadway between Exit 9 and the Molly Pitcher Service Plaza. The additional lane has not yet been striped as such; it still looks like a very large breakdown lane/shoulder.
How far south of Exit 6 does the Turnpike reduce back to a conventional 6-laner? There's no signs indicating such for the through-southbound Turnpike traffic at the interchange itself. Typically, I never use the Turnpike south of Exit 6.
Make me wonder if this house (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4412798,-74.4285692,178m/data=!3m1!1e3) (made famous by Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpke - they even had a yard before the truck lanes were built; now they're just four feet from the sound wall) has anything to do with that.Southbound Turnpike Lanes are now open for business on the Turnpike between Exits 6 and 9! (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/new_southbound_lanes_turnpike_lanes_opened_monday.html#incart_river)As of last night (Nov. 9) there's still only two lanes open along the outer southbound roadway between Exit 9 and the Molly Pitcher Service Plaza. The additional lane has not yet been striped as such; it still looks like a very large breakdown lane/shoulder.
I was taken back a bit when I still saw the RIGHT LANE ENDS 1200 FT. BYS along the road. I originally thought the sign was left erected/not covered up by mistake.
I'm hoping that the outer southbound roadway between Exit 9 and Molly Pitcher will be restriped to 3 full lanes soon. I'll be using it again on Nov. 30.
Make me wonder if this house (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4412798,-74.4285692,178m/data=!3m1!1e3) (made famous by Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpke - they even had a yard before the truck lanes were built; now they're just four feet from the sound wall) has anything to do with that.Unless you were joking when you made that post, I don't think so for several reasons:
I had been assuming they would stripe for 3 lanes this past weekend. They certainly want/need it done by Thanksgiving, so that means sometime within the next week most likely, weather dependent.Southbound Turnpike Lanes are now open for business on the Turnpike between Exits 6 and 9! (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/new_southbound_lanes_turnpike_lanes_opened_monday.html#incart_river)As of last night (Nov. 9) there's still only two lanes open along the outer southbound roadway between Exit 9 and the Molly Pitcher Service Plaza. The additional lane has not yet been striped as such; it still looks like a very large breakdown lane/shoulder.
I was taken back a bit when I still saw the RIGHT LANE ENDS 1200 FT. BYS along the road. I originally thought the sign was left erected/not covered up by mistake.
I'm hoping that the outer southbound roadway between Exit 9 and Molly Pitcher will be restriped to 3 full lanes soon. I'll be using it again on Nov. 30.
How far south of Exit 6 does the Turnpike reduce back to a conventional 6-laner? There's no signs indicating such for the through-southbound Turnpike traffic at the interchange itself. Typically, I never use the Turnpike south of Exit 6.
Actually the big question is why does not any other state follow New Jersey's lead.That's what happens when you construct a permanent roadway for a temporary traffic pattern. NYSDOT usually uses cheap pavement and orange wooden construction signage that's easy to remove.
How often has New York expanded a 2 roadway, 6 lane highway to a 4 roadway, 12 lane highway? And of those highways, how many have an ADT of over 100,000 vehicles?
Did you say none? OK then. Come back to us when you have a more relevant example. I'm sure a few days of traffic congestion is worth the price to pay for 5 years of road construction which barely impeded normal travel.
That's a bit harsh. The question is why you'd need to expand so much so quickly. No other road in the world has the same exact setup, but you're forgetting about the LIE and Northern State Parkway/Grand Central Parkway, which effectively function the same way with a combined AADT of well over 300,000 at parts.
Again, New York (and most other places in North America) uses other methods to increase capacity that are lower in cost. The New Jersey Turnpike method does little more than separate cars and trucks, in effect creating two lanes out of six that are for slow drivers instead of one and trapping people if an accident occurs. Yeah, one roadway will move freely, but the impacted one will come to a standstill if 2 lanes are closed. Funneling 3 lanes into 1 does more damage than having all 6 lanes merge into two. That's just traffic flow theory. And what if something happens on the truck lanes? They can't even get around a mess.
It would be one thing if the inner lanes were express lanes. But they aren't. New York has several highways with an AADT of well over 100,000 and there are quite a few upstate. The NJTA might have their reasons for doing things, but there's a reason why the rest of the world doesn't use separate truck-car carriageways (or jughandles, if we include NJDOT).
All right the dual carriageway configuration is a problem when one roadway is shut down or narrowed down completely due to an accident, but all it really needs is some crossovers at certain intervals to allow traffic to go between the two roadways. Sort of like the GSP has in Holmdel between the two roadways of the Parkway.
Now with the dual configuration going for quite some distance it keeps you on the one roadway for several miles as you have to go from Exit 6 to Exit 14, so if an accident happens right after the split in Mansfield where its just less than a mile after the split you have all 6 lanes of traffic on the one 3 lane roadway for more than 50 miles. Most of that stretch is done post accident as well. If you had crossovers at regular intervals the cars and trucks/ busses can split again and you have your regular flow.
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Make me wonder if this house (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4412798,-74.4285692,178m/data=!3m1!1e3) (made famous by Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpke - they even had a yard before the truck lanes were built; now they're just four feet from the sound wall) has anything to do with that.Unless you were joking when you made that post, I don't think so for several reasons:
1. The fore-mentioned 2-lane stretch runs for miles (essentially the length of the earlier 1985-90 alteration that extended the dual-carriageways down to Molly Pitcher in the first place).
2. There are already newly erected permanent signs along that strech prohibiting trucks & busses from using the left lane. Such signs aren't erected when there's only two lanes of travel.
3. The addtional paving work is already done. The location of the associated sound walls were likely located in a manner that would accomodate the extra lanes when such was originally erected during the fore-mentioned 1985-90 alteration.
My guess is that the NJTA wanted to finish off the area where the dual carriage lanes previously merged first prior to opening up & striping that additional southbound lane.
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Make me wonder if this house (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4412798,-74.4285692,178m/data=!3m1!1e3) (made famous by Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpke - they even had a yard before the truck lanes were built; now they're just four feet from the sound wall) has anything to do with that.Unless you were joking when you made that post, I don't think so for several reasons:
1. The fore-mentioned 2-lane stretch runs for miles (essentially the length of the earlier 1985-90 alteration that extended the dual-carriageways down to Molly Pitcher in the first place).
2. There are already newly erected permanent signs along that strech prohibiting trucks & busses from using the left lane. Such signs aren't erected when there's only two lanes of travel.
3. The addtional paving work is already done. The location of the associated sound walls were likely located in a manner that would accomodate the extra lanes when such was originally erected during the fore-mentioned 1985-90 alteration.
My guess is that the NJTA wanted to finish off the area where the dual carriage lanes previously merged first prior to opening up & striping that additional southbound lane.
GSV to see if they really are adopting MUTCD-standard signage(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)
GSV to see if they really are adopting MUTCD-standard signage(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Valerie, during the previous 1985-90 widening contract, the right-of-way to accomodate those additional 3 southbound lanes (plus the shoulder) was more than likely already established. It was just only paved for 2 lanes plus the shoulder until the current widening contract. Such was done in anticipation for a then-future widening and to avoid any additional (& more costly) land takings.
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Valerie, during the previous 1985-90 widening contract, the right-of-way to accomodate those additional 3 southbound lanes (plus the shoulder) was more than likely already established. It was just only paved for 2 lanes plus the shoulder until the current widening contract. Such was done in anticipation for a then-future widening and to avoid any additional (& more costly) land takings.
As I stated previously, the pavement widening for that additional lane has already taken place. It just needs to be restriped for such.
Long story short, the neighborhood's not be torn down.
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Looking at pre-construction era GSV of the area you previously posted more closely; to the best of my knowledge, there is/was enough room to widen the pavement without relocating the sound walls (which are usually erected along the right-of-way limits). The S. Main St. overpass was replaced with a wider structure since then and the short retaining wall and earth berm were, no doubt, either removed or moved closer to the sound wall.
GSV to see if they really are adopting MUTCD-standard signage(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Looking at pre-construction era GSV of the area you previously posted more closely; to the best of my knowledge, there is/was enough room to widen the pavement without relocating the sound walls (which are usually erected along the right-of-way limits). The S. Main St. overpass was replaced with a wider structure since then and the short retaining wall and earth berm were, no doubt, either removed or moved closer to the sound wall.
It should be noted that the shoulders of the outer roadway between Exits 6 and 9 is noticeably smaller than the shoulders north of Exit 9. Its likely that they settled for 10 foot paved outer shoulders as opposed to 12 foot.
To be honest, I've been waiting for Google Maps to update the satellite imagery and street view in the area because I had no clue how they'd be able to fit another lane in while maintaining the shoulder width without tearing the neighborhood down.Looking at pre-construction era GSV of the area you previously posted more closely; to the best of my knowledge, there is/was enough room to widen the pavement without relocating the sound walls (which are usually erected along the right-of-way limits). The S. Main St. overpass was replaced with a wider structure since then and the short retaining wall and earth berm were, no doubt, either removed or moved closer to the sound wall.
That former widening project between 8A & 9 was designed with 3 lanes in mind for the outer roadways, but they only went with 2 lanes because of expected traffic volumes (ha). The Turnpike has stated when they widened the Turnpike from Exit 6 to 8A, traffic volumes between 6 and 7A only necessitated 5 lanes total in each direction (2/3/3/2) as well, but due to their experiences with 2 lanes between 8A to 9, they incorporated 3 lanes from the start.
Early on in the current widening project, they quickly widened the Turnpike NB from 8A to 9 to 3 lanes because there was no reason to keep it at 2 lanes in this stretch (and the width of this area is just like the SB side). They didn't widen the SB side at the same time as it was already a pain going from 5 lanes to 3 below Exit 8A, and they didn't want to compound it by bringing 6 lanes down to 3 in this area.
It should be noted that the shoulders of the outer roadway between Exits 6 and 9 is noticeably smaller than the shoulders north of Exit 9. Its likely that they settled for 10 foot paved outer shoulders as opposed to 12 foot.
Which shoulder? The turnpike's standards are full 12 foot right shoulders and 10 foot left shoulders. There would be no reason why to do different on the 6 to 9 widening. I've driven in the new area and reviewed a bunch of pictures and I don't think the right shoulders are less than 12 feet.
It should be noted that the shoulders of the outer roadway between Exits 6 and 9 is noticeably smaller than the shoulders north of Exit 9. Its likely that they settled for 10 foot paved outer shoulders as opposed to 12 foot.
Which shoulder? The turnpike's standards are full 12 foot right shoulders and 10 foot left shoulders. There would be no reason why to do different on the 6 to 9 widening. I've driven in the new area and reviewed a bunch of pictures and I don't think the right shoulders are less than 12 feet.
There are some areas where the left shoulder of the outer roadway is a bit narrow (3 - 5 feet wide), but that occurs north of Exit 8A as well. In other areas, the left shoulder is a full width shoulder. Previously, the Turnpike Authority would only install the left shoulder rumble strip a short distance prior to the median u-turns. On the new section, the rumble strip appears to run the entire length.
As far as the right shoulder goes, there does appear to be some areas where the shoulder is less than 12' wide, but it never gets more narrow than about 10' or so. When dealt with limited room, the left shoulder would be the one narrowed first.
That former widening project between 8A & 9 was designed with 3 lanes in mind for the outer roadwaysThank you, I figured as such.
So, will the southbound outer lanes be increased to three from Exit 9 down to Exit 8A eventually?
It should be noted that the shoulders of the outer roadway between Exits 6 and 9 is noticeably smaller than the shoulders north of Exit 9. Its likely that they settled for 10 foot paved outer shoulders as opposed to 12 foot.
Which shoulder? The turnpike's standards are full 12 foot right shoulders and 10 foot left shoulders. There would be no reason why to do different on the 6 to 9 widening. I've driven in the new area and reviewed a bunch of pictures and I don't think the right shoulders are less than 12 feet.
There are some areas where the left shoulder of the outer roadway is a bit narrow (3 - 5 feet wide), but that occurs north of Exit 8A as well. In other areas, the left shoulder is a full width shoulder. Previously, the Turnpike Authority would only install the left shoulder rumble strip a short distance prior to the median u-turns. On the new section, the rumble strip appears to run the entire length.
As far as the right shoulder goes, there does appear to be some areas where the shoulder is less than 12' wide, but it never gets more narrow than about 10' or so. When dealt with limited room, the left shoulder would be the one narrowed first.
I'm aware of some very narrow left shoulders on old major structures (Passaic River, Hackensack River, Rancocas Creek bridges) but are there specific examples of where the right shoulder is small, especially in the 6 to 9 widening area? Not to be anal but this is, afterall, the agency that lowered the entire turnpike roadway (eastern route) under the Pualski Skyway about 10 years ago for millions of dollars just to add the right shoulders for the 20 feet or so they had been lacking.
Does NJTA ever plan to sign Morristown or Somerville on the Exit 10 guides being those are the control points at other entrances to I-287? They did add "Clinton" on Exit 14 after many years it was primary control point for I-78 at other places, NJTA took the plunge and made it completely uniform for all I-78 westbound ramp and pull through signs, or at least in the area as now Easton, PA is popping up in Somerset County especially on I-287.
Personally I like Metuchen, but in reality that could be moved to supplemental signs like for the Outerbridge Crossing and it be signed for either Somerville or Morristown and Perth Amboy.
So, will the southbound outer lanes be increased to three from Exit 9 down to Exit 8A eventually?Very soon. They have to get rid of the construction near 8A to fix the temporary merge. I'll say that unless you're a daily user, it will be 3 lanes the next time you travel.
Will the third lane be open by Thanksgiving?That is the next time most people travel it.
Does NJTA ever plan to sign Morristown or Somerville on the Exit 10 guides being those are the control points at other entrances to I-287? They did add "Clinton" on Exit 14 after many years it was primary control point for I-78 at other places, NJTA took the plunge and made it completely uniform for all I-78 westbound ramp and pull through signs, or at least in the area as now Easton, PA is popping up in Somerset County especially on I-287.
Personally I like Metuchen, but in reality that could be moved to supplemental signs like for the Outerbridge Crossing and it be signed for either Somerville or Morristown and Perth Amboy.
Then you forgot to mention the overhead exit signs as another feature most other roads do not do as well along with their style arrows on the overhead guides.
Understood. I was only supporting your point, that those signs are also part of the NJT's own little world as well.Then you forgot to mention the overhead exit signs as another feature most other roads do not do as well along with their style arrows on the overhead guides.
I was including all aspects or guide signage under "unique signage". My main point was about the Turnpike being it's own little world, that was more of an attitude they showed, which was reflected in all of the oddities, including signage.
On a semi-related note, I have often thought that the NJ Turnpike shouldn't necessarily post the same destinations northbound and southbound as they [mostly] do. For example, why post Camden as a destination for Exit 4 heading northbound when Exit 3 is much more convenient for Camden, especially since Route 73 doesn't even come particularly close to entering Camden? (I'd go for Tacony Bridge instead like on 295) To a lesser extent, I also don't really see why Exit 10 heading south is signed for Perth Amboy when one can get off at Exit 11 for direct access to Pond Rd. (or a short distance to Route 440) into Perth Amboy. I remember in the old days (i.e., the glory days of my youth in the early to mid '90s) that the 1 mile advance sign for Exit 9 heading south was non-reflective and button copy that read "New Brunswick / Shore Resorts" (with the latter now on a separate supplemental advance sign along with Rutgers) rather than the usual "East Brunswick," although the "New / East" sign is there nowadays; it makes sense that they signed the Shore southbound only.
So, yeah, for the Exit 9-11 series, I would sign it as follows. Similar to roadman65, I am personally not averse to three-destination signage either.
Northbound
Exit 9: New Brunswick / East Brunswick / Somerville (once the Route 18 freeway is completed all the way to 287, at least)
Exit 10: Edison / Perth Amboy
Exit 11: Woodbridge / Paterson (with something about the NYS Thruway/Upstate NY on a supplemental guide sign)
Southbound
Exit 11: Woodbridge / Perth Amboy / Shore Points
Exit 10: Edison / Somerville
Exit 9: New Brunswick / East Brunswick
Oh yes it is disappearing. It is another piece of history going just like the Garden State Parkway abandoning the Number Only exit tabs for the new and current MUTCD tabs, as well as the removal of other things that gave the Parkway an identity of its own.I remember on the NY Thruway (before they went MUTCD) the "Pa Line 70 Miles" sign at Exit 53 (the 90-190 split), the blue mile markers with just the number, the long horizontal arrows on exit signs (Exit 57 --------->); you weren't alone in Jersey, but You were the original. Google the name "Michael Surma" (not me - disclosure) - his archive of vintage highway signs is one of the most comprehensive, him and Steve Alps...
Anyway, sad, but at the same time some needed to be up to date anyway. Like adding NJ 495 to the Exit 16E guide which is long overdue. However, the Turnpike still could have incorporated these things in their own way.
I am sad and happy at the same time for all of this as the pros and the cons are equal for me. I do miss the original 10 miles on the tenth mileage signs for New York going NB and for Trenton, Camden, and the Delaware Memorial Bridge going SB as that was a unique feature that other roads did not do. Then you forgot to mention the overhead exit signs as another feature most other roads do not do as well along with their style arrows on the overhead guides.
I remember on the NY Thruway (before they went MUTCD) the "Pa Line 70 Miles" sign at Exit 53 (the 90-190 split), the blue mile markers with just the number, the long horizontal arrows on exit signs (Exit 57 --------->); you weren't alone in Jersey, but You were the original. Google the name "Michael Surma" (not me - disclosure) - his archive of vintage highway signs is one of the most comprehensive, him and Steve Alps...
Speaking of exit signing. Are they ever going to remove the US 1 shields on the overheads post Exit 11 toll booths? NJDOT took down the follow up trailbazing several decades ago along NJ 184 EB at NB US 9, as you must use US 9 to get to US 1 from here. Plus the service road signing at the NJ 184 EB exit has the NORTH header for US 9 halfway over US 1 which gives it the illusion to motorists that its northbound US 1 & 9 and not US 9 to US 1 as it should be.
I do not know how US 1 got to be on those signs as well as the original 3/4 mile guide southbound for Exit 11 that used to say "US 1 US 9- Woodbridge- The Amboys" which is why those signs still remain as they are left over from those days. Why NJDOT removed the TO US 1 shield on NJ 184 and why the US 1 shield on the Service Road is under a confusing misaligned header, I have no idea, but the fact remains you are sending motorists to a US route via a complex tangled interchange with no follow up signs at all!
One of the studies included alternatives analysis (approximately 10 or so) which included some cool concepts - one or two even included relocating Exit 14A into Jersey City right next to 14B. Not sure if this is still out there...http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/EO%20215%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement,%20November%202011.pdf Appendix D.
This may be the first fatal in the newly widened section of the Turnpike since it fully opened.
http://6abc.com/news/1-dead-in-fiery-tractor-trailer-crash-on-nj-turnpike/401571/
(Side note, which is how I found out about this story: a VMS on I-295 near Exit 22, about an hour south of the accident, mentioned the turnpike was closed at Exit 8; Seek Alt Routes)
I'll find out a lot more tomorrow. Hoping that this is unrelated to the widening and just the sort of thing that unfortunately happens. Was one of the trucks following too closely? Drifted out of his lane/fell asleep? Ice patch on the roadway? (It hasn't rained in a few days, so that shouldn't happen.)
This may be the first fatal in the newly widened section of the Turnpike since it fully opened.
http://6abc.com/news/1-dead-in-fiery-tractor-trailer-crash-on-nj-turnpike/401571/
(Side note, which is how I found out about this story: a VMS on I-295 near Exit 22, about an hour south of the accident, mentioned the turnpike was closed at Exit 8; Seek Alt Routes)
What a difference a few extra lanes make.
The 35-mile stretch of the New Jersey Turnpike from Mansfield in Burlington County to East Brunswick in Middlesex County was dreaded by motorists, who were regularly held up in annoying traffic jams.
But now - a few weeks after the completion of a $2.3 billion widening project - many are singing the turnpike's praises, even as the major artery faces its first big test: the Thanksgiving weekend, with the year's heaviest volume.
The usual stop-and-crawl delays of a half-hour to nearly an hour - especially on the Wednesdays before the holiday - should be history, officials said. No more backups of 11 miles northbound and nine miles southbound - the standard for travel on the day before Thanksgiving.
"We expect people who use Route 1 and I-295 and other local roads may find the turnpike a more palatable alternative, because the traffic is flowing more freely," said Tom Feeney, a New Jersey Turnpike Authority spokesman. "You used to see people sitting in traffic, and now you're not."
Philly.com: What a relief extra lanes on the N.J. Turnpike are (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20141126_Snow_and_rain_may_stymie_traffic__but_not_any_NJ_turnpike_bottleneck.html)QuoteThe usual stop-and-crawl delays of a half-hour to nearly an hour - especially on the Wednesdays before the holiday - should be history, officials said. No more backups of 11 miles northbound and nine miles southbound - the standard for travel on the day before Thanksgiving.
"Now it's totally different, like night and day," he said. "At least you can do the speed limit."
That's what New Jersey state police will be checking.
"We'll see how it goes over the holidays," said Capt. Eric Heitmann, trooper commander for the turnpike and Garden State Parkway. "We've added some additional patrols in the last few weeks.
"We haven't noticed any added speed. The traffic is moving, but we haven't seen the racetrack element."
As of noontime, the www.511nj.org is showing 'green' (clear sailing) in the Exit 6 - 9 vicinity of the Turnpike. However, Between Interchange 6 & 1 Southbound, a normal 50 minute or so drive is taking 1 hour, 45 minutes, with most of that delay occurring between Interchange 3 & 1.
As of noontime, the www.511nj.org is showing 'green' (clear sailing) in the Exit 6 - 9 vicinity of the Turnpike. However, Between Interchange 6 & 1 Southbound, a normal 50 minute or so drive is taking 1 hour, 45 minutes, with most of that delay occurring between Interchange 3 & 1.
Wish the Turnpike Authority would widen the southbound side of the Turnpike south of Interchange 2 and put in a barrier-separated E-ZPass Only lane at least as far back as the Clara Barton service plaza.
The NYSTA has done something similar on the southbound Thruway approaching Woodbury (Interchange 16), though IMO it is not long enough.
Delaware's I-95 SB barrier is about a mile, back to Exit 1.
The Clara Barton Service Plaza is about 2.5 miles away from the Int 1 toll plaza, so I don't think a barrier that long is needed. For the most part, there aren't any delays with the EZ Pass/Cash traffic. Even today, it appeared the main culprit of the delay was an accident slightly south of Interchange 2, so it had nothing to do with the toll plaza.
What I would like to see is an additional lane (or 2) from that service plaza to the toll plaza. They can be 4 continuous lanes so closer to the plaza, the 2 left lanes can go to the EZ Pass lanes and the 2 right lanes can go to the cash lanes.
There's 2 Express EZ Pass lanes & 14 traditional toll lanes at the toll plaza. On most days, the left 6 or so traditional lanes are dedicated for EZ Pass Only, and the right 8 lanes are a mixture of closed, EZ Pass Only and Cash. Obviously, most EZ Pass customers will use the Express EZ Pass lanes, so those traditional booth EZ Pass Only lanes get very minimal use at best.
What I would like to see is an additional lane (or 2) from that service plaza to the toll plaza. They can be 4 continuous lanes so closer to the plaza, the 2 left lanes can go to the EZ Pass lanes and the 2 right lanes can go to the cash lanes.
Since the Turnpike is only 2 lanes each way there, I think 1 lane might be enough for E-ZPass, as long as it is barrier-separated from the right lanes.
There's 2 Express EZ Pass lanes & 14 traditional toll lanes at the toll plaza. On most days, the left 6 or so traditional lanes are dedicated for EZ Pass Only, and the right 8 lanes are a mixture of closed, EZ Pass Only and Cash. Obviously, most EZ Pass customers will use the Express EZ Pass lanes, so those traditional booth EZ Pass Only lanes get very minimal use at best.
I presume that toll plaza was dimensioned before it became obvious that E-ZPass penetration would be so high.
I'm sure it's probably been mentioned somewhere, but what's the percentage of E-ZPass v. cash these days and how does it compare to, say, ten years ago?
Does the widening of the southbound outer carriageway frrom Exit 9 to Exit 8A still remain to be done?I traveled the outer southbound lanes last night (Nov. 30). It's now striped as 3-through lanes.
I'm sure it's probably been mentioned somewhere, but what's the percentage of E-ZPass v. cash these days and how does it compare to, say, ten years ago?
In 2012, according to the Turnpike Authority's Annual Report on their Web site here (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2012-NJTA-Annual-Report.pdf), the E-ZPass share on the Parkway was 76% and better than 79% on the Turnpike.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. Do you know how the current percentages compare to ten years ago? No doubt the proliferation of E-ZPass to more states has been one factor in the increased use on the Turnpike.
Unrelated query: So how did the traffic flow yesterday through the new southbound carriageway merge? I haven't travelled to New York over Thanksgiving weekend since 1991, and that trip was a short one (up Friday morning, back Friday night) to see my grandfather in the hospital (he died a week later), so I didn't encounter the heavy "Sunday-after" traffic.
Unrelated query: So how did the traffic flow yesterday through the new southbound carriageway merge? I haven't travelled to New York over Thanksgiving weekend since 1991, and that trip was a short one (up Friday morning, back Friday night) to see my grandfather in the hospital (he died a week later), so I didn't encounter the heavy "Sunday-after" traffic.
I'm treating it as no news is good news. I don't see any new stories regarding traffic jams on the Turnpike over the weekend.
Looked like there was a nice jam between Exit 3 and the southern terminus (60 minutes extra travel time per my daughter, who was returning to college with friends...)That problem is in Delaware. I-295 still being only two lanes for each direction in Delaware is terrible. The same problem occurred northbound. The five lanes of NB I-95 were effectively squeezing down to two lanes of I-295.
Looked like there was a nice jam between Exit 3 and the southern terminus (60 minutes extra travel time per my daughter, who was returning to college with friends...)That problem is in Delaware. I-295 still being only two lanes for each direction in Delaware is terrible. The same problem occurred northbound. The five lanes of NB I-95 were effectively squeezing down to two lanes of I-295.
Widening the southern NJTPK would only exacerbate that problem going SB.
Unrelated query: So how did the traffic flow yesterday through the new southbound carriageway merge? I haven't travelled to New York over Thanksgiving weekend since 1991, and that trip was a short one (up Friday morning, back Friday night) to see my grandfather in the hospital (he died a week later), so I didn't encounter the heavy "Sunday-after" traffic.
It's not really 5 lanes squeezing into 2. Some people do go into Wilmington and Philly. Which is a great alternate when Del Mem Br and approaches are jammed. Use I-495 (might need to use I-95 through Wilmington SB where 495 narrows to a single lane) to the Commodore Barry Bridge over to 295. That maybe cost me 5 extra minutes over the Turnpike all the way when no delays, which seems better than the college kids' experience mentioned above.
Its been a while (11 years now) since I lived in DE, but I thought one of the problems was the lane changing/weaving as you head north through Churchman's marsh on I-95. North of the Rt 1 interchange, the signage were (and I believe still are) signs that indicate the routes with down arrows pointing to the lanes for the 95/295 split. While I think it is almost 2 miles ahead, I felt these signs sort of indicated a required lane change now.
Because a little bit past some of the first signs indicating the lanes for the split as you head into Churchman's marsh, the highway would open up and start flowing again (which I saw on many Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays).
Maybe some things are a little better now with the revised Rt 1 interchange, as I haven't driven through there in traffic since that change.
But overall, the lanes on 295 never seemed to as severely limit the traffic flow as the weaving to me. Not sure the number of lanes on the NJTP would make a significant difference on the problems in Delaware.
It's not really 5 lanes squeezing into 2. Some people do go into Wilmington and Philly. Which is a great alternate when Del Mem Br and approaches are jammed. Use I-495 (might need to use I-95 through Wilmington SB where 495 narrows to a single lane) to the Commodore Barry Bridge over to 295. That maybe cost me 5 extra minutes over the Turnpike all the way when no delays, which seems better than the college kids' experience mentioned above.
495 SB starts as 2 lanes then quickly widens to 3 lanes for it's entire length past Wilmington, then becomes 2 lanes again at 95. And there's no convenient way to switch between 95 & 495 anywhere along the route.
Its been a while (11 years now) since I lived in DE, but I thought one of the problems was the lane changing/weaving as you head north through Churchman's marsh on I-95. North of the Rt 1 interchange, the signage were (and I believe still are) signs that indicate the routes with down arrows pointing to the lanes for the 95/295 split. While I think it is almost 2 miles ahead, I felt these signs sort of indicated a required lane change now.
This.
I think *some* of the congestion would be eliminated if they listed '2 Miles', '1 Mile', etc, on the 295 sign. And technically, it's an exit from I-95, although it's never been signed as such.QuoteBecause a little bit past some of the first signs indicating the lanes for the split as you head into Churchman's marsh, the highway would open up and start flowing again (which I saw on many Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays).
It used to. But anymore, congestion is so heavy that it's really a solid line of traffic from about Rt. 1 to past Rt. 141.QuoteMaybe some things are a little better now with the revised Rt 1 interchange, as I haven't driven through there in traffic since that change.
It is a bit better, especially when traffic coming off Rt. 1 doesn't need to cross at least 3 lanes of 95 to get to the left side of the highway. And because people aren't trying to merge out of nearly stopped traffic, it allows that entire left side of the highway to flow better when the right side is a bit congested. We're not talking people flying by at 70 on the left because some of those people are still trying to merge right, but it is better.QuoteBut overall, the lanes on 295 never seemed to as severely limit the traffic flow as the weaving to me. Not sure the number of lanes on the NJTP would make a significant difference on the problems in Delaware.
Especially today, it's the Turnpike SB that wouldn't benefit from a lane expansion if you want to consider traffic flow south of the Turnpike. Currently, you have 2 lanes of 295 and 2 lanes of the Turnpike merging onto 4 lanes at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. After that bridge is the first clusterfuck: There's 12 toll lanes at that bridge. Proper stripping after that toll plaza would have approximately every 3 lanes merge into 1 lane. Instead, the left 6 lanes all merge into one lane, the middle two toll booths come out into their own lane, and the right 4 lanes or so all merge into the right lane. What occurs is people coming out from the left booths immediately merge left more because they are told to stay left for I-95...even though those on the left need to merge to the right because that space ends. Then once that's all sorted out by the Rt. 9 overpass, the vast majority of the traffic needs to remain in the far 2 left lanes for 95. Some will take US 13 South/US 40 West, and very few take the other options.
But then again, going back to widening the NJ Turnpike, when has Delaware cared about anything NJ wants or has done? The Turnpike can expand to 12 lanes thru South Jersey. Let Delaware worry about the traffic load!
Is E-85 available at any service area on the Turnpike?The E 85 starts from Klaipėda (Lithuania) runs south through Belarus, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria to Greece, ending at Alexandroupolis.
....
I've long learned that the secret to easily getting through that plaza is to keep to the far right...there are usually at least one or two E-ZPass Only lanes on the right (for trucks), there is a lot less traffic merging, and it is a lot more "natural" to merge towards the left than towards the right. Then I have enough time to cut left for I-95, or if traffic is really bad, just stay right for US 40.
....
Especially today, it's the Turnpike SB that wouldn't benefit from a lane expansion if you want to consider traffic flow south of the Turnpike. Currently, you have 2 lanes of 295 and 2 lanes of the Turnpike merging onto 4 lanes at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. After that bridge is the first clusterfuck: There's 12 toll lanes at that bridge. Proper stripping after that toll plaza would have approximately every 3 lanes merge into 1 lane. ....
Is E-85 available at any service area on the Turnpike?
It looks like the southbound outer roadway is backing-up at the merge south of Exit 6.
In almost all instances, the Turnpike utilized tapered merging rather than acceleration lane merging at all of their interchanges. (Interestingly enough, during the construction phase they used acceleration lanes rather than tapered merges)That's probably where I saw and experienced using acceleration lanes on the NJTP.
Obviously, they went with the tapered merges instead.Okay, I wasn't hallucinating that the merge distances seem to be shorter and more abrupt. Seems to me that such an arrangement (shorter merge areas) is an accident (& accompanying lawsuit(s)) just waiting to happen.
Yes, I have noticed the merges seem a bit more abrupt as well.
Get two people to FU to each other,and you have a threesome? Those two people and U[sic]?
Get two people to FU to each other,and you have a threesome? Those two people and U[sic]?
I think the entire taper, where it straightens out at an angle coming into the Turnpike, is rather lengthy, but the actual merge area is very short.Which, IMHO, is the issue of contention.
What possessed the NJTA to reduce the merge area? A step backwards IMHO.
I have never understood why the NJTA used tapered acceleration lanes instead of parallel acceleration lanes. (As defined in the MUTCD) It seems to me that the parallel lane allows for a safer merge. All the more surprising because this is one of the safest, best engineered highways in America and the NJTA prides itself on that.
In so many other ways the NJTA has always adhered to the safest operations principles like no left hand exits or service-areas, and no rush-hour use of shoulders as traffic lanes. Very puzzling about the acceleration lanes.
The merge area is standardized. Don't quote me, but it's something like 900 feet from the theoretical gore or 1200 feet from the beginning of the broken stripe or 1500 feet from the beginning of the merge taper tangent. Anyway, regardless, it is a standard on the entire Turnpike. If it "feels" shorter to you than others, maybe it's because traffic is flowing faster without all the congestion, so you have to accelerate to a higher speed to merge. I would be very surprised if it was actually any shorter than standard.I think the entire taper, where it straightens out at an angle coming into the Turnpike, is rather lengthy, but the actual merge area is very short.Which, IMHO, is the issue of contention.
What possessed the NJTA to reduce the merge area? A step backwards IMHO.
As for lawsuit potential - good luck. If the Authority's design standards are met, and trust me, they've been vetted with state of the industry practice, the plaintiff will lose.
The problem I have with the tapered set-up is the lack of flexibility in merging location. You get to a certain point where you must merge, period. With a parallel lane, you have that thousand or more feet to merge when it's safe to do so. I think that's the better choice. On the other hand we really can't argue with the NJT's level of success in engineering. Their arrangement does seem to work successfully. And the MUTCD shows pavement markings for both configurations, so I guess that's that.
Region 4 has one - Hylan Dr north to I-390 north (exit 13)I have never understood why the NJTA used tapered acceleration lanes instead of parallel acceleration lanes. (As defined in the MUTCD) It seems to me that the parallel lane allows for a safer merge. All the more surprising because this is one of the safest, best engineered highways in America and the NJTA prides itself on that.
In so many other ways the NJTA has always adhered to the safest operations principles like no left hand exits or service-areas, and no rush-hour use of shoulders as traffic lanes. Very puzzling about the acceleration lanes.
I've never understood tapered acceleration lanes in general. They seem like an accident waiting to happen, but Ohio uses them almost exclusively. New York doesn't, but for some reason, Region 5 built I-990 with them and, while there's room to safely accelerate, nobody does so. If the highway wasn't so underutilized, it might have created issues.
Reviewing the minutes of the November NJTA board meeting was this short passage on page 6 of http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2014_11-18_BM-Minutes_414_thru_458.pdf , mostly in relation to the recent and ongoing construction projects on the 'pike & Parkway:Aww, but I like having my personal lane entering at exit 4
"Commissioner Pocino stated that work done under the capital program is great. And the
improvements are making the roadways safer for all motorists. Pocino asked that Engineering
review whether the Turnpike can be widened from two (2) lanes in each direction to three (3)
lanes in each direction between intersections 1 and 4."
Nice.
I'm almost considering taking a ride to one of their board meetings in early 2015 to publically ask for a potential review of a 42/Turnpike interchange. It'll hardly be the first time someone has said something about this often-requested interchange, but it's good to know that there is at least a small bit of interest in the southern portion of the turnpike which, other than a widened Interchange 1, hasn't really changed much since the Turnpike opened.
Could the modest souvenir and snack stands that give New Jersey’s highway rest stops their grab-and-go ambiance be replaced by upscale Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tiffany & Co. shops?
Probably not, but lawmakers are eyeing the Atlantic City Expressway, Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike as potentially lucrative locations for new retail and business attractions that would generate extra revenue for the state’s cash-starved transportation system.
Legislation making its way through the Statehouse directs the three toll roads to develop plans for more commercial, corporate or retail ventures at their rest stops.
The idea is to squeeze more money out of the toll roads – without hitting motorists with another fare or tax increase – to help replenish the state Transportation Trust Fund. The fund is scheduled to run out of money for highway, bridge and mass transit projects starting with the new fiscal year in July unless the Legislature approves higher gasoline taxes or another source of financing.
Reviewing the minutes of the November NJTA board meeting was this short passage on page 6 of http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2014_11-18_BM-Minutes_414_thru_458.pdf , mostly in relation to the recent and ongoing construction projects on the 'pike & Parkway:
"Commissioner Pocino stated that work done under the capital program is great. And the
improvements are making the roadways safer for all motorists. Pocino asked that Engineering
review whether the Turnpike can be widened from two (2) lanes in each direction to three (3)
lanes in each direction between intersections 1 and 4."
Nice.
I'm almost considering taking a ride to one of their board meetings in early 2015 to publically ask for a potential review of a 42/Turnpike interchange. It'll hardly be the first time someone has said something about this often-requested interchange, but it's good to know that there is at least a small bit of interest in the southern portion of the turnpike which, other than a widened Interchange 1, hasn't really changed much since the Turnpike opened.
If there are any alcohol sales, it'll likely be independent liquor stores doing the sales to comply with state law.... which prohibits chains from operating more than two locations with liquor sales. Also don't expect any sales at night after 2AM.
That would be NJSA Title 59.
OT, but why did NJ get to keep their sovereign immunity when SCOTUS stripped PA'a
Reviewing the minutes of the November NJTA board meeting was this short passage on page 6 of http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2014_11-18_BM-Minutes_414_thru_458.pdf , mostly in relation to the recent and ongoing construction projects on the 'pike & Parkway:Ints. 1-4 are an interesting beast. There are two questions at play - how much of the perceived problem is actually due to backups radiating up from Delaware Memorial Bridge, and how much will the eventual 95/276 connection draw traffic off of the Turnpike? As the Turnpike adds traffic sensors in that stretch, I'll finally get to play with some real data and see what the answer is.
"Commissioner Pocino stated that work done under the capital program is great. And the
improvements are making the roadways safer for all motorists. Pocino asked that Engineering
review whether the Turnpike can be widened from two (2) lanes in each direction to three (3)
lanes in each direction between intersections 1 and 4."
Nice.
I'm almost considering taking a ride to one of their board meetings in early 2015 to publically ask for a potential review of a 42/Turnpike interchange. It'll hardly be the first time someone has said something about this often-requested interchange, but it's good to know that there is at least a small bit of interest in the southern portion of the turnpike which, other than a widened Interchange 1, hasn't really changed much since the Turnpike opened.
Ints. 1-4 are an interesting beast. There are two questions at play - how much of the perceived problem is actually due to backups radiating up from Delaware Memorial Bridge, and how much will the eventual 95/276 connection draw traffic off of the Turnpike? As the Turnpike adds traffic sensors in that stretch, I'll finally get to play with some real data and see what the answer is.
The merge area is standardized. Don't quote me, but it's something like 900 feet from the theoretical gore or 1200 feet from the beginning of the broken stripe or 1500 feet from the beginning of the merge taper tangent. Anyway, regardless, it is a standard on the entire Turnpike. If it "feels" shorter to you than others, maybe it's because traffic is flowing faster without all the congestion, so you have to accelerate to a higher speed to merge. I would be very surprised if it was actually any shorter than standard.
Here's (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.930225,-74.954288&spn=0.006401,0.027874&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.930228,-74.954291&panoid=VavnMjJZwTPhm2xNy1RUbg&cbp=11,229.26,,0,8.52) an example of an unchanged existing entrance ramp onto the mainline. The new roadway seems to have gotten rid of the two or three "stripe-lengths" of lane before ending like here. (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.123274,-74.701602&spn=0.006383,0.027874&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.12328,-74.701596&panoid=EO15erXUkrZojI_jYj3OXA&cbp=11,236.02,,1,1.87)
Oh, I'm well aware of what's out there now. But the only way to properly assess the need to add capacity is to measure existing volumes. Using speeds is a poor proxy.Ints. 1-4 are an interesting beast. There are two questions at play - how much of the perceived problem is actually due to backups radiating up from Delaware Memorial Bridge, and how much will the eventual 95/276 connection draw traffic off of the Turnpike? As the Turnpike adds traffic sensors in that stretch, I'll finally get to play with some real data and see what the answer is.
You have the sensors there right now. The sensors are called the cell phones and similar devices (including some fleet vehicles) that all or nearly all N.J. Turnpike patrons have in their vehicles, combined with cell towers, which results in Inrix datasets showing speeds for the entire Turnpike system. Not saying that sensor data is bad (it is not, and it has some advantages over Inrix, but mostly on arterial-class roads).
You can probably get access to the data for free as well, which is really pretty good for freeway-class roads. You will have no problem playing with the Inrix data either.
If you wish, I can explain in more detail when I see you in the near future.
Oh, I'm well aware of what's out there now. But the only way to properly assess the need to add capacity is to measure existing volumes. Using speeds is a poor proxy.
(http://exit-only.net/arrow.png)
Why are some signs reading "New York" while some read "New York City?" I noticed on GSV that the Exit 5 pull through uses the former while this one here is using the latter.
I know that lately NJDOT has been using "New York City" lately as a move to not confuse motorists between the either the City or the State with the same exact name, but this is from the same set of signs all being installed at one time. You would figure some consistency here.
2) He also said south of 6 in the two-lane section, adding City to the pull-through sign laterally lengthens the sign unnecessarily creating an unwieldy display on the overall truss. An example is http://goo.gl/maps/4fQ0U. He said he was not a fan of putting pretinent information over the shoulders. Looking at the example at Interchange 2, I had seen his point since the Exit Direction sign for Interchange 2 is already halfway over the shoulder.
Why are some signs reading "New York" while some read "New York City?" I noticed on GSV that the Exit 5 pull through uses the former while this one here is using the latter.
I know that lately NJDOT has been using "New York City" lately as a move to not confuse motorists between the either the City or the State with the same exact name, but this is from the same set of signs all being installed at one time. You would figure some consistency here.
They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.
They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.
Stop it. Were they supposed to abbreviate it to Wilma and essentially legitimize the ridiculous practice of Phila across the river? I'm sure this forum would have had nothing but accolades if Wilmington was abbreviated. It's called engineering judgment.
"Wilmington" has no abbreviationWilm: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22wilm%22+delaware&tbm=nws
They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.
Stop it. Were they supposed to abbreviate it to Wilma and essentially legitimize the ridiculous practice of Phila across the river? I'm sure this forum would have had nothing but accolades if Wilmington was abbreviated. It's called engineering judgment.
"Wilmington" has no abbreviationWilm: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22wilm%22+delaware&tbm=nws
Why are some signs reading "New York" while some read "New York City?" I noticed on GSV that the Exit 5 pull through uses the former while this one here is using the latter.
I know that lately NJDOT has been using "New York City" lately as a move to not confuse motorists between the either the City or the State with the same exact name, but this is from the same set of signs all being installed at one time. You would figure some consistency here.
They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.
"Phila" and "Penna" are already legitimized by generations of use.
Spaces on BGSes tend to be the width of 2-3 letters to increase legibility and word distinction.
"Phila" and "Penna" are already legitimized by generations of use.
I actually use "Penna" in every day conversations now referring to Pennsylvania. What'd be interesting if instead of "Phila", they signed "Philly", because it's not like anyone wouldn't know where you'd end up.
Crap. Got copied over from the 2nd column. Yeah, the signs are governed by the width of the principal legend on top, not the destination.
Here's a sign reference standard drawing sheet for various NJ Turnpike pull-thru signage.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/SD-NJTA-SL18.pdf
You'll notice the signage on the left that states New York is 18 feet wide, which leaves plenty of room on either side of 'New York'. To the right are signs for Camden & Wilmington, which are on 15' signage. Yes, the Wilmington sign says 18' above that, but I think that's a mis-print. Below, the 3 measurements (18 5/8, 142 3/4 & 18 5/8 equal 15', and matches the Camden sign above in all other respects.
I'm almost surprised we've never seen "Philly" written on an official highway sign, as common of an abbreviation as it is when both spoken and written.Or, perhaps:
I'm almost surprised we've never seen "Philly" written on an official highway sign, as common of an abbreviation as it is when both spoken and written.Or, perhaps:
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/8a6380d3-c19a-477b-b5f8-c2fa93a62db9_zps2a2217a7.jpg)
"Wilmington" has no abbreviationWilm: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22wilm%22+delaware&tbm=nws
Port of Wilmington occasionally is displayed as Port of Wilm. The Wilm abbreviation is known locally in Delaware otherwise, but I would not advocate it as a mainline control city.
(https://www.aaroads.com/delaware/delaware010/us-013_nb_at_i-495_nb_exit_001_02.jpg)
There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.Looks like someone else hit the rear trailer to swing it around, after the collision with the car on fire.
There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.Looks like someone else hit the rear trailer to swing it around, after the collision with the car on fire.
I remember years ago (mid 90s) coming SB on the Turnpike at night for winter break at college. It was really icy out, and I was taking it slow in my old Pinto wagon since it was particularly bad on the bridges. I got down to the bridge over the Rancocas, and there had to be 10+ cars scattered this way and that all across the bridge. I had to slowly zig zag through the mess (no police on the scene yet). The worse thing was the people just standing out there in the middle of the travel lanes looking over the damage, as more people came zooming down on them.
There was a car in the far left lane that looks like it was on fire. Chances are it was struck by the truck when it crossed the roadway, or hit it shortly thereafter.I couldn't tell, but it looked like yellow headlights instead of a fire. *shrug*
WILMA!!!!!! :bigass:They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.
Stop it. Were they supposed to abbreviate it to Wilma and essentially legitimize the ridiculous practice of Phila across the river? I'm sure this forum would have had nothing but accolades if Wilmington was abbreviated. It's called engineering judgment.
It's "guiderail", not "guardrail". Unless you construct it 8 feet tall with 20 beams, it's not going to stop a sideways truck. It can only guide vehicles within a reasonable height of the rail itself, and that's "guide", not "guard," meaning that they could still make it through or over. The rail did its best. Note that opposite directions of traffic are separated by a concrete barrier, which is quite a bit harder to climb (taller and more rigid, so it won't flex and let itself be climbed). This guiderail separates same-direction lanes, which is why no one else was hit by the truck.
It's "guiderail", not "guardrail". Unless you construct it 8 feet tall with 20 beams, it's not going to stop a sideways truck. It can only guide vehicles within a reasonable height of the rail itself, and that's "guide", not "guard," meaning that they could still make it through or over. The rail did its best. Note that opposite directions of traffic are separated by a concrete barrier, which is quite a bit harder to climb (taller and more rigid, so it won't flex and let itself be climbed). This guiderail separates same-direction lanes, which is why no one else was hit by the truck.
Comments like the above are great. Thanks for sharing your insight.
I do find it curious that the Turnpike Authority has not been more aggressive at replacing its "W" beam guardrails (yes, that's what I call them, but your points above (including guiderail) are correct) with more-rigid Jersey wall-type concrete barriers, even between traffic running in the same direction - though the steel barriers are lots better than the flimsy fiberglass markers that are used to separate managed lanes from conventional lanes in Virginia and California (and probably other states).
But even in the case of concrete Jersey wall-type barriers, I have seen them breached by heavy trucks on the Capital Beltway and Baltimore Beltway and on at least one freeway in Southern California. But even though they are breached, there appeared to be enough mass and strength in the wall to prevent a head-on crash, at least if the opposite direction of traffic has even a small amount of left-hand shoulder, as the truck or truck tractor will go partly through the wall and then be stopped.
Any opinion about the Ministry of Transportation-Ontario's Tall Wall (http://www.raqsb.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/ops.nsf/20746bdcd064df1f85256d130066857e/d8a13f40e993143a8525706e006899f7?OpenDocument), which is 1050 cm high, or better than 41 inches high?
Any opinion about the Ministry of Transportation-Ontario's Tall Wall (http://www.raqsb.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/ops.nsf/20746bdcd064df1f85256d130066857e/d8a13f40e993143a8525706e006899f7?OpenDocument), which is 1050 cm high, or better than 41 inches high?
Progress! After years of woefully inadequate signing on the Eastern Leg Southbound at Exit 15E, a new set of MUTCD compliant overhead signs now exists at the Exit 15W split. It says something like Routes 1-9, Newark, Jersey City, exit 1 3/4 Miles. What a surprise. Unfortunately I was exiting at 15W, so I don't know if there are yet any other new 15E signs as you get closer to the exit. Anyone else driven that stretch recently? Must be very new. It doesn't even show on Google Earth yet.It's been there for a matter of months. I've seen it twice so far.
is it a 1-9 shield or separate shields?Separate.
I just ran across these on GSV and I was surprised...are they still there? Original signs and all?Still there at 14A and 14B entering the Turnpike. 14A will be gone soon.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.684611,-74.097324,3a,75y,54.09h,86.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2CY0_N9SMsVlWJTAbfgCTw!2e0
Also, are the signs on this gantry still there? I remember last summer they were reconstructing the ramps at Exit 10.To my knowledge they're gone at 10, but there's still the old US 1/9 signs at 11.
I just ran across these on GSV and I was surprised...are they still there? Original signs and all?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.684611,-74.097324,3a,75y,54.09h,86.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2CY0_N9SMsVlWJTAbfgCTw!2e0
Also, are the signs on this gantry still there? I remember last summer they were reconstructing the ramps at Exit 10.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3861/15128995608_ab9a17643c_z.jpg)[/url]
I just ran across these on GSV and I was surprised...are they still there? Original signs and all?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.684611,-74.097324,3a,75y,54.09h,86.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2CY0_N9SMsVlWJTAbfgCTw!2e0
Also, are the signs on this gantry still there? I remember last summer they were reconstructing the ramps at Exit 10.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3861/15128995608_ab9a17643c_z.jpg)[/url]
The signs at 10 are still there... for now. They're on the endangered species list, as well as the "New York and North" and "Trenton and South" signs going the other way. They will be gone soon.
I just ran across these on GSV and I was surprised...are they still there? Original signs and all?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.684611,-74.097324,3a,75y,54.09h,86.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2CY0_N9SMsVlWJTAbfgCTw!2e0
Also, are the signs on this gantry still there? I remember last summer they were reconstructing the ramps at Exit 10.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3861/15128995608_ab9a17643c_z.jpg)[/url]
The signs at 10 are still there... for now. They're on the endangered species list, as well as the "New York and North" and "Trenton and South" signs going the other way. They will be gone soon.
Have you seen any contracts or spot improvement contracts with the above signs mentioned?
I'd assume the left-overs on the NH Tpke mainline are also endangered? I haven't seen any contracts for the hold overs SB at Exit 17, 16, 15E etc.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8587/15667285198_7afb88ba2d_z.jpg)
I'd assume the left-overs on the NH Tpke mainline are also endangered? I haven't seen any contracts for the hold overs SB at Exit 17, 16, 15E etc.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8587/15667285198_7afb88ba2d_z.jpg)
Is it a typo, or do you actually mean New Hampshire?
I'd assume the left-overs on the NH Tpke mainline are also endangered? I haven't seen any contracts for the hold overs SB at Exit 17, 16, 15E etc.Given that a 15E sign was just replaced, it's possible that these are being addressed as spot fixes now, since there's no major contract planned in that area (that I know of).
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8587/15667285198_7afb88ba2d_z.jpg)
Wow, that Exit-17 sign is (I believe) an original from when Exits 16-17 were rebuilt in 1964! Imagine that sign lasted 50 years.......Yes it did as they not only knew how to make signs better then, but they never replaced them on a regular basis like they do for signs nowadays.
New York and Trenton are good control cities. Then south of exit 7A, Camden or Delaware would be more appropriate for southbound. Even if the roads don't go exactly into the destinations, they are at least within a 10 mile radius or so.I think Camden and Trenton should only appear Southbound, since Northbound it's I-295 for both. Also, why not Philadelphia? Even without the PA Turnpike / I-95 interchange, the NJ Turnpike is the best route to Philadelphia going South.
New York and Trenton are good control cities. Then south of exit 7A, Camden or Delaware would be more appropriate for southbound. Even if the roads don't go exactly into the destinations, they are at least within a 10 mile radius or so.I think Camden and Trenton should only appear Southbound, since Northbound it's I-295 for both. Also, why not Philadelphia? Even without the PA Turnpike / I-95 interchange, the NJ Turnpike is the best route to Philadelphia going South.
People looking for Philadelphia usuallyknow that they can just find Camden and cross over to Philadelphia from there anywayask the toll booth operator at Interchange 1 how much farther to Philadelphia, then wonder how they passed by it a half hour ago without seeing it. Then they ask if they're still on I-95.
It's only the best route (IMO) if you are coming from a point that isn't close to Trenton. If you are close to Trenton, it would make more sense to just take the current 95 (future 395?) all the way into Philadelphia.If you're close to Trenton, you aren't on the Turnpike or at an entrance that has a control city. If you mean as close to Trenton as the Turnpike gets, around 7A, it's still better to use the Turnpike from there.
Regarding the control cities, it should be Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington going south down the Turnpike. Northbound it should be New Brunswick, Newark, then New York. People looking for Philadelphia usually know that they can just find Camden and cross over to Philadelphia from there anyway.Why would someone who is not from the area and looking for Philadelphia know about Camden, especially since you don't necessarily have to go through Camden to get there?
New York and Trenton are good control cities. Then south of exit 7A, Camden or Delaware would be more appropriate for southbound. Even if the roads don't go exactly into the destinations, they are at least within a 10 mile radius or so.I think Camden and Trenton should only appear Southbound, since Northbound it's I-295 for both. Also, why not Philadelphia? Even without the PA Turnpike / I-95 interchange, the NJ Turnpike is the best route to Philadelphia going South.
It's only the best route (IMO) if you are coming from a point that isn't close to Trenton. If you are close to Trenton, it would make more sense to just take the current 95 (future 395?) all the way into Philadelphia.
Regarding the control cities, it should be Newark, Trenton, Camden, and Wilmington going south down the Turnpike. Northbound it should be New Brunswick, Newark, then New York. People looking for Philadelphia usually know that they can just find Camden and cross over to Philadelphia from there anyway.
Wow, that Exit-17 sign is (I believe) an original from when Exits 16-17 were rebuilt in 1964! Imagine that sign lasted 50 years.......Yes it did as they not only knew how to make signs better then, but they never replaced them on a regular basis like they do for signs nowadays.
Back in the 60's and 70's you never seen them replace the signs or have a replacement program as signs were put it with the premise that they would last forever.
I'd assume the left-overs on the NH Tpke mainline are also endangered? I haven't seen any contracts for the hold overs SB at Exit 17, 16, 15E etc.Given that a 15E sign was just replaced, it's possible that these are being addressed as spot fixes now, since there's no major contract planned in that area (that I know of).
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8587/15667285198_7afb88ba2d_z.jpg)
I just ran across these on GSV and I was surprised...are they still there? Original signs and all?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.684611,-74.097324,3a,75y,54.09h,86.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s2CY0_N9SMsVlWJTAbfgCTw!2e0
Also, are the signs on this gantry still there? I remember last summer they were reconstructing the ramps at Exit 10.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3861/15128995608_ab9a17643c_z.jpg)[/url]
The signs at 10 are still there... for now. They're on the endangered species list, as well as the "New York and North" and "Trenton and South" signs going the other way. They will be gone soon.
Have you seen any contracts or spot improvement contracts with the above signs mentioned?
They are currently reconfiguring several of the ramps that split out after the toll plaza and there are already concrete footings in place for a new sign bridge to replace the one that's in the picture. All of the other old non-reflective button copy signs along the circle ramp were replaced a few years ago, but the contractors just replaced them with matching sign legends (which is why you still have a ramp for 440 East instead of North). As for the signs coming onto the Turnpike, there is already a new sign for the SB Turnpike which is covered up (and I assume looks like one of the signs in this standard drawing (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/SD-NJTA-SL14.pdf)
Just semantics, I think. What you said would pretty much match what I said - a signing contract is not major.Given that a 15E sign was just replaced, it's possible that these are being addressed as spot fixes now, since there's no major contract planned in that area (that I know of).
I thought they were going to be replacing all the signs north of 9 or 10 with MUTCD signage except for where a project had new signs already in the works (like new sign for 13A). Did that get put on hold?
WABC-TV (ABC) channel 7 and other places reported on a serious accident tonight around Cranbury heading south. I know that's in or by Exit 8A. Was it in the car or truck/bus lanes? Ice may have been a factor...again. I was on this stretch of the road on Friday without incident, but heading north, on Friday afternoon.Trucks were involved, so it was likely on the outer lanes. It was by the service area south of 8A, near the top of a seemingly shallow hill but one that trucks struggle to get up. With the old merge, SB traffic didn't start really moving until Cranbury-Half Acre Rd. at the top of the hill, which is just south of the crash site. Ice was likely a factor given the weather. Having been there post-widening, there is a straight roadway with generous sightlines, so my guess is that nothing about the roadway itself caused the crash, just the weather and a freak occurrence.
I read accidents occurred on both the inner and outer roadways in that same area, with the inner roadway re-opening first because they didn't have to deal with jackknifed tractor trailers.
CRANBURY – The 40-vehicle, fatal pileup on an icy stretch of the NJ Turnpike could have been avoided if contractors salted the road more frequently during Monday's wintry mix of sleet, snow and freezing rain, according to a former Turnpike official.
"Last night's accident was clearly weather-related and never should have happened," said Daniel P. McNamara, the Turnpike's former director of maintenance.
McNamara, who has more than 30 years of experience with snow and ice removal, said the area where the accident occurred could not have been treated properly Monday. "The current administration waited too long to purchase the equipment, i.e. salt trucks, for the new outer roadways south of Interchange 9," McNamara stated in an email to NJ Advance Media.
Original sign gantry STILL there.Weren't those signs backlit? The original Exit 6 BGS' were. Backlit BGS' don't need to have button-copy lettering.
Kind of surprised the signs are NOT button copy. I wonder if they were at some point.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7407/16333337278_56e94fcaf5_z.jpg)
new arrow and old arrow.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8593/16485817446_7ec60af7e1_c.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_c.jpg)
New arrow = much less sexy.
https://goo.gl/maps/5rsB9
One thing I noticed about the Newark Bay Extension is that the NJTA has no problem posting I-78 reassurance markers, unlike on the mainline where you'd never know it was I-95. The old markers in the median south of Exit 8A did survive the reconstruction though.
Also I got this....whoops as I-95 shield peeking through.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8613/16419825368_5cfdd21aed_z.jpg)
https://goo.gl/maps/5rsB9
One thing I noticed about the Newark Bay Extension is that the NJTA has no problem posting I-78 reassurance markers, unlike on the mainline where you'd never know it was I-95. The old markers in the median south of Exit 8A did survive the reconstruction though.
NJTA has created a websites for the Exit 14A reconstruction: http://www.njta14a.com
NJTA has created a websites for the Exit 14A reconstruction: http://www.njta14a.com
Interesting. You know what could use widening?, the western spur as it's only 2-lanes in spots. Plus that whole area, including SB heading towards I-280, tends to bunch up during rush hour.
NJTA has created a websites for the Exit 14A reconstruction: http://www.njta14a.com
Interesting. You know what could use widening?, the western spur as it's only 2-lanes in spots. Plus that whole area, including SB heading towards I-280, tends to bunch up during rush hour.
If I ever find the hours to scan it, I'll put up a c.1988 document detailing a proposed widening (dual-dual, I believe) of the Westerly Alignment, IIRC including a Route 17 extension.
It was dual-dual and it does include the Route 17 extension, though the details of tying the extension into the 3 interchange were not shown (although it's obvious how it would have gone). I have rather good access to the record plans at my job, but unfortunately I can't release it to you. I can say that the NJTA is well aware of the need to widen the Westerly, and I'll leave it at this: yes, there are backups north of 16W due to the 2-lane section, but there are also backups across the Passaic River near the south end. Use your imagination as to the implications.NJTA has created a websites for the Exit 14A reconstruction: http://www.njta14a.com
Interesting. You know what could use widening?, the western spur as it's only 2-lanes in spots. Plus that whole area, including SB heading towards I-280, tends to bunch up during rush hour.
If I ever find the hours to scan it, I'll put up a c.1988 document detailing a proposed widening (dual-dual, I believe) of the Westerly Alignment, IIRC including a Route 17 extension.
I checked your old post. Ultimately, the plans for the Westerly had the existing 16W with added ramps for the outer roadways, as opposed to creating a new 16W with a new parallel roadway (leading where though? 17? that would explain the lack of 15W-A). You got your hands on some other earlier document envisioning a different widening alternative.NJTA has created a websites for the Exit 14A reconstruction: http://www.njta14a.com (http://www.njta14a.com)
Interesting. You know what could use widening?, the western spur as it's only 2-lanes in spots. Plus that whole area, including SB heading towards I-280, tends to bunch up during rush hour.
If I ever find the hours to scan it, I'll put up a c.1988 document detailing a proposed widening (dual-dual, I believe) of the Westerly Alignment, IIRC including a Route 17 extension.
I posted some pictures of these a few years ago.
I remember the Star Ledger featured an article several times those years, and I do recall two plans of connecting the Turnpike with Route 17 directly and one of them even to be extended to I-280 as well. One plan was considered to allow for the Berry Creek development as the reconfigured Exit 16W would allow for expansion to be used where the current Exit 16W Plaza is.Never seen 17 connecting to 280. Source? I'd be very curious about that.
The ones that you Alps have stated and the other one Pete has found were both covered in the Ledger.
Not exactly I-280, but this 1941 map (not my scan, hence the incompleteness) shows a NJ 2 relocation north of NJ 7 (and an unknown route - 100? - along the NJTP alignment north of Newark):Straight down to 7, very interesting, and makes sense.
I would have to research the Star Ledger deeply. This one was back sometime in the 80's. I remember back then it was a big deal for a while and one plan did show it going as far as 280 with, I believe, a spur east into into the Turnpike to the east would connect to another proposed interchange between 15W and 16W.I remember the Star Ledger featured an article several times those years, and I do recall two plans of connecting the Turnpike with Route 17 directly and one of them even to be extended to I-280 as well. One plan was considered to allow for the Berry Creek development as the reconfigured Exit 16W would allow for expansion to be used where the current Exit 16W Plaza is.Never seen 17 connecting to 280. Source? I'd be very curious about that.
The ones that you Alps have stated and the other one Pete has found were both covered in the Ledger.
Widening the western spur from Exit 16W on north is a long term plan.
...During a six-day period lasting until March 29, troopers will be extra vigilant in looking for speeding, distracted driving or aggressive driving, seatbelt enforcement and proper use of cell phones, State Police announced this morning. Separate patrols will have their eyes on violators driving large trucks and buses...
While this story is specific to the turnpike, it's part of a larger crackdown in several states.Great American Money-Grab, anyone? :sombrero:
State Police set for 6-day crackdown on NJ Turnpike drivers
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/03/state_police_set_for_6-day_crackdown_on_nj_turnpike_drivers.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featuredQuote...During a six-day period lasting until March 29, troopers will be extra vigilant in looking for speeding, distracted driving or aggressive driving, seatbelt enforcement and proper use of cell phones, State Police announced this morning. Separate patrols will have their eyes on violators driving large trucks and buses...
New Jersey sues over Florida pizza shop logo (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/money/business/2014/07/23/new-jersey-sues-florida-pizza-shop-logo/13073729/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority wants a Florida pizza shop to pay a big toll for using a logo similar to the Garden State Parkways green and yellow signs.
Is this all the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has to worry about? This is what they pay their lawyers for? Unreal.........
New Jersey sues over Florida pizza shop logo (http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/money/business/2014/07/23/new-jersey-sues-florida-pizza-shop-logo/13073729/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=)QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority wants a Florida pizza shop to pay a big toll for using a logo similar to the Garden State Parkways green and yellow signs.
The lawsuit has been tossed out. The article mentions there may be other lawsuits out there, but I won't be surprised that if there are, they'll be thrown out as well.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20150326_ap_dad6cbe0141440a8af53ddfc3ba62e61.html
I hope Maryland will start to include Philadelphia (and Wilmington) more-prominently on signs on I-95 northbound once the slow, slower and slowest Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission/PennDOT project to close the I-95 gap in Bristol is complete enough to allow drivers to follow I-95 north through Philadelphia and still reach New York and points beyond.Since you mentioned Wilmington in your above-post, what's stopping Maryland from using that as a listed I-95 northbound destination today? The core of the city is located just north of the I-95/295/495 split and has nothing to do whatsoever with the status of that I-95/PA Turnpike interchange.
Looks like things are finally moving on the reconstruction of the Grover Cleveland Service Plaza building. The old building has been torn down and right now it looks like they're finishing up with on site demo and remediation work so they can start to build the new building. That should only take a few months, I would imagine, so I'll bet the new building will be ready to go by the fall (that's the NJTA's goal, I would imagine to have it back before the holiday season which sees plenty of extra traffic on the Turnpike).
Agree with you 100%.OTOH, through-traffic to New England could've used I-95 through Philly along with the unbuilt-Somerset Freeway portion to I-695 (also unbuilt in NJ) to I-287 to bypass NYC and vicinity.
But I digress.
NIMBYism hurts everyone
even though think the wider N.J. Turnpike north of Exit 6 was ultimately a better choice.Many truckers would disagree with such and not just because of tolls. The Somerset Freeway would've been a more efficient (i.e. closer) way to connect to many western NJ points as well as I-287 & the NY Thruway than the NJ Turnpike. Such was why many trucks were using US 206 & NJ 31 as a means of going between the Trenton area and I-287. Then-Gov. Whitman put that all to an end by prohibiting through-truck-traffic along those roads (those NO 102 prohibition signs popped up as a result of such).
When the PA Turnpike redid their service areas they would shut them down the day after Labor Day and have them reopened by the following Memorial Day. However, I believe that they were all major rehabs of existing buildings and did not involve any new construction.
Many truckers would disagree with such and not just because of tolls. The Somerset Freeway would've been a more efficient (i.e. closer) way to connect to many western NJ points as well as I-287 & the NY Thruway than the NJ Turnpike. Such was why many trucks were using US 206 & NJ 31 as a means of going between the Trenton area and I-287. Then-Gov. Whitman put that all to an end by prohibiting through-truck-traffic along those roads (those NO 102 prohibition signs popped up as a result of such).
But such is another topic for another thread.
Should the Somerset have been built? IMO, yes. But IMO not as a "free" road, for it would have damaged the finances of the NJTA pretty badly.It should be noted that most toll roads were originally supposed to have their toll booths removed once the bonds that initially built those roads were fully paid off (via the tolls). The tolls weren't supposed to be there indefinitely.
Should the Somerset have been built? IMO, yes. But IMO not as a "free" road, for it would have damaged the finances of the NJTA pretty badly.It should be noted that most toll roads were originally supposed to have their toll booths removed once the bonds that initially built those roads were fully paid off (via the tolls). The tolls weren't supposed to be there indefinitely.
Such was probably the rationale behind having serveral toll roads and turnpikes designated as Interstates and being grandfathered into the system.
All correct - New Jersey was pretty explicit that the Turnpike would become "free" once the bonds were paid-off.
Are you sure about that? I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually present any proof that the road would become toll free. Somewhere along the line, there would've been wording from the bond agreement, or a press release, or an interview, or something that said that. Yet, no one has ever seen such a statement, as far as I know.
Are you sure about that? I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually present any proof that the road would become toll free. Somewhere along the line, there would've been wording from the bond agreement, or a press release, or an interview, or something that said that. Yet, no one has ever seen such a statement, as far as I know.
I think I read it in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (http://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551), by Angus Kress Gillespie and Michael Aaron Rockland, which I consider a credible source.
After the bonds are liquidated the express route will become part of the state's free highway system
See http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz122/njroadfan/NJTP%20Booklet/njtp_p2_zps08f56270.jpg~original
The loophole is that more bonds were issued for expanding the highway. Also, just because the law gives the provision to hand the road back, doesn't mean they have to. I'm sure some of the laws were altered, particularly when the NJ Highway Authority was merged into the Turnpike Authority.
I realize there is a "free" section of the Parkway (Exits 129 to 140?), but I understand that the Turnpike Authority maintains all of the Parkway these days without help from NJDOT.
I realize there is a "free" section of the Parkway (Exits 129 to 140?), but I understand that the Turnpike Authority maintains all of the Parkway these days without help from NJDOT.
In fact, NJTA has been giving NJDOT several hundred million dollars a year recently. It's pretty much like the PA Turnpike's turning over revenue to PennDOT, except there's no true act or legislation mandating such.
There may be some minor funding agreements on occasion (ie: NJDOT may request to do an improvement which touches on NJTA's right-of-way, which NJTA has to give permission for), but nothing substantial.
So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?
(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/firedanger.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/firedanger.jpg.html)
So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?
So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?
I have never smoked and never will. Can anyone who does comment on why it seems so widely accepted to throw cigarettes out car windows? For some reason, it's one of those things that really bothers me. I would never even think about throwing trash out my car window, especially not trash that's on fire!
As a former smoker I can tell you I did to keep my car clean and to prevent my ashtray from smelling up the car.It's worth noting that ashtrays (if equipped) on todays cars are plastic, and have been for at least two decades. Couple that with most vehicles being equipped w/A/C plus today's aerodynamic exterior designs translating into more road noise at highway speeds when the windows are open; and one can easily see why (I am not condoning such actions) many will toss their used butts out the window.
Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window.It's not just a highway thing. I've seen people do similar at train & bus station platforms (they'll throw them on the ground or train/trolley tracks); even at ones that have NO SMOKING signs posted throughout.
Pretty much like a transportation public meeting where numerous people complain they don't want a widened highway; they would rather see more mass transit options, carpooling, etc...and then watch everyone leave and realize everyone in attendance drove their own vehicle to the meeting, even if people were neighbors and/or had mass transit options available to get to/from the meeting.One word description for such: hypocrites.
It's not just a highway thing. I've seen people do similar at train & bus station platforms (they'll throw them on the ground or train/trolley tracks); even at ones that have NO SMOKING signs posted throughout.
Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window. Pretty much like a transportation public meeting where numerous people complain they don't want a widened highway; they would rather see more mass transit options, carpooling, etc...and then watch everyone leave and realize everyone in attendance drove their own vehicle to the meeting, even if people were neighbors and/or had mass transit options available to get to/from the meeting.
MR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew’s college graduation dinner in Baltimore. You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them? Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
Carsley? Could it be Carlstadt? Wrong direction. Kearney? Maybe.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.While I don't doubt the scenario is real, and I am pretty sure I've heard that pronunciation from my own GPS myself (and recognized what it meant without issue), what's interesting here is:QuoteMR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew’s college graduation dinner in Baltimore. You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them? Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
Carsley? Could it be Carlstadt? Wrong direction. Kearney? Maybe.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
Such reminds me a bit of this particular Dustin comic strip (http://dustincomics.com/comics/february-22-2015/) from last February. :sombrero:
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.While I don't doubt the scenario is real, and I am pretty sure I've heard that pronunciation from my own GPS myself (and recognized what it meant without issue), what's interesting here is:QuoteMR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephews college graduation dinner in Baltimore. You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them? Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
Carsley? Could it be Carlstadt? Wrong direction. Kearney? Maybe.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
1. In my experience the GPS doesn't have enough resolution to detect whether I'm on the inner or outer roadway
2. Do trucks have special GPSs with info about where trucks are around? I don't recall seeing an "avoid no trucks" or something on any GPSs I've used
3. How does the GPS select which roadway to use in the absense of real time traffic info? At random?
Frig those dopey GPS things! I still use old fashioned paper road-maps, which enable me to see the big picture and plan my route intelligently. And they're less expensive too. Yes I'm dating myself here. LOLPreach it Brother! :thumbsup:
Back when I was a kid in the 1950's & 60's littering was considered a bigger problem and there was some enforcement, anti-littering commercials on TV, etc. Today I think littering is less common, and regrettably there probably isn't much enforcement.
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.While I don't doubt the scenario is real, and I am pretty sure I've heard that pronunciation from my own GPS myself (and recognized what it meant without issue), what's interesting here is:QuoteMR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew’s college graduation dinner in Baltimore. You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them? Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
Carsley? Could it be Carlstadt? Wrong direction. Kearney? Maybe.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
1. In my experience the GPS doesn't have enough resolution to detect whether I'm on the inner or outer roadway
2. Do trucks have special GPSs with info about where trucks are around? I don't recall seeing an "avoid no trucks" or something on any GPSs I've used
3. How does the GPS select which roadway to use in the absense of real time traffic info? At random?
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.While I don't doubt the scenario is real, and I am pretty sure I've heard that pronunciation from my own GPS myself (and recognized what it meant without issue), what's interesting here is:QuoteMR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK
I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew’s college graduation dinner in Baltimore. You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them? Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.
Carsley? Could it be Carlstadt? Wrong direction. Kearney? Maybe.
A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.
There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.
Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:
CARS ONLY
1. In my experience the GPS doesn't have enough resolution to detect whether I'm on the inner or outer roadway
2. Do trucks have special GPSs with info about where trucks are around? I don't recall seeing an "avoid no trucks" or something on any GPSs I've used
3. How does the GPS select which roadway to use in the absense of real time traffic info? At random?
Mine will tell me to go to one or the other, but regardless of which I choose, it will assume I'm on the one it designated (unless–and this doesn't happen on the Jersey Turnpike–the two carriageways pull far enough apart for the device to notice I'm on the "wrong" one).
There are 28 interchanges on the turnpike and 359 entrances and exits on the parkway.
The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway...in some sections accommodate 14 lanes of traffic."
(from Rich Teitelbaum, IBM client executive for New Jersey government.):...It’s impossible to reduce collisions and traffic jams to zero...
The State Police today unveiled a newly designed black Chevy Caprice with a frosted image of the division's logo that will be out on the streets just in time for the unofficial start of summer. While the cars are technically marked, they won't stand out in traffic.
In a nutshell, if one sees any late model Caprice on the road, regardless of its paintjob & markings; it's most likely an active patrol vehicle (they're not old enough to be decommissioned & auctioned off to the public en masse yet).
Unfortunately I can't get my hands on paper road maps :-o :no: But I still love them.Frig those dopey GPS things! I still use old fashioned paper road-maps, which enable me to see the big picture and plan my route intelligently. And they're less expensive too. Yes I'm dating myself here. LOLPreach it Brother! :thumbsup:
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:It must be the Caprice that I am starting to see the NJSP using along the GSP around here (marked "classic" white style). It just doesn't look menacing enough. I liked when they started using the Chargers - marked or unmarked, I think it commands a little more respect. When I see the newer cars, I just can't help but feel that they are gonna start driving Smart Cars next. A neighboring town is using black Chargers and you mind your P's and Q's when passing through.....Quote from: NJ.com ArticleThe State Police today unveiled a newly designed black Chevy Caprice with a frosted image of the division's logo that will be out on the streets just in time for the unofficial start of summer. While the cars are technically marked, they won't stand out in traffic.
Side bar (& most motorheads/car enthusiasts know this): Unlike other vehicles used by police departments and highway patrols that are based off present or previous retail models (Charger, Crown Victoria, Explorer, Impala, Tahoe, Taurus) the current (Holden-based) Caprice is only available to law enforcement (as a 'fleet only' vehicle).
In a nutshell, if one sees any late model Caprice on the road, regardless of its paintjob & markings; it's most likely an active patrol vehicle (they're not old enough to be decommissioned & auctioned off to the public en masse yet).
The NJSP have been buying a lot of Caprice PPVs. I have seen several out of the northern NJ barracks (Totowa, Hope, Netcong) patrolling I-80. My local municipal police force just recently acquired one too. They may not look mean, but don't try challenging them. They're very fast; 0-60 in 3.7 seconds or something close to that. I can't remember what exactly I read in Car & Driver. They have 415 hp and 400 lb/ft of torque.Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:It must be the Caprice that I am starting to see the NJSP using along the GSP around here (marked "classic" white style). It just doesn't look menacing enough. I liked when they started using the Chargers - marked or unmarked, I think it commands a little more respect. When I see the newer cars, I just can't help but feel that they are gonna start driving Smart Cars next. A neighboring town is using black Chargers and you mind your P's and Q's when passing through.....Quote from: NJ.com ArticleThe State Police today unveiled a newly designed black Chevy Caprice with a frosted image of the division's logo that will be out on the streets just in time for the unofficial start of summer. While the cars are technically marked, they won't stand out in traffic.
Side bar (& most motorheads/car enthusiasts know this): Unlike other vehicles used by police departments and highway patrols that are based off present or previous retail models (Charger, Crown Victoria, Explorer, Impala, Tahoe, Taurus) the current (Holden-based) Caprice is only available to law enforcement (as a 'fleet only' vehicle).
In a nutshell, if one sees any late model Caprice on the road, regardless of its paintjob & markings; it's most likely an active patrol vehicle (they're not old enough to be decommissioned & auctioned off to the public en masse yet).
The NJSP have been buying a lot of Caprice PPVs. I have seen several out of the northern NJ barracks (Totowa, Hope, Netcong) patrolling I-80. My local municipal police force just recently acquired one too. They may not look mean, but don't try challenging them. They're very fast; 0-60 in 3.7 seconds or something close to that. I can't remember what exactly I read in Car & Driver. They have 415 hp and 400 lb/ft of torque.Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:It must be the Caprice that I am starting to see the NJSP using along the GSP around here (marked "classic" white style). It just doesn't look menacing enough. I liked when they started using the Chargers - marked or unmarked, I think it commands a little more respect. When I see the newer cars, I just can't help but feel that they are gonna start driving Smart Cars next. A neighboring town is using black Chargers and you mind your P's and Q's when passing through.....Quote from: NJ.com ArticleThe State Police today unveiled a newly designed black Chevy Caprice with a frosted image of the division's logo that will be out on the streets just in time for the unofficial start of summer. While the cars are technically marked, they won't stand out in traffic.
Side bar (& most motorheads/car enthusiasts know this): Unlike other vehicles used by police departments and highway patrols that are based off present or previous retail models (Charger, Crown Victoria, Explorer, Impala, Tahoe, Taurus) the current (Holden-based) Caprice is only available to law enforcement (as a 'fleet only' vehicle).
In a nutshell, if one sees any late model Caprice on the road, regardless of its paintjob & markings; it's most likely an active patrol vehicle (they're not old enough to be decommissioned & auctioned off to the public en masse yet).
My cousin is a police officer in my local town. They have a few Chargers, a few old Crown Vics, various SUVs, and one PPV (they plan to order more when funds allow) in their fleet. He's driven the PPV a few times and claims that it is by far their quickest accelerating and handles the best out of their fleet of vehicles.
CP is right that Chevrolet has released the same car for civilian use. Sold as the Chevrolet SS. They were available in limited production in 2014 with a six speed manual as the only available transmission. For 2015 an automatic option has been made available. I have yet to see one on the road. I'd love to own one (or at least take one for a ride). I realistically can't afford one though.
The NJSP have been buying a lot of Caprice PPVs. I have seen several out of the northern NJ barracks (Totowa, Hope, Netcong) patrolling I-80. My local municipal police force just recently acquired one too. They may not look mean, but don't try challenging them. They're very fast; 0-60 in 3.7 seconds or something close to that. I can't remember what exactly I read in Car & Driver. They have 415 hp and 400 lb/ft of torque.Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:It must be the Caprice that I am starting to see the NJSP using along the GSP around here (marked "classic" white style). It just doesn't look menacing enough. I liked when they started using the Chargers - marked or unmarked, I think it commands a little more respect. When I see the newer cars, I just can't help but feel that they are gonna start driving Smart Cars next. A neighboring town is using black Chargers and you mind your P's and Q's when passing through.....Quote from: NJ.com ArticleThe State Police today unveiled a newly designed black Chevy Caprice with a frosted image of the division's logo that will be out on the streets just in time for the unofficial start of summer. While the cars are technically marked, they won't stand out in traffic.
Side bar (& most motorheads/car enthusiasts know this): Unlike other vehicles used by police departments and highway patrols that are based off present or previous retail models (Charger, Crown Victoria, Explorer, Impala, Tahoe, Taurus) the current (Holden-based) Caprice is only available to law enforcement (as a 'fleet only' vehicle).
In a nutshell, if one sees any late model Caprice on the road, regardless of its paintjob & markings; it's most likely an active patrol vehicle (they're not old enough to be decommissioned & auctioned off to the public en masse yet).
My cousin is a police officer in my local town. They have a few Chargers, a few old Crown Vics, various SUVs, and one PPV (they plan to order more when funds allow) in their fleet. He's driven the PPV a few times and claims that it is by far their quickest accelerating and handles the best out of their fleet of vehicles.
CP is right that Chevrolet has released the same car for civilian use. Sold as the Chevrolet SS. They were available in limited production in 2014 with a six speed manual as the only available transmission. For 2015 an automatic option has been made available. I have yet to see one on the road. I'd love to own one (or at least take one for a ride). I realistically can't afford one though.
Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window.
It's been about twenty years (he quit in 1995) since my dad smoked. Must've thrown all of those cigarettes onto the turnpike :-DSo, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?
I have never smoked and never will. Can anyone who does comment on why it seems so widely accepted to throw cigarettes out car windows? For some reason, it's one of those things that really bothers me. I would never even think about throwing trash out my car window, especially not trash that's on fire!
Yes and no.In a nutshell, if one sees any late model Caprice on the road, regardless of its paintjob & markings; it's most likely an active patrol vehicle (they're not old enough to be decommissioned & auctioned off to the public en masse yet).
Supposedly, GM is going to be selling the Holden Caprice in the North American auto market to consumers as the Chevrolet SS (http://www.chevrolet.com/ss-sports-sedan.html) (looks like a pretty cool mid-life crisis car), but I am not sure if that has actually happened.
Interestingly, the Chevy SS only comes with that big (and thirsty) V-8 engine (no V-6 available).It's worth noting that the only reason why the Holden/Chevy Statesman-based Caprice and Commodore-based SS sedan are being offered at all is because of a contractual agreement that GM had with Holden of Australia to sell X number (not sure of the exact number) of cars in the U.S. market per year.
The NJSP have been buying a lot of Caprice PPVs.Such purchases could ultimately turn out to be extremely foolish now that that particular platform is officially on death-row. Unlike other police-packaged vehicles sold in the U.S. (& Canada); there's are a lot fewer examples around to use as parts-cars.
The NJSP have been buying a lot of Caprice PPVs.Such purchases could ultimately turn out to be extremely foolish now that that particular platform is officially on death-row. Unlike other police-packaged vehicles sold in the U.S. (& Canada); there's are a lot fewer examples around to use as parts-cars.
While NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such; trust me when I say this... fingers will be pointed towards whoever picked/selected the winning bidder when the car and platform gets discontinued and replacement/repair parts (already rare with this particular model given its very limited availablility) become hard (and/or expensive) to find/obtain. The car's basically becoming an orphan very soon.The NJSP have been buying a lot of Caprice PPVs.Such purchases could ultimately turn out to be extremely foolish now that that particular platform is officially on death-row. Unlike other police-packaged vehicles sold in the U.S. (& Canada); there's are a lot fewer examples around to use as parts-cars.
Generally these vehicles are purchased as part of a large contract that went out to bid with specific specifications. As long as the low bidder (or winning bidder) met all the qualifications of the bid specs, there's not much the NJSP could do about it.
While NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such...
While NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such...
OTOH, one phone call from NJSP's procurement person to GM's fleet sales person, along the lines of "Want our repeat business? Fix this!" might get them off their butts. If it doesn't, then start pointing fingers...and find another vendor...
Unlike GM's decision to kill off its original B-bodied Caprice nearly 2 decades ago (that move p#ssed off a lot of law enforcement agencies including NJSP); GM in the U.S. can't control the decisions made by an affiliated Australian Auto Company (Holden) toWhile NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such...
OTOH, one phone call from NJSP's procurement person to GM's fleet sales person, along the lines of "Want our repeat business? Fix this!" might get them off their butts. If it doesn't, then start pointing fingers...and find another vendor...
While NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such...
OTOH, one phone call from NJSP's procurement person to GM's fleet sales person, along the lines of "Want our repeat business? Fix this!" might get them off their butts. If it doesn't, then start pointing fingers...and find another vendor...
That's not how the bidding process works.
GM in the U.S. can't control the decisions made by an Australian Auto Company (Holden) to liquidate.
While NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such...
OTOH, one phone call from NJSP's procurement person to GM's fleet sales person, along the lines of "Want our repeat business? Fix this!" might get them off their butts. If it doesn't, then start pointing fingers...and find another vendor...
That's not how the bidding process works.
It is exactly how it works, if NJSP says so. There are ways of crafting specifications that can effectively exclude certain providers, without specifically excluding them.
why are they discontinuing the Caprice PPV?Holden, the Australian company that manufactures the Caprice PPV, will be no longer be manufacturing vehicles after 2017.
In December 2013, Holden announced it would transition to a national sales company and full-line importer in Australia and New Zealand by the end of 2017. Holden will discontinue vehicle and engine manufacturing and significantly reduce its engineering operations in Australia by the end of 2017.
Ford needs to bring back the CVPI.You're preaching to the choir with that statement.
I thought they were both divisions of GM corporate?
Today Holden is one of only seven fully-integrated global General Motors operations that designs, builds and sells vehicles for Australia and the world.The key word there is global. The decisions made regarding Holden's vehicle-producing future were due to the marketing conditions (& sales) in Australia. Keeping the division alive for the sole purpose of selling a police-only car and a limited-production sports sedan for a market located on the opposite side of the globe is not economically wise nor viable.
Quite true. When Ford halted production of its Panther-platformed cars (including the CVPI, aka P71), CHP wasted no time at all modifying their specs (beefing up minimum payload requirements) so that the only eligible police-packaged vehicles that met that criteria for bidding were SUVs (Tahoe PPV, Utility Interceptor (Explorer)). Such made a clear point (to vehicle manufacturers) that CHP was not going to be forced into smaller vehicles.That's not how the bidding process works.It is exactly how it works, if NJSP says so. There are ways of crafting specifications that can effectively exclude certain providers, without specifically excluding them.
While NJSP themselves may not be able to do anything about such...
OTOH, one phone call from NJSP's procurement person to GM's fleet sales person, along the lines of "Want our repeat business? Fix this!" might get them off their butts. If it doesn't, then start pointing fingers...and find another vendor...
That's not how the bidding process works.
It is exactly how it works, if NJSP says so. There are ways of crafting specifications that can effectively exclude certain providers, without specifically excluding them.
When I worked for PennDOT we had the ability to designate contractors and vendors as permanently or temporarily not qualified based on past poor performance. It had to be thoroughly justified and documented, but in essence (in sid's words), it is exactly how it works.
Has anyone noticed that on the four lane section the I-95 shields are pasted right ontop of Older smaller ones?On I-295 (at least north of I-76/NJ 42), most of the shields on the BGS' appear to have been either replaced or have had new decals placed over existing sign-mounted shields. As a whole, the numerals are smaller and the red-and-blue shield limits aren't completely in-sync with the shields edges (uneven white borders).
Such reminds me a bit of this particular Dustin comic strip (http://dustincomics.com/comics/february-22-2015/) from last February. :sombrero:Just one more reason I'm glad I don't use a GPS.
A national organization has named the New Jersey Turnpike Authority as the top money making toll agency in the country, just edging out the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
And the Turnpike Authority could be on track to do it again, after more traffic and cheap gas helped erase toll revenue losses from the nasty winter of 2015 and increased earnings for the first five months of 2015 beyond a consultant's predictions.
NJ.com: Pay a toll today? You likely gave money to 1 of the 2 most lucrative toll agencies in America (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/07/your_tolls_make_the_turnpike_authority_the_most_lucrative_toll_agency_in_america.html)At least the Turnpike Authority uses its entire revenue on highway projects and reinvests in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network.QuoteA national organization has named the New Jersey Turnpike Authority as the top money making toll agency in the country, just edging out the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.QuoteAnd the Turnpike Authority could be on track to do it again, after more traffic and cheap gas helped erase toll revenue losses from the nasty winter of 2015 and increased earnings for the first five months of 2015 beyond a consultant's predictions.
At least the Turnpike Authority uses its entire revenue on highway projects and reinvests in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network.
At least the Turnpike Authority uses its entire revenue on highway projects and reinvests in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network.
Not exactly.
I believe the NJTA is required to make a "contribution" in most years to NJDOT. According to the Turnpike's audited 2014 financial statements (here (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2014_Audited_Financial_State.pdf#page=13) (in .pdf), about $354,001,000 was transferred (diverted) to the State of New Jersey during fiscal year 2014).
Is this as bad or as crippling as Pennsylvania's Act 44 and follow-on Act 89, which requires massive Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission payments to PennDOT to subsidize transit and other non-highway spending on that state. IMO, no.
At least the Turnpike Authority uses its entire revenue on highway projects and reinvests in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network.
Not exactly.
I believe the NJTA is required to make a "contribution" in most years to NJDOT. According to the Turnpike's audited 2014 financial statements (here (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2014_Audited_Financial_State.pdf#page=13) (in .pdf), about $354,001,000 was transferred (diverted) to the State of New Jersey during fiscal year 2014).
Is this as bad or as crippling as Pennsylvania's Act 44 and follow-on Act 89, which requires massive Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission payments to PennDOT to subsidize transit and other non-highway spending on that state. IMO, no.
I don't believe that the payments the NJTA has to pay cripples the Authority in the way the PTC is getting nailed to the wall by Act 44/89, but it does hurt bottom lines. I think that some of Corzine's plans to reorg everything in '06 or '07 would have made things worse.
Keep in mind the purpose of this subsidy (as one would) is for improvements on roads connecting to or paralleling the Turnpike. It's in NJTA's interest to maximize the traffic coming to their roadway, and some of that work won't be within their jurisdiction.At least the Turnpike Authority uses its entire revenue on highway projects and reinvests in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network.
Not exactly.
I believe the NJTA is required to make a "contribution" in most years to NJDOT. According to the Turnpike's audited 2014 financial statements (here (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2014_Audited_Financial_State.pdf#page=13) (in .pdf), about $354,001,000 was transferred (diverted) to the State of New Jersey during fiscal year 2014).
Is this as bad or as crippling as Pennsylvania's Act 44 and follow-on Act 89, which requires massive Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission payments to PennDOT to subsidize transit and other non-highway spending on that state. IMO, no.
NOTE: The GSP DOES NOT GO INTO Paterson. It goes into Clifton THEN Garfield, Saddle Brook, Paramus, Ridgewood and up ONLY to the N.Y. Thruway. GET IT RIGHT !!!! I'm from New Jersey !!!! The closest exits to Paterson from the GSP are EXITS 155, 155P, 156 and 159!!! READ PEOPLE, READ !!!!! LEARN HOW TO READ A MAP !!!!
NOTE: The GSP DOES NOT GO INTO Paterson. It goes into Clifton THEN Garfield, Saddle Brook, Paramus, Ridgewood and up ONLY to the N.Y. Thruway. GET IT RIGHT !!!! I'm from New Jersey !!!! The closest exits to Paterson from the GSP are EXITS 155, 155P, 156 and 159!!! READ PEOPLE, READ !!!!! LEARN HOW TO READ A MAP !!!!
Looks like the MUTCD sign replacement project on the Turnpike has started to pick up steam. A bunch of signs along the Western Spur have been repalced with MUTCD signage recently. One thing I am noticing is that the older Exit Point signs (not sure the correct TA name for them, the ones right at the exit that are overhead and say Exit XX with a Turnpike arrow) are not being removed. Not sure if they're going to come down later and gore point exit signs will be installed or what.
Also of note is that at 16W, "Sports Complex" is now on a brown background to set it apart, much like the supplemental signage that was installed in the recent past has been.
overcapitalized and overemoted garbageyou sound like Christie on amphetamines. stop giving my state a bad name and take a few Quaaludes
I'm from New Jersey !!!!You live in Pennsylvania. Stay there.
I'm from New Jersey !!!!You live in Pennsylvania. Stay there.
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDeiMD9a7w) is what came to mind.overcapitalized and overemoted garbageyou sound like Christie on amphetamines. stop giving my state a bad name and take a few Quaaludes
out of curiosity, is there any desire whatsoever in NJTA to apply for Interstate designation on the Eastern spur and/or sign the spurs as 95E/95W? admittedly, there's little practical utility to it.
How about just finally placing I-95 shields an all the NJTP signs between Exits 10 and 7A. I can understand the reasoning for not doing such between Exits 7A and 6 for the time being; but north of I-195/Exit 7A, there's no excuse not to co-sign the NJTP as I-95.out of curiosity, is there any desire whatsoever in NJTA to apply for Interstate designation on the Eastern spur and/or sign the spurs as 95E/95W? admittedly, there's little practical utility to it.
IMO, better for NJTA/NJDOT to apply for a 3di x95 for the segment of the Turnpike from 1 to 6.
NJ in general just has never been all that big in wanting to plaster their limited access highways with interstate designations.We're talking about a stretch of highway that's been a de-facto part of I-95 for at least two decades. IMHO, those shields should have been erected once the I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange was completed in the mid-1990s (with TO 95 trailblazers along I-195 and I295 north of Exit 60).
If they haven't done so already, there's no reason to suddenly start now.Personally, I'm surprised that the Feds haven't leaned on NJTA yet for that. They're leaning on them for everything else (more MUTCD complaint signage and so forth).
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDeiMD9a7w) is what came to mind.overcapitalized and overemoted garbageyou sound like Christie on amphetamines. stop giving my state a bad name and take a few Quaaludes
out of curiosity, is there any desire whatsoever in NJTA to apply for Interstate designation on the Eastern spur and/or sign the spurs as 95E/95W? admittedly, there's little practical utility to it.
Just out of curiosity, why are so many of the destinations at NJTP interchanges basically the location of the exit? Like Exit 10. Do people really mostly take 287 to Edison or Metuchen? Not Somerville or Morristown? Or Exit 11, Woodbridge? Not Union or East Orange? I'd argue for Atlantic City at Exit 4 going Southbound as well.
I'll concede Atlantic City to you, but is the exit location thing a general rule or just Turnpike practice? I would think if an exit primarily serves a numbered highway, the primary destinations should be the highway's control points, and I see that done elsewhere.Just out of curiosity, why are so many of the destinations at NJTP interchanges basically the location of the exit? Like Exit 10. Do people really mostly take 287 to Edison or Metuchen? Not Somerville or Morristown? Or Exit 11, Woodbridge? Not Union or East Orange? I'd argue for Atlantic City at Exit 4 going Southbound as well.
In general, exits are signed for the town the exit is located in, or another nearby town. And while they don't always succeed, the exit should be signed the same when approached by either direction. When you start going further away, there are likely easier ways to get to that far-away destination from another exit.
And there's always the factor of history: When the highway was opened, various destinations were chosen. In the time since, other towns have probably grown and become larger and more important, so now the highway authority has to decide whether to update the destinations. To move away from the original towns now usually would require a good reason to do so, and usually the towns listed on the sign will fight such a move.
Re: Atlantic City: Most people going south would have exited at Exit 11. Going North, they would exit at 1 or 3. If they are in the state (but not on the Turnpike) between Interchange 9 and 5, there are better options than the Turnpike (which would be going SW, away from AC) to get to Atlantic City. Thus, there's really no reason to sign it at Interchange 4, especially as there are many other large destination points off that exit.
If anything I'd sign exit 2 (US 322) for Atlantic City if you really want an Atlantic City exit.
Massive truck fire engulfs overpass, closes Turnpike near Exit 13AI was one of the poor schmucks who got stuck going southbound. It popped up on the radio just as I entered the beginning of the car lanes north of 14 and it was too late to bail out. The troopers had not yet diverted everybody from the car lanes at 13A yet, so I was able to get off there (after sitting for a long time in the airport stretch) while the exit still wasn't too jammed. I went north through the airport loop to 78 and out to the GSP. I was kind of surprised that there wasn't more traffic that way - everybody seemed intent on heading south on 1/9, which is usually a bad idea even without this kind of mess.
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/08/turnpike_shutdown_at_exit_13a_due_to_truck_fire.html (http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/08/turnpike_shutdown_at_exit_13a_due_to_truck_fire.html)
There is speculation that the integrity of the structural steel of the overpass has been compromised.
Massive truck fire engulfs overpass, closes Turnpike near Exit 13AWhich overpass? I'm finding it surprisingly hard to get information on this event.
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/08/turnpike_shutdown_at_exit_13a_due_to_truck_fire.html (http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2015/08/turnpike_shutdown_at_exit_13a_due_to_truck_fire.html)
There is speculation that the integrity of the structural steel of the overpass has been compromised.
Which overpass? I'm finding it surprisingly hard to get information on this event.
Shit. Last I read, fortunately, the structure is sound and can reopen right away. Not so fortunately, the utilities running across were heavily damaged, and I'm sure the industries on the east side depend on those utilities.Which overpass? I'm finding it surprisingly hard to get information on this event.
Wood Avenue and U-Turn ramp in Linden: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.611789,-74.224393,3a,75y,29.5h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO370qVocO52o6vrZO_EV_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
No stars to the VMS system in the area during the incident. I didn't see anything on the Turnpike heading into it, and nothing later while on the GSP driving around it. I thought for sure as I approached exit 129 (Turnpike) going SB on the GSP that there would be some kind of message indicating the Turnpike was closed NB. Leading up to it, one mentioned the continuing and unrelated Bayonne Bridge closure and another one closer to the exit had nothing at all. I guess a complete closure on one of the nation's busiest arteries doesn't make the cut.
Roadrunner, they may assume that if you're southbound on the GSP, that you wouldn't be turning to go north on the Turnpike.They shouldn't assume. There is an exit from the GSP to the turnpike in that direction, so that warning should be on the VMS. Judging by the huge line of cars snaking out of the NB onramp, they didn't bother with the VMS in that direction either. There was nothing on the Turnpike itself coming SB into it too, or I wouldn't have gotten stuck. When something is that important, you put it on all of them. Those signs aren't cheap, so if they're not going to put useful information on them, then don't put them up.
That's odd. It was all over VMSs on NJ 42 and I-295 even though the part of the Turnpike in question is quite far away. Does this mean NJDOT posted the info, but NJTA didn't?
Ya know what's interesting is that the original 1950's interchange between the NJT and the GSP only allowed movement from Pkwy. South to Tpk. South and Tpk. North to Pkwy. North. You had to use Route 9 for any other movements. The current major interchange wasn't built until I believe the early 1970's, as part of the dual roadways project.I just looked that up on Historic Aerials - very interesting. It looks like the current interchange was built somewhere around 1967/1968, as the 1968 aerial shows the new interchange complete, but the Turnpike widening project still underway. The 1966 aerial shows the original configuration, and the 1970 aerial shows the Turnpike fully widened. Apparently the original partial interchange with the GSP was Exit 10 on the NJTP, while US9 was Exit 11. Exit 10 was then shifted south to the new 287/440 interchange while the GSP was now accessed at 11.
3. Why are there separate sets of lanes? It can't just be 5 lanes in each direction normally?
3. Why are there separate sets of lanes? It can't just be 5 lanes in each direction normally?
There are separate sets of lanes because if all of the lanes were on one set, there could be a car accident that reaches from one side of the set to the other. With different sets, not as many cars will get damaged and less traffic.
3. I've asked this same question - instead of 3/3/3/3, you could fit 7/7 or even 8/8. The reason is that above at most 4 lanes, traffic flow is no longer nearly as efficient. A single 7 lane road doesn't do much better than a 3/3 divided road. You have to move all the way to the right to get to your exit, and traffic would weave all over the place (drive the Parkway at 6/6 for an idea of what it's like). It also lets cars be separated from trucks if they so choose, which many drivers prefer.
Yeah, I have to agree. I-270 in Columbus is nuts on the north and east sides with 4-6 lanes in a single carriageway at many points. Not fun.
Ya know what's interesting is that the original 1950's interchange between the NJT and the GSP only allowed movement from Pkwy. South to Tpk. South and Tpk. North to Pkwy. North. You had to use Route 9 for any other movements. The current major interchange wasn't built until I believe the early 1970's, as part of the dual roadways project.I just looked that up on Historic Aerials - very interesting. It looks like the current interchange was built somewhere around 1967/1968, as the 1968 aerial shows the new interchange complete, but the Turnpike widening project still underway. The 1966 aerial shows the original configuration, and the 1970 aerial shows the Turnpike fully widened. Apparently the original partial interchange with the GSP was Exit 10 on the NJTP, while US9 was Exit 11. Exit 10 was then shifted south to the new 287/440 interchange while the GSP was now accessed at 11.
The bridge used for the original NB exit ramp from the Turnpike to the GSP NB exists today as a police/maintenance cross-over here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5408135,-74.310469,18z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5408135,-74.310469,18z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite)
I just recently noticed some NEW signs at Exits 16E and 17 from the N.J. Turnpike for Rt. 495 East for the Lincoln Tunnel and also for Rt. 3 Secaucus. Has anyone else seen them ? They look better.
Are you sure that is the same exact bridge? It might be at the same location, but look at the piers of this bridge and the color of the girders. If I am not mistaken the original NJT overpasses all used piers that had no hanging over caps (the end piers were flush with the side of the bridge) and the beams were all painted green. This one uses the later piers you will find on any bridges that were added to the system later on. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.54079,-74.310711,3a,66.8y,243.12h,87.41t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sI4bxoqaeuP3rITBxbYWhPw!2e0?force=liteYa know what's interesting is that the original 1950's interchange between the NJT and the GSP only allowed movement from Pkwy. South to Tpk. South and Tpk. North to Pkwy. North. You had to use Route 9 for any other movements. The current major interchange wasn't built until I believe the early 1970's, as part of the dual roadways project.I just looked that up on Historic Aerials - very interesting. It looks like the current interchange was built somewhere around 1967/1968, as the 1968 aerial shows the new interchange complete, but the Turnpike widening project still underway. The 1966 aerial shows the original configuration, and the 1970 aerial shows the Turnpike fully widened. Apparently the original partial interchange with the GSP was Exit 10 on the NJTP, while US9 was Exit 11. Exit 10 was then shifted south to the new 287/440 interchange while the GSP was now accessed at 11.
The bridge used for the original NB exit ramp from the Turnpike to the GSP NB exists today as a police/maintenance cross-over here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5408135,-74.310469,18z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5408135,-74.310469,18z/data=!3m1!1e3?force=lite)
Heads up, button copy fans. New sign mounts are going up at 16W as part of the ramp widening/lane reconfig project, so the 1970s vintage "Turnpike North" and "Turnpike South" signs at the onramps are not going to be around much longer.
Still waiting to see the new sign bridge at Exit 10, especially since it looks like most of the paving work for the new ramps and roadway realignment is done.
Heads up, button copy fans. New sign mounts are going up at 16W as part of the ramp widening/lane reconfig project, so the 1970s vintage "Turnpike North" and "Turnpike South" signs at the onramps are not going to be around much longer.
Still waiting to see the new sign bridge at Exit 10, especially since it looks like most of the paving work for the new ramps and roadway realignment is done.
So basically all remaining button copy will be gone soon. When will this project be completed?
So is thisw one still there?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/437/20199168760_42df90208c.jpg)[/url]
and exit 10 you mean these beauties?
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7787/17148397848_f02892d04a.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7721/17335793021_24a3f73332.jpg)
Does the free turnpike signs all added back in the 90's shortly after the NJTA bought the highway from NJDOT plan to be replaced as well?
Those are typical Turnpike signs, but being the area just to the south is replacing vintage 60 and 70 era signs I am wondering if the NJTA will hold off here being these are less than 20 years old verses 40 to 50 years that the others have survived.
Does the free turnpike signs all added back in the 90's shortly after the NJTA bought the highway from NJDOT plan to be replaced as well?
Those are typical Turnpike signs, but being the area just to the south is replacing vintage 60 and 70 era signs I am wondering if the NJTA will hold off here being these are less than 20 years old verses 40 to 50 years that the others have survived.
Between the Cheesequake service plaza to exit 127 (part where the sign replacement is going on and where my parents had driven), all the signs appeared to be new. I don't know for north of exit 127.Does the free turnpike signs all added back in the 90's shortly after the NJTA bought the highway from NJDOT plan to be replaced as well?
Those are typical Turnpike signs, but being the area just to the south is replacing vintage 60 and 70 era signs I am wondering if the NJTA will hold off here being these are less than 20 years old verses 40 to 50 years that the others have survived.
Looking thru the Turnpike's website, they have active Guide Sign replacement contracts out for the NJ Turnpike from around MP 106 to 117 (end of original Turnpike) and on the GSP. Looking up the NJ Turnpike extension, which is the 'free' turnpike you are referring to, and which is usually written as MP 117 (or MP 118) to MP 122, there doesn't appear to be any current signing replacement projects currently going on.
Between the Cheesequake service plaza to exit 127 (part where the sign replacement is going on and where my parents had driven), all the signs appeared to be new. I don't know for north of exit 127.Does the free turnpike signs all added back in the 90's shortly after the NJTA bought the highway from NJDOT plan to be replaced as well?
Those are typical Turnpike signs, but being the area just to the south is replacing vintage 60 and 70 era signs I am wondering if the NJTA will hold off here being these are less than 20 years old verses 40 to 50 years that the others have survived.
Looking thru the Turnpike's website, they have active Guide Sign replacement contracts out for the NJ Turnpike from around MP 106 to 117 (end of original Turnpike) and on the GSP. Looking up the NJ Turnpike extension, which is the 'free' turnpike you are referring to, and which is usually written as MP 117 (or MP 118) to MP 122, there doesn't appear to be any current signing replacement projects currently going on.
NJTP, I have nothing to say, as I was sleeping.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey095/i-095_nb_exit_014_04.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey095/i-095_nb_exit_014_04.jpg)
How well are truck lane restrictions on the Turnpike, requiring them to remain in the two right hand lanes, enforced?
Re: NJRoadfan's above post, does anyone know why the NJTA never used the GS Parkway logo at Exit-11? They could have posted it along with the Parkway name, though I don't advocate using the circular logo by itself as NJ DOT does on Routes 287/440 and I-80 approaching the Parkway.
NJTA recognized the importance of the Exit-11 interchange as a major transition point for many drivers with their spelling of PARKWAY in upper-case letters. Compare that to NJDOT's inadequate signing on 287/440 westbound at the exit for the Parkway South. They only used small signs with the Parkway logo, hardly conspicuous enough for such a major exit where I don't think they even posted a destination.
Federal safety officials who reviewed a highway crash that badly injured comedian Tracy Morgan and killed a friend were sharply critical of the emergency response to it and are urging the state to establish minimum standards, but prior efforts at reform have failed.
The criticism came during a National Transportation Safety Board meeting Tuesday to determine the cause of the June 7, 2014, crash on the New Jersey Turnpike and to make safety recommendations. It came after the Democrat-led Legislature passed measures to overhaul the state's emergency response system in 2011 and 2013 but Republican Gov. Chris Christie vetoed them.
The panel's written review found the emergency response included "missteps on scene due to poor communication, lack of oversight, and nonstandard patient care practices" and recommended the state Department of Health establish minimum training and practice standards for all the organizations that respond to emergencies on the Turnpike, one of the nation's busiest toll roads.
There's only one old sign left on the northern extension (MP 117-122), and that's the WB entrance from Exit 70 to the I-80 split.
The 129 and 11 entry poinst most likely does not want to use control cities there because both the NJ Turnpike and GS Parkway both go to Newark which would be indeed used. That if Newark were to be used might confuse many motorists and it would not be good for truckers as they cannot use the Parkway.
Bottom line is that non road geeks these days have the simplest solutions brought to them and only get even more confused. My fix would be use "Newark" for the Parkway here and then use "NYC" and "Trenton" for the NJ Turnpike (like the Parkway mainline does adjacent to it). If a trucker does not know he can get to Newark via the NJT or US 9 by now, he probably will never get any wiser and always remain among the rest of the ignorant.
The GSP has a welcome center at both ends. I-295 has one in Deepwater, and I do not know if I-80 still has one east of Columbia. Yes, I agree with you the Turnpike has nothing, although interchanges with lodging, but no weigh stations and no information centers, unless they have added some in recent years.
BTW I-80 had a truck scale just east of the Gap and so did I-287 N Bound in Piscataway at one time.
Well now there's been 3 major accident/fire/fatalities in incidents involving semi-trucks recently (including the Wal-Mart truck vs. limo) on the Turnpike. I won't be surprised if the State Police launch a major crack-down on truckers on the Turnpike very soon. It certainly appears to be needed.
They could begin by enforcing the lane restrictions for trucks.
I hate to say it, but some of the responses sound like they come from your Average Joe and not those with road geeking backgrounds. Lowering the speed limit b/c of a crash or 3 is a knee jerk reaction. People will still go 80 anyway.
Perhaps NJ is relying more on mobile weigh checks like NY?
Well now there's been 3 major accident/fire/fatalities in incidents involving semi-trucks recently (including the Wal-Mart truck vs. limo) on the Turnpike. I won't be surprised if the State Police launch a major crack-down on truckers on the Turnpike very soon. It certainly appears to be needed.Two big ones today on I-80. Maybe it's just trucks in August in general.
Perhaps they should lower the speed limit in the outer roadways to 55 mph.
Point taken re: the latest Turnpike truck accident's cause.
Re: the absence of weigh stations on the toll roads, my guess would be that if they had them on the NJT the trucks would take Routes-1 and 295 cheating the Turnpike out of toll revenue. So in return for the trucks paying the tolls, they are given a break with no weigh stations. It always comes down to money.........
Point taken re: the latest Turnpike truck accident's cause.
Re: the absence of weigh stations on the toll roads, my guess would be that if they had them on the NJT the trucks would take Routes-1 and 295 cheating the Turnpike out of toll revenue. So in return for the trucks paying the tolls, they are given a break with no weigh stations. It always comes down to money.........
Most of the time they find nothing with the truck. many states have done the study and came up with the fact that rarely are trucks having issues with weight.
Also it would be dumb if someone were to drive through NJ illegally with weight. You have a lot of new england ahead of you going north, going south you have the issue of Maryland and their always open scale. Virginia has scales on I-81 that are always open as well. So you may be getting a "free ride" in NJ, but it wouldn't suprise me if they had scales built into the toll booths at the exits.
The Thruway actually has a couple truck inspection stations; one heading north between exits 19-20, and one heading west between exits 28-29.Perhaps NJ is relying more on mobile weigh checks like NY?
I do wonder why some large toll roads (including the NYS Thruway, the N.J. Turnpike; the Pennsylvania Turnpike; and the Ohio Turnpike) do not have any stationary weight enforcement at all.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike does weigh vehicles entering its ticket system, so in that sense does have weight enforcement by just keeping them off that part of its system, but that's not going to work in an all-AET environment.
They're not built into the toll plazas. Equipment within the roadway can count axles but that's it.
They're not built into the toll plazas. Equipment within the roadway can count axles but that's it.
I was told by a PTC (or maybe PennDOT) staff person at a conference that each Pennsylvania Turnpike entry lane has a piezoelectric weigh-in-motion device, and the system is set-up to deny entry to overweight trucks and truck combinations (but the Pennsylvania Turnpike allows a higher gross weight than most "free" roads in the U.S.).
I would home WIM has improved over the past eight years since I last was involved with it. Back then, it could be used for screening for possible overweight trucks, but for actual violations, the trucks had to be put on more accurate scales to prove them...at least in NY.
Yes, the next question is, why was the tractor trailer on the shoulder of the road?
I would hope WIM has improved over the past eight years since I last was involved with it. Back then, it could be used for screening for possible overweight trucks, but for actual violations, the trucks had to be put on more accurate scales to prove them...at least in NY.
How bad would the southbound backup be at the end of the Turnpike on a holiday weekend now? I still remember being stuck in traffic a few times at the old car/truck lane merge around MM 73/Exit 8A on weekends (that was me heading towards Philadelphia, mostly).
Something else I remember the Thruway having was an area where tandem trucks would drop off and/or pick up tow dollies north of Exit 15. I don't know why a truck weigh station couldn't be installed there.The Thruway actually has a couple truck inspection stations; one heading north between exits 19-20, and one heading west between exits 28-29.Perhaps NJ is relying more on mobile weigh checks like NY?
I do wonder why some large toll roads (including the NYS Thruway, the N.J. Turnpike; the Pennsylvania Turnpike; and the Ohio Turnpike) do not have any stationary weight enforcement at all.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike does weigh vehicles entering its ticket system, so in that sense does have weight enforcement by just keeping them off that part of its system, but that's not going to work in an all-AET environment.
I think those signs are even longer than that! The ones approaching Exit 17 from the north were erected when the original Exit 18 toll plaza was removed for the current 16E-18E plaza and the relocation of Exit 17 from Route 3 proper to where it is at now as a one way coin drop to and from Route 495.I'm going this way in 2017, do you think they can hang on for that long?
Roadman65 is correct about the Exits 16E-17-18E history. Those southbound Exit 17 signs went up circa 1964 when the new interchange was built. That big arcing exit ramp seemed really cool to this young adolescent around that time! BTW the posted exit toll was 15 cents if you can believe that.
Very dark painted green, but not actually black - and about to disappear I've heard, but I don't know that it's tied to any specific project.Roadman65 is correct about the Exits 16E-17-18E history. Those southbound Exit 17 signs went up circa 1964 when the new interchange was built. That big arcing exit ramp seemed really cool to this young adolescent around that time! BTW the posted exit toll was 15 cents if you can believe that.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/437/20199168760_42df90208c.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/292/20199169030_0340a139c6.jpg)
I noticed for some signs it takes a while (months?) for the foundations to stabilize.
ANY news on the Black button copy Tpke signage on NJ-495 approaching the Tpke?
Roadman65 is correct about the Exits 16E-17-18E history. Those southbound Exit 17 signs went up circa 1964 when the new interchange was built. That big arcing exit ramp seemed really cool to this young adolescent around that time! BTW the posted exit toll was 15 cents if you can believe that.You know that ramp is cool and I always noticed something about it that was totally different from the other turnpike bridges. It seemed like it did not belong because other turnpike bridges all had the same designs such as the rounded bottom piers and further south with Exit 6 northbound's on ramp having the same angle across the roadway as Exit 17 does, it featured more modern design features. It always struck me, but never really gave it a second thought until recently when I saw aerials from the past. Had the current Exit 17 been built with the original turnpike you would have that typical turnpike design as the Exit 6 bridge has.
Anybody know when this was put up on NJ-495?Probably when the interchange was built in the 1950s. After all, it references US 46 as the northern terminus.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)
Anybody know when this was put up on NJ-495?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)
I'd expect this and the other 3 in the area will soon be replaced as well?
I hate to see "TO US 46" and "Pa-Del-Md" as well. I know the MUTCD and since the interchange was added a lot to the area has changed, like I-95 coming and extending the Turnpike to the GWB and stuff, but its nice to leave at least this sign anyway.Anybody know when this was put up on NJ-495?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)
I'd expect this and the other 3 in the area will soon be replaced as well?
The sign bridge is going up. One of the support arms is up, and the other one and the truss are on site. This sign will be replaced very soon.
Man, if Philly didn't get enough of a shaft getting left off of MD's signs on I-95, now NJ is giving the city the same treatment. All of the southbound signs are likely going to say Camden and/or Trenton at this point!
Nah with the 95 completion you'll likely see Camden/Philadelphia control cities.
Philadelphia should've got a spot on the NJ Turnpike control cities decades ago.Man, if Philly didn't get enough of a shaft getting left off of MD's signs on I-95, now NJ is giving the city the same treatment. All of the southbound signs are likely going to say Camden and/or Trenton at this point!
Nah with the 95 completion you'll likely see Camden/Philadelphia control cities.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)
The white (or formally yellow-now-faded) stripe on the bottom of the sign -- did that once have text???
I am not against Philly being on it, but with Newark being NJ largest city and on the signs for I-95 from the Bronx southward, it will most likely be on it with either Camden or Trenton with it.
Yes Maryland won't let Philly be signed from Baltimore northward and Delaware uses its own Wilmington with NJ-NY, up until after I-295 then Philly comes into ramp signs.
The problem is that the NJT is the defacto I-95 and Philadelphia is miles away from the NJT mainline.
Yes, another part of road history gone like the Exit 6 gantry now a memory as well.
I would assume it was once down arrows, and then the lane-use control signals came and they were removed/plated over to avoid conflicting information. (Not sure why the whiteout plate was necessary, though. Maybe the arrow removal left noticeable scars.)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)
The white (or formally yellow-now-faded) stripe on the bottom of the sign -- did that once have text???
Are the ancient signs gone? If there's enough luck, these signs may be missed when they hit the replacement schedule.
Anybody know when this was put up on NJ-495?
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)
I'd expect this and the other 3 in the area will soon be replaced as well?
The sign bridge is going up. One of the support arms is up, and the other one and the truss are on site. This sign will be replaced very soon.
I agree with Newark as the control-city for NJT southbound. But what screws that up is the signs approaching the G.W. Bridge on the New York side show Trenton as the 95-South destination, which I don't agree with in this vicinity. This constant inconsistency in destinations defeats the purpose.
V-e-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g! I wonder why they're putting the pull-through signs at the beginning of the deceleration lane instead of at the split.
I agree with Newark as the control-city for NJT southbound. But what screws that up is the signs approaching the G.W. Bridge on the New York side show Trenton as the 95-South destination, which I don't agree with in this vicinity. This constant inconsistency in destinations defeats the purpose.
I miss the NJTP squiggly arrows.
I agree with Newark as the control-city for NJT southbound. But what screws that up is the signs approaching the G.W. Bridge on the New York side show Trenton as the 95-South destination, which I don't agree with in this vicinity. This constant inconsistency in destinations defeats the purpose.The new exit signs for I-95/NJTP off the Garden State Parkway jumps ahead of Trenton and uses Camden for a listed southbound Turnpike destination (mainly due to Trenton being used for the US 1 interchange just north of the Turnpike interchange). At least that destination inconsistency is for an exit sign and not for a (pull-)through sign.
(http://i.imgur.com/LT2g01k.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Fm9z2YV.jpg)they couldn't have widened the panel in the second image so the exit tab doesn't overhang the sides, like they did in the first..? exit tabs longer than the panel they're attached to are one of my pet peeves.
(http://i.imgur.com/WGurWXC.jpg)
I'm almost positive the MUTCD specifies that the main sign panel must be at least as wide as the exit-number plaque, but I'm unable to find it in the Manual now.Nope. There is no such requirement in the MUTCD. However, apart from aesthetics, wind loading concerns make it a good practice to do so. In fact, per current MassDOT practice, the main sign panel must be at least a foot wider than the exit tab - this is to provide the right-side/left-side justification for the tab.
Wow. Those signs look so...normal!
In this pic below, what's going up in the background here? I counted no fewer than 9 cranes!Quote(http://i.imgur.com/LT2g01k.jpg)
Is it too late to block construction? Is opposition heavy in this area?Wow. Those signs look so...normal!
In this pic below, what's going up in the background here? I counted no fewer than 9 cranes!Quote(http://i.imgur.com/LT2g01k.jpg)
Construction on what was going to be the Xanadu mall project, now the American Dream (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream_Meadowlands) Mall, which is just going to make traffic more of a nightmare than it already is around the Meadowlands.
Is it too late to block construction? Is opposition heavy in this area?Wow. Those signs look so...normal!
In this pic below, what's going up in the background here? I counted no fewer than 9 cranes!Quote(http://i.imgur.com/LT2g01k.jpg)
Construction on what was going to be the Xanadu mall project, now the American Dream (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream_Meadowlands) Mall, which is just going to make traffic more of a nightmare than it already is around the Meadowlands.
this doesn't apply in this case - the suffixes on the Turnpike don't refer to the direction of the cross route. Exit 16E resides on the Eastern Spur, Exit 16W resides on the Western Spur.You might be right roadman. Could be wishful thinking on my part.Also note that the 2009 MUTCD does not allow the use of 'N, E, S, and W' as exit number suffixes. From Section 2E.31:QuoteExit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route.
Was it not shut down for several years as I do remember it was partially built back in 09 when I drove through there then? Probably now everyone wants it to be completed as the half way built eyesore was probably annoying people who passed by on both Route 3 and The Turnpike.
Not even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Thanks for the clarification. My bad - have removed the previous post.this doesn't apply in this case - the suffixes on the Turnpike don't refer to the direction of the cross route. Exit 16E resides on the Eastern Spur, Exit 16W resides on the Western Spur.You might be right roadman. Could be wishful thinking on my part.Also note that the 2009 MUTCD does not allow the use of 'N, E, S, and W' as exit number suffixes. From Section 2E.31:QuoteExit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route.
That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years old and lots of people from my generation have fond memories of concerts there. I saw Clapton three times there, REO Speedwagon, Tom Petty twice, MeatLoaf, Grateful Dead, and I think a few more.Not even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years oldNot even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years oldNot even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
And at 34, third-oldest in both the NBA and NHL.
That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years oldNot even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
And at 34, third-oldest in both the NBA and NHL.
Not many people are grieving over loss of an arena inconveniently built in the middle of a swamp.
I miss them too, but then again its great to see control cities along the way. Hopefully that I-78 gets their signs for the mainline with Trenton, and whatever for Northbound being New York cannot be used there as I-78 goes there as well. I am guessing that the George Washington Bridge would have to be used as I do not think NJTA would use New Haven.
The Newark stadium is an A+ venue. I find it easy to get there with a raft of options, whereas the Meadowlands is limited to 1) shitty rail, 2) drive, 3) drive.That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years oldNot even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
And at 34, third-oldest in both the NBA and NHL.
Not many people are grieving over loss of an arena inconveniently built in the middle of a swamp.
An arena built on the Turnpike and Route 3 within a few miles of three crossings to New York and Routes 80 and 17.
Considering that the bulk of North Jersey folks drive, convenience of access was not something I ever heard anyone complain about in my decades there. Manhattanites had a harder time, something that should have been addressed better, but they already had a hockey and basketball team.
Trust me, people who can afford things like hockey tickets with any regularity probably preferred not going into Newark.
the Rock is indeed fantastic, but traffic on McCarter (NJ 21) sucks horribly. granted, my comparison is Philly's Sports Complex, which has awesome accessibility.
The Newark stadium is an A+ venue. I find it easy to get there with a raft of options, whereas the Meadowlands is limited to 1) shitty rail, 2) drive, 3) drive.
4) drive.
The Newark stadium is an A+ venue. I find it easy to get there with a raft of options, whereas the Meadowlands is limited to 1) shitty rail, 2) drive, 3) drive.That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years oldNot even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
And at 34, third-oldest in both the NBA and NHL.
Not many people are grieving over loss of an arena inconveniently built in the middle of a swamp.
An arena built on the Turnpike and Route 3 within a few miles of three crossings to New York and Routes 80 and 17.
Considering that the bulk of North Jersey folks drive, convenience of access was not something I ever heard anyone complain about in my decades there. Manhattanites had a harder time, something that should have been addressed better, but they already had a hockey and basketball team.
Trust me, people who can afford things like hockey tickets with any regularity probably preferred not going into Newark.
4) drive.
Looks like American Dream will be opening shortly, which is fine, because now it won't compete with arena traffic so it won't overload the network any worse than a poorly timed hockey or basketball game during football season.
See, I park and take the light rail in. Anything that comes to Newark Penn works perfectly for getting to the Rock. You can PATH from points east or take trains or buses.the Rock is indeed fantastic, but traffic on McCarter (NJ 21) sucks horribly. granted, my comparison is Philly's Sports Complex, which has awesome accessibility.
The Newark stadium is an A+ venue. I find it easy to get there with a raft of options, whereas the Meadowlands is limited to 1) shitty rail, 2) drive, 3) drive.
4) drive.
See, I park and take the light rail in. Anything that comes to Newark Penn works perfectly for getting to the Rock. You can PATH from points east or take trains or buses.the Rock is indeed fantastic, but traffic on McCarter (NJ 21) sucks horribly. granted, my comparison is Philly's Sports Complex, which has awesome accessibility.
The Newark stadium is an A+ venue. I find it easy to get there with a raft of options, whereas the Meadowlands is limited to 1) shitty rail, 2) drive, 3) drive.
4) drive.
Your memory serves correct. At one time everything in North Jersey was by car and back in the 80's when gas was under a buck a gallon, even with the inflation rate back then, it was cheap to drive around. Most people back then, especially the 18-25 crowd loved to not only drive in general but to actually then buy used cars and take pride in fixing them up instead of nowadays with practically new cars for that age group and using a mechanic to repair them.The Newark stadium is an A+ venue. I find it easy to get there with a raft of options, whereas the Meadowlands is limited to 1) shitty rail, 2) drive, 3) drive.That is a shame, as it is just barely over 34 years oldNot even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Not it is.
And at 34, third-oldest in both the NBA and NHL.
Not many people are grieving over loss of an arena inconveniently built in the middle of a swamp.
An arena built on the Turnpike and Route 3 within a few miles of three crossings to New York and Routes 80 and 17.
Considering that the bulk of North Jersey folks drive, convenience of access was not something I ever heard anyone complain about in my decades there. Manhattanites had a harder time, something that should have been addressed better, but they already had a hockey and basketball team.
Trust me, people who can afford things like hockey tickets with any regularity probably preferred not going into Newark.
4) drive.
Looks like American Dream will be opening shortly, which is fine, because now it won't compete with arena traffic so it won't overload the network any worse than a poorly timed hockey or basketball game during football season.
During the time the arena was built, intra-New-Jersey transit was even more of an afterthought than it is today. Under those circumstances, I don't recall any outcry (from folks over 16) over having to employ options 2-4, since this is how so much of everything else around there was reached.
Wonder if "Somerville" will ever be used for NB I-287 or even "Morristown/ Mahwah" like the rest of the NB 287 ramps now use? Only from the major NJ Turnpike does Metuchen get used, especially since NJDOT signs at the top of the ramps have no control cities for I-287 N Bound.
Incidentally, is the erroneous "Raritan Center" for CR 514 E Bound still there? Also did NJDOT finally replace the gantry that was removed on CR 514 W Bound at the I-287 ramp as seen in GSV?
Wonder if "Somerville" will ever be used for NB I-287 or even "Morristown/ Mahwah" like the rest of the NB 287 ramps now use? Only from the major NJ Turnpike does Metuchen get used, especially since NJDOT signs at the top of the ramps have no control cities for I-287 N Bound.
The only reason that Metuchen makes sense is because that's the next town on I-287.
I can make a rough estimate of what I-287's exit numbers would be if I-95 used the Somerset. I believe it came at around where CR 529 (Exit 5) is? If it is, I'll start north of there, as I-95 took over the last 5 or so miles of I-287.Don't bother. I-287's exit numbers started out as if I-95 used the Somerset. Check an old map.
Does anyone know the history of I-287's diagramical signs that were used pre 1998? I often wondered if that was an experiment that NJDOT was trying out back then to see if it would catch on, but later on in 1985, NJDOT painted over( I remember them repainting the signs when I used to work in Somerset and commute along 287) the button copy with a reflective green body and new white lettering as well as the big diagram.
Off-topic but.........it's no wonder the State of California resisted exit numbering as long as they did considering how all the above posts show that exit numbering can create as much confusion as it solves. Maybe California was right. LOL
I wish I knew back in the 80's that the internet would be someday, and that there were other road enthusiasts besides me, as it was something I could not talk about to just anyone. If I knew the future then, I would have photographed them then as well as old Pulaski Skyway signs and others around North Jersey that are long gone.Does anyone know the history of I-287's diagramical signs that were used pre 1998? I often wondered if that was an experiment that NJDOT was trying out back then to see if it would catch on, but later on in 1985, NJDOT painted over( I remember them repainting the signs when I used to work in Somerset and commute along 287) the button copy with a reflective green body and new white lettering as well as the big diagram.
According to Steve Anderson's nycroads.com, it was a federally funded experiment. Not sure why they stayed for so long though. Wish there were more old pictures of them.
As expected, the old button copy sign bridge past the Exit 10 toll plaza has been replaced:
(http://i.imgur.com/lvHjBFk.jpg)
Good to see that 440's direction is signed correctly, but those CR-514 shields are atrocious.
storm2k, I did notice just now that GSV just last month showed County 514 west signed for Highland Park/Raritan Center, but wasn't 514 west signed for Bonhamtown a few years ago?
ixnay
NJ 440 was signed east, but because New York signs it north, NJDOT complied with them.
Also, I see they did not include a Garden State Parkway shield for NJ 440 that was on the old signs. However, CR 514 does get mentioned.
I presume they also figure anyone wanting the Parkway would have stayed on the Turnpike to Exit 11, though that's not necessarily valid for people wanting to go south on the Parkway.GSP has never been signed anywhere but Exit 11. So anyone using 10 to get to the GSP already knows it's there, which means they probably know how to get there, so they don't need a sign. If you're clueless enough that you can't get to the GSP via 440, then you'd be going to the signed Parkway at 11.
As expected, the old button copy sign bridge past the Exit 10 toll plaza has been replaced:
(http://i.imgur.com/lvHjBFk.jpg)
Good to see that 440's direction is signed correctly, but those CR-514 shields are atrocious.
storm2k, I did notice just now that GSV just last month showed County 514 west signed for Highland Park/Raritan Center, but wasn't 514 west signed for Bonhamtown a few years ago?
ixnay
It was, but Raritan Center is a better choice. No one knows where Bonhamtown is, but a lot of traffic goes to Raritan Center.
I love that there is this movement of eliminating the New Jersey standard of the circle/oval within a black rectangle/square because it's allegedly too hard on the mushy brains of confused out-of-staters, but now suddenly a county route marker, where this practice is all but unheard of, is put up within a yellow square.
I love that there is this movement of eliminating the New Jersey standard of the circle/oval within a black rectangle/square because it's allegedly too hard on the mushy brains of confused out-of-staters, but now suddenly a county route marker, where this practice is all but unheard of, is put up within a yellow square.
Smells to me like an image editing error. The yellow background was supposed to be set to transparent, but it wasn't.
storm2k, I did notice just now that GSV just last month showed County 514 west signed for Highland Park/Raritan Center, but wasn't 514 west signed for Bonhamtown a few years ago?
ixnay
It was, but Raritan Center is a better choice. No one knows where Bonhamtown is, but a lot of traffic goes to Raritan Center.
I don't disagree with the re-signing, but FWIW...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonhamtown,_New_Jersey
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bonhamtown,+Edison,+NJ+08837/@40.523442,-74.359843,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c3c9d33b55595f:0xab4119b3b7d6028a
ixnay
P.S. The reason I brought up Bonhamtown was because seeing that toponym always makes me think of this guy... http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bonhabi01.shtml (I'm a Phillies fan [yes that's a team with as checkered a history as the North Siders'] but Bonham pitched for the Cubs early in my sports fandom when CHC was in the Phils' division)
P.P.S. And when looking up *Bill* Bonham, I came across an earlier Bonham... http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bonhati01.shtml
I love that there is this movement of eliminating the New Jersey standard of the circle/oval within a black rectangle/square because it's allegedly too hard on the mushy brains of confused out-of-staters, but now suddenly a county route marker, where this practice is all but unheard of, is put up within a yellow square.You'll find plenty of states, like Florida, doing the same thing. Turns out the yellow square actually made it as far as the 2009 MUTCD before they came up with a county shield with a thicker yellow outline - instead of yellow inset inside the blue, it makes it to the edge of the sign, so not only is it thicker, but it's also consistent with other light-legend dark-background signs. That being said, the old way of dealing with the blue edge was to rim it in a yellow square. It will take more time for that practice to die.
I love that there is this movement of eliminating the New Jersey standard of the circle/oval within a black rectangle/square because it's allegedly too hard on the mushy brains of confused out-of-staters, but now suddenly a county route marker, where this practice is all but unheard of, is put up within a yellow square.You'll find plenty of states, like Florida, doing the same thing. Turns out the yellow square actually made it as far as the 2009 MUTCD before they came up with a county shield with a thicker yellow outline - instead of yellow inset inside the blue, it makes it to the edge of the sign, so not only is it thicker, but it's also consistent with other light-legend dark-background signs. That being said, the old way of dealing with the blue edge was to rim it in a yellow square. It will take more time for that practice to die.
I love that there is this movement of eliminating the New Jersey standard of the circle/oval within a black rectangle/square because it's allegedly too hard on the mushy brains of confused out-of-staters, but now suddenly a county route marker, where this practice is all but unheard of, is put up within a yellow square.You'll find plenty of states, like Florida, doing the same thing. Turns out the yellow square actually made it as far as the 2009 MUTCD before they came up with a county shield with a thicker yellow outline - instead of yellow inset inside the blue, it makes it to the edge of the sign, so not only is it thicker, but it's also consistent with other light-legend dark-background signs. That being said, the old way of dealing with the blue edge was to rim it in a yellow square. It will take more time for that practice to die.
The only instances I've seen of blue pentagons on a green guide sign involved no yellow background. This goes back to probably 287, either when the first new segment opened (23 to 511) or when the whole new shebang opened in 1993.I... what?
Not sure what year that sign is dated though. If it predates 1993, then yes you are right.The only instances I've seen of blue pentagons on a green guide sign involved no yellow background. This goes back to probably 287, either when the first new segment opened (23 to 511) or when the whole new shebang opened in 1993.I... what?
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-287/n55adv.jpg)
NJ has always used the square.
I-295 has yellow-background CR shields all over the place.
only in Gloucester County and south - none of the 6xx roads north of 42 are signed (e.g. exits 42, 45, 52...)I-295 has yellow-background CR shields all over the place.
And they have 6xx numbers too, which aren't even supposed to be signed on exit signs!
Not sure what year that sign is dated though. If it predates 1993, then yes you are right.The only instances I've seen of blue pentagons on a green guide sign involved no yellow background. This goes back to probably 287, either when the first new segment opened (23 to 511) or when the whole new shebang opened in 1993.I... what?
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-287/n55adv.jpg)
NJ has always used the square.
I-295 has yellow-background CR shields all over the place.
And they have 6xx numbers too, which aren't even supposed to be signed on exit signs!
The only instances I've seen of blue pentagons on a green guide sign involved no yellow background. This goes back to probably 287, either when the first new segment opened (23 to 511) or when the whole new shebang opened in 1993.I... what?
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-287/n55adv.jpg)
NJ has always used the square.
only in Gloucester County and south - none of the 6xx roads north of 42 are signed (e.g. exits 42, 45, 52...)I-295 has yellow-background CR shields all over the place.
And they have 6xx numbers too, which aren't even supposed to be signed on exit signs!
my comment was specifically about I-295 (which the listed exit numbers reference).only in Gloucester County and south - none of the 6xx roads north of 42 are signed (e.g. exits 42, 45, 52...)I-295 has yellow-background CR shields all over the place.
And they have 6xx numbers too, which aren't even supposed to be signed on exit signs!
Depends on your definition of exit signs. US 46 has a ton of 600 series routes on overhead signs.
Does the GSP still have CR 614 and CR 618 on the bgs in Ocean CountyIf the BGS are old, yes. But new policy is not to sign 6xx routes (Turnpike and Parkway), only 5xx. I don't believe NJDOT has a set policy on it, so they would sign 6xx routes where they are used for wayfinding. That's mostly south Jersey.
The only instances I've seen of blue pentagons on a green guide sign involved no yellow background. This goes back to probably 287, either when the first new segment opened (23 to 511) or when the whole new shebang opened in 1993.I... what?
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-287/n55adv.jpg)
NJ has always used the square.
I guess I'm wrong. My mind must tune out that yellow back.
This raises the question–will New Jersey be dropping this yellow background just as it has bowed to the pressure to drop the black background that is part of its state route sign?i hope not - while there's no contrast issue with a white shield against a green background, there's definitely one with the CR shield.
I believe the new standard for the MUTCD will not have a square background, but that's not going to be effective until the next update, so wait and see.This raises the question–will New Jersey be dropping this yellow background just as it has bowed to the pressure to drop the black background that is part of its state route sign?i hope not - while there's no contrast issue with a white shield against a green background, there's definitely one with the CR shield.
The 'recent' signage changes on NJ 42 have CR shields with no yellow background:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.787241,-75.0487314,3a,75y,25.81h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLyCnMDwyato_d785JtFYaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8278357,-75.0857428,3a,75y,310.69h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s16prpUYPJeoFUX--S9ltuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8374581,-75.0921933,3a,75y,160.68h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snQr77KD8jwJj4zBcsr861Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8064438,-75.0580648,3a,75y,175.44h,69.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdjKmrbRyX8fXOxVkrpwqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Is there new signage yet for Creek Road on NJ 42?
Yeah, that's definitely an older variant with limited application in the state.The 'recent' signage changes on NJ 42 have CR shields with no yellow background:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.787241,-75.0487314,3a,75y,25.81h,82.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLyCnMDwyato_d785JtFYaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8278357,-75.0857428,3a,75y,310.69h,93.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s16prpUYPJeoFUX--S9ltuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8374581,-75.0921933,3a,75y,160.68h,88.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snQr77KD8jwJj4zBcsr861Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8064438,-75.0580648,3a,75y,175.44h,69.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdjKmrbRyX8fXOxVkrpwqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Is there new signage yet for Creek Road on NJ 42?
On 42 North yes and CR shield is on a yellow backdrop. Also all of the new signage in the Bellmawr interchange and on I-76 have the NJ 42 and US 130 shields on black backdrops.
Also the signs in those GSVs are either no more or old in the case of the case of the last two.
Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?yes.
Turnpike Exit 2 isn't part of I-95.exit 2 on the Turnpike is also not for a county route.
False. It's CR 536. :) And east of there, US 322 is county maintained for some distance.Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?yes.Quote from: KEVIN_224Turnpike Exit 2 isn't part of I-95.exit 2 on the Turnpike is also not for a county route.
False. It's CR 536. :) And east of there, US 322 is county maintained for some distance.Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?yes.Quote from: KEVIN_224Turnpike Exit 2 isn't part of I-95.exit 2 on the Turnpike is also not for a county route.
False. It's CR 536. :) And east of there, US 322 is county maintained for some distance.Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?yes.Quote from: KEVIN_224Turnpike Exit 2 isn't part of I-95.exit 2 on the Turnpike is also not for a county route.
Is there a reliable website that tells you which highways in NJ are county-maintained but state/U.S. signed?
Speaking of county maintained roads in NJ, do the counties have road maintenance vehicles with county seals on them like they do here in MD?
ixnay
The New Jersey Turnpike will close the southbound car lanes exit at interchange 7A for about a month starting Wednesday to repair improperly installed steel plates.
The car lanes travel over a bridge that was constructed during the Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program and an inspection found the steel plates beneath the bridge were not built to specification, the Turnpike Authority (NJTA) said.
The contractor is replacing the deficient steel plates at no additional cost to the NJTA. The work is expected to be completed before Thanksgiving.
exit 2 on the Turnpike is also not for a county route.False. It's CR 536. :) And east of there, US 322 is county maintained for some distance.
Quiet, you!
Whoops...looks like the NJ Turnpike Exit 7 Inner Roadway (Car Lanes) southbound exit ramp will be closed for a month to fix a contractor error. Per the article, the contractor is picking up the tab for the repairs.It's exit 7A, not 7.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/10/nj_turnpike_car_lanes_exit_at_7a_to_close_for_mont.htmlQuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike will close the southbound car lanes exit at interchange 7A for about a month starting Wednesday to repair improperly installed steel plates.
The car lanes travel over a bridge that was constructed during the Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program and an inspection found the steel plates beneath the bridge were not built to specification, the Turnpike Authority (NJTA) said.
The contractor is replacing the deficient steel plates at no additional cost to the NJTA. The work is expected to be completed before Thanksgiving.
Whoops...looks like the NJ Turnpike Exit 7 Inner Roadway (Car Lanes) southbound exit ramp will be closed for a month to fix a contractor error. Per the article, the contractor is picking up the tab for the repairs.It's exit 7A, not 7.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/10/nj_turnpike_car_lanes_exit_at_7a_to_close_for_mont.htmlQuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike will close the southbound car lanes exit at interchange 7A for about a month starting Wednesday to repair improperly installed steel plates.
The car lanes travel over a bridge that was constructed during the Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program and an inspection found the steel plates beneath the bridge were not built to specification, the Turnpike Authority (NJTA) said.
The contractor is replacing the deficient steel plates at no additional cost to the NJTA. The work is expected to be completed before Thanksgiving.
NJ 511 has a warning about the upcoming closure. They are advising those who don't want to use the truck lanes to use exit 8 or 7 instead. First, why would you not want to use the truck lanes (unless they are more congested or something). Second, doesn't switching to the truck lanes at the Molly Pitcher service area deserve a mention?
I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Many of those VMS ssigns also say 'and Cars' or something like that for the Truck Lanes, along with the down arrow. I wonder how extensively they would be used for a message like this.The old signs (pre-widening) would (still do?) just say "cars, trucks, and buses". The new VMS signs seem to have "and cars" at the bottom, which is not very well lit at night, so is easy to miss.
I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
And what is generating *that*?
ixnay
Whoops...looks like the NJ Turnpike Exit 7A Inner Roadway (Car Lanes) southbound exit ramp will be closed for a month to fix a contractor error. Per the article, the contractor is picking up the tab for the repairs.
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/10/nj_turnpike_car_lanes_exit_at_7a_to_close_for_mont.htmlQuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike will close the southbound car lanes exit at interchange 7A for about a month starting Wednesday to repair improperly installed steel plates.
The car lanes travel over a bridge that was constructed during the Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program and an inspection found the steel plates beneath the bridge were not built to specification, the Turnpike Authority (NJTA) said.
The contractor is replacing the deficient steel plates at no additional cost to the NJTA. The work is expected to be completed before Thanksgiving.
(Edited as the Exit here is 7A, not 7 as originally written)
So no detour signs on 206/130, just like I thought?I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
So no detour signs on 206/130, just like I thought?I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
Who would want to drive 14 miles out of the way and pay extra tolls. I do not know why the NJT will not build a temporary crossover about two miles before the interchange and allow for drivers in the car lanes to just transfer over.I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
Who would want to drive 14 miles out of the way and pay extra tolls. I do not know why the NJT will not build a temporary crossover about two miles before the interchange and allow for drivers in the car lanes to just transfer over.I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
Any other agency would do that. Why does the NJTA have to be so anal about this?
Is NJTA really trying to win a noble prize or something for not having a left hand merge even for temporary set ups? Its like their pavement markings use way more paint then the FHWA sets as standards. I have to disagree with that as it makes you appear you are traveling 10 mph slower than your actual speed.
I saw that on the Indiana Toll Road and I was actually pleased that someone else did that other than NJTA.Is NJTA really trying to win a noble prize or something for not having a left hand merge even for temporary set ups? Its like their pavement markings use way more paint then the FHWA sets as standards. I have to disagree with that as it makes you appear you are traveling 10 mph slower than your actual speed.
The pavement markings drive me crazy. ISHTA and the Indiana Toll Road do the same thing, as do PTC, the Maine Turnpike Authority, Port Authority, and TBTA to a lesser extent.
Who would want to drive 14 miles out of the way and pay extra tolls. I do not know why the NJT will not build a temporary crossover about two miles before the interchange and allow for drivers in the car lanes to just transfer over.I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
Any other agency would do that. Why does the NJTA have to be so anal about this?
I wonder if this is also why the new southbound merge of the car and truck lanes is striped in such a way that the car lanes get to keep two of their lanes (left lane ends) while the truck lanes merge into a single lane (right lane ends, left two lanes merge)? The old merge near exit 8A was a 50/50 merge where the left truck lane and the right car lane merged into one.
You can, but they're not going to sign that. Service area ramps are for service area patrons only. If you have general traffic cutting through there at high speed, it's wildly unsafe, especially with no protection from the gas station area.
Couldn't you just go through the prior service plaza and use that as your "crossover" to the truck lanes?
Also did you remember when the underpasses in Elizabeth were all being repaired? The NJTA did allow the workers to build a crossover to the truck lanes to keep 3 consistent lanes on both carriageways open. In that case the far right cars lanes used the far left truck lanes and no jersey wall separated traffic either. The right shoulder was eliminated so that the truck lanes could be shifted over and all was well. When done the contractor replaced the guardrail and ripped up the asphalt and all is well now.
Maybe I made a mistake, it was dark when I came through there on Sunday using the truck lanes, but what it looked like to me was:I wonder if this is also why the new southbound merge of the car and truck lanes is striped in such a way that the car lanes get to keep two of their lanes (left lane ends) while the truck lanes merge into a single lane (right lane ends, left two lanes merge)? The old merge near exit 8A was a 50/50 merge where the left truck lane and the right car lane merged into one.
Eh...what highway are you looking at?
There are 6 lanes. The left 2 car lanes merge. The right 2 truck lanes merge. The right most car lane and left most truck lane merge. It's a 50/50 split.
Maybe I made a mistake, it was dark when I came through there on Sunday using the truck lanes, but what it looked like to me was:I wonder if this is also why the new southbound merge of the car and truck lanes is striped in such a way that the car lanes get to keep two of their lanes (left lane ends) while the truck lanes merge into a single lane (right lane ends, left two lanes merge)? The old merge near exit 8A was a 50/50 merge where the left truck lane and the right car lane merged into one.
Eh...what highway are you looking at?
There are 6 lanes. The left 2 car lanes merge. The right 2 truck lanes merge. The right most car lane and left most truck lane merge. It's a 50/50 split.
All six lanes are side by side with a solid line separating the car and truck lanes
Left car lane ends first
A second solid line is introduced between the left two lanes and the right lane of the truck lanes
The two lanes between the solid lines merge into one and the right solid line goes away
The right lane ends leaving three lanes with the rightmost separated by a solid line
The solid line goes away
Yep - as you're getting on the turnpike, there's nothing to indicate which ramp would be the inner roadway or outer roadway. In technical turnpike lingo, they use the terms inner & outer roadways, and more specifically acronyms, such as SNO (South to North Inner roadway), NSI (North to South Outer roadway), etc. But to the motoring public, they almost always use what people understand, such as car lanes and truck lanes. Anyone calling them Express & Local lanes are forced to live for 24 hours inside a service plaza.What's the punishment for calling a service area a service *plaza*?
Also, in turnpike lingo, they always use 'Interchange', not Exit. But all the BGSs will say 'Exit'. While most interchanges are exits, not all of them are as such. Interchange 1, for example, is just a barrier plaza. The exits, located about a mile south of the plaza, are unnumbered. (Note, the southern-most exit, Exit 1, is on 295, not the Turnpike).
When the Turnpike & Parkway merged, they merged their people and operations, but certainly not their verbiage. The Parkway proudly refers to Exit 0 at the southern end of the Parkway, for example.
So no detour signs on 206/130, just like I thought?I think, in order to get everyone to use the truck lanes, you would have to have every entering Southbound VMS hybrid sign mention that. While they may do that, no doubt people would miss or not completely understand the message. It's nice they'll offer two options (Exits 8 & 7) for a detour, as NJDOT's policy is only to sign a detour after the exit.From the wording of the announcement, it seems that detours will be posted at exit 8. They are just mentioning that you could use exit 7 as well.
Can confirm "Detour I-195" signs along the Hightstown Bypass as of this morning.
Any updates on the sign replacement project that we've talked about?
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:This is the Eastern Spur. I believe that was taken south of the Pulaski Skyway.
(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
I think this is the Eastern Spur, crossing between Kearny and Secaucus, south of today's Exit 15X?
Drove along the NJ Tpke and the only old sign left was this:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/437/20199168760_42df90208c_c.jpg)
and NB only the Lombardi Service Plaza "exit now" sign on the eastern spur and the "FOOD FUEL KEEP RIGHT" sign as the roadways merge together.
WOW
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/10r3.jpg)
Sign on the left has been replaced. Same destinations, but with a down arrow for the left lane. Sign on the right hasn't been replaced, but I imagine it will at some point.
Will be interested if NJDOT fixes the error on the next sign (I think the rest of the signs for the circle ramp are theirs) which shows 440 East when it should be 440 North. Turnpike is now fixing those errors with the signage replacements. It should have been fixed when those signs were replaced 8 or 9 years ago.
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:At a quick glance, the 95 part of the 1951 year listing literally jumps out. I took me a couple seconds to see the 1s before and after the 95.
(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
It looks like the absolute value of 95.I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:At a quick glance, the 95 part of the 1951 year listing literally jumps out. I took me a couple seconds to see the 1s before and after the 95.
(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
One of those fonts where the 0,1 and 2 are smaller than the other digits. (6 and 8 are longer on top and the remaining digits longer on the bottom.)It looks like the absolute value of 95.I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:At a quick glance, the 95 part of the 1951 year listing literally jumps out. I took me a couple seconds to see the 1s before and after the 95.
(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
|95|
I get the feeling that, to the extent this is possible, the 50s and 60s were heady days for mapmakers. There was something new to add every year. I'm sure that for a while enough of those "proposed" roads made it to reality to justify jumping the gun on marking them.
Sharing here for those who are not on Facebook. Click for a larger version:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974_800.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974.jpg)
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
Heck its been well over 28 years since NJ 440 was changed to N-S in Middlesex County.
Sharing here for those who are not on Facebook. Click for a larger version:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974_800.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974.jpg)
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
I bet it has the planned and never built bypass of Glassboro for US 322 as well as the never built NJ 31 freeway in Mercer County on this.Sharing here for those who are not on Facebook. Click for a larger version:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974_800.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974.jpg)
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
Nice map! And it shows up in higher resolution here than on Facebook. Just wondering, do you have the rest of the map or just that section?
Nice map! And it shows up in higher resolution here than on Facebook. Just wondering, do you have the rest of the map or just that section?
And getting back towards the topic... notice the ski area near NJTPK exit 8A!
Will the New Jersey Turnpike ever get mileage-based exit numbers? Somehow I doubt it.The existing exit numbers on the NJ Turnpike are as iconic as the interchange names on the PA Turnpike. It would take a LOT to make the change worth it.
And yet so was the unique signage. It wasn't long ago that those were considered untouchable too.Will the New Jersey Turnpike ever get mileage-based exit numbers? Somehow I doubt it.The existing exit numbers on the NJ Turnpike are as iconic as the interchange names on the PA Turnpike. It would take a LOT to make the change worth it.
And yet so was the unique signage. It wasn't long ago that those were considered untouchable too.Will the New Jersey Turnpike ever get mileage-based exit numbers? Somehow I doubt it.The existing exit numbers on the NJ Turnpike are as iconic as the interchange names on the PA Turnpike. It would take a LOT to make the change worth it.
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).The NJ Turnpike would have needed a new Exit 8B for this highway. I wonder if the NB-to-SB movements would have been constructed in said interchange. Also, note how the freeway section of NJ-33 begins/ends where the Driscoll was to pass by. The body of water just south of that junction might have made things tricky there.
I grew up in Pt Pleasant and always knew my exit was 98.... Yes people in NJ know that exit, my former boss in Orlando always liked to ask "what exit?" to anyone from NJ. It got annoying, but everyone always knew... I don't recall it being different, but this was back in NY toddler years. I will ask my dad about the difference.Sharing here for those who are not on Facebook. Click for a larger version:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974_800.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974.jpg)
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
Interesting how there are Exits 97 and 96 on the Parkway. I am guessing they all got combined into 98 once 195 was built through to the (former) 38 freeway stub (now 138).
Sharing here for those who are not on Facebook. Click for a larger version:On this map its amazing to see how some of the roads were just recently completed. And many others never finished. And how many are STILL 2 lanes. Florida would have had a bunch of 6 Lane roads
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974_800.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974.jpg)
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
Sharing here for those who are not on Facebook. Click for a larger version:
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974_800.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/northeast/new_jersey_central_1974.jpg)
We found this 1974 NJ Official at the flea market in Pinellas Park, Florida over the weekend. It is the first map that I have ever seen showing the Alfred E. Driscoll Expressway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ae-driscoll/).
Interesting how there are Exits 97 and 96 on the Parkway. I am guessing they all got combined into 98 once 195 was built through to the (former) 38 freeway stub (now 138).
What is interesting with never built roads is the seemingly non sensical ends to other road upgrades. ie the NJTP dual roads started at exit 10, where 95 was supposed to come in
Others have pointed out the Somerset freeway being completed would have caused other problems.. What is now 287 north of New Brunswick would be problematic and the 4 lanes of i95 in PA would be inadequate..What is interesting with never built roads is the seemingly non sensical ends to other road upgrades. ie the NJTP dual roads started at exit 10, where 95 was supposed to come in
That actually makes perfect sense. A lot of traffic would have entered and left the Turnpike at 10 to follow 95, especially truck traffic that would not want to pay more tolls than were necessary. It only made sense to move it southward as it became evident that the Somerset Freeway was not going to be built and more traffic was going to stay on the Turnpike between NY and PA/DE.
I wonder if the current setup on the NJ Turnpike becomes inadequate again after the interchange is built. There were constant delays in both directions between exits 6 and 9 before the truck lanes were extended. Now there are no delays, but traffic is close to capacity. If more traffic starts entering/exiting at exit 6, will the delays come back? On the other hand, where would this extra traffic be diverted from? Maybe from those currently using 295/195, but I imagine most Philly to NY traffic doesn't go that way, using one of the DRPA bridges and getting on the Turnpike at exit 4.
Others have pointed out the Somerset freeway being completed would have caused other problems.. What is now 287 north of New Brunswick would be problematic and the 4 lanes of i95 in PA would be inadequate..What is interesting with never built roads is the seemingly non sensical ends to other road upgrades. ie the NJTP dual roads started at exit 10, where 95 was supposed to come in
That actually makes perfect sense. A lot of traffic would have entered and left the Turnpike at 10 to follow 95, especially truck traffic that would not want to pay more tolls than were necessary. It only made sense to move it southward as it became evident that the Somerset Freeway was not going to be built and more traffic was going to stay on the Turnpike between NY and PA/DE.
The fear of suburban sprawl happened anyway but now they just have 2 Lane roads and a super congested US1.
I wonder if the current setup on the NJ Turnpike becomes inadequate again after the interchange is built. There were constant delays in both directions between exits 6 and 9 before the truck lanes were extended. Now there are no delays, but traffic is close to capacity. If more traffic starts entering/exiting at exit 6, will the delays come back? On the other hand, where would this extra traffic be diverted from? Maybe from those currently using 295/195, but I imagine most Philly to NY traffic doesn't go that way, using one of the DRPA bridges and getting on the Turnpike at exit 4.
On a different note, NBC New York news reported this evening that the northbound Grover Cleveland Service Area near Woodbridge, (which was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy) is reopening! And it's about time. It took less time to build the original mainline of the Turnpike, than to rebuild one service area.
It took less time to build the original mainline of the Turnpike, than to rebuild one service area.it's amazing what actually having a budget will do for a project.
On a different note, NBC New York news reported this evening that the northbound Grover Cleveland Service Area near Woodbridge, (which was severely damaged by Superstorm Sandy) is reopening! And it's about time. It took less time to build the original mainline of the Turnpike, than to rebuild one service area.
NJ.com has some pictures of the new Grover Cleveland Service Area on their website (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/11/this_healthy_nj_turnpike_rest_stop_could_be_a_model_for_future_areas_photos.html#incart_river_home).
When the Delaware Turnpike Service Plaza was closed, a sign approaching the final service plaza on the NJ Turnpike mentioned that there's no service plazas for the next 35 miles (or whatever it was).
Nevermind the fact that there's probably 10 interchanges with full on-off, no charge access as well! :-)
N.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
N.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
*shrug*
I like it and miss the squiggly exit arrows.
N.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
You really like them? I complained about them once. It makes it look silly and funny. I hope they will follow MUTCD.
Aren't they still there though? Many of their signs are outdated.
N.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
So much hate.
Why does the dual-dual setup bother you (or is it the two Meadowlands alignments)? I have never heard someone express disdain for it.
I prefer having simple highway setup system like elsewhere; 5 or 6 lanes per direction better than 3 lanes and diving them. You can always include 'No trucks in left (two) lanes' - also saving money on extra overhead signs, etc.N.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
So much hate.
Why does the dual-dual setup bother you (or is it the two Meadowlands alignments)? I have never heard someone express disdain for it.
N.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
So much hate.
Why does the dual-dual setup bother you (or is it the two Meadowlands alignments)? I have never heard someone express disdain for it.
I prefer having simple highway setup system like elsewhere; 5 or 6 lanes per direction better than 3 lanes and diving them. You can always include 'No trucks in left (two) lanes' - also saving money on extra overhead signs, etc.I am not an engineer but from what I understand too many lanes actually will decrease the level of service of a road. I believe it's over 4 lanes in one direction. The divided carriageway seems more efficient from the perspective of a non PE roadgeek, driver. The NJTP moves better than 75/85 in Atlanta, IMHON.J. Turnpike is the worst designed highway by far in America... I hate the outdated signs, long and thick lane paint, divided highways, low speed limits :banghead:
So much hate.
Why does the dual-dual setup bother you (or is it the two Meadowlands alignments)? I have never heard someone express disdain for it.
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Signs.
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Signs.
Any examples?
What about the longer line paints making them normal sized like other highways?
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Signs.
Any examples?
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Signs.
Any examples?
What about the longer line paints making them normal sized like other highways?
The lines as painted are permitted, per the MUTCD: "Broken lines should consist of 10-foot line segments and 30-foot gaps, or dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for delineation."
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Signs.
Any examples?
What about the longer line paints making them normal sized like other highways?
The lines as painted are permitted, per the MUTCD: "Broken lines should consist of 10-foot line segments and 30-foot gaps, or dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for delineation."
:no:
NJ Turnpike is the only highway in New Jersey not using reflectors (cat's eyes) either...
While on the New Jersey Turnpike today (November 27, 2015), I noticed that the Grover Cleveland service plaza, northbound near Exit 11 in Woodbridge, was open and completely remodeled.
Yes say bye bye to the signs we have grown to love. One thing for sure, I believe NJ 495 will finally get displayed to the world as NJTA never signed it for Exit 16E before.
Yes and even I-495 at the time. The NJTA never had it on 16E or 17 up until now.Yes say bye bye to the signs we have grown to love. One thing for sure, I believe NJ 495 will finally get displayed to the world as NJTA never signed it for Exit 16E before.
Although it was always signed on NJ 495 and NJ 3.
Yes...a certain set of ancient signs still greet traffic along NJ Route 495 West in North Bergen. As observed at about 4 PM Eastern today, during a passing shower:
(http://i.imgur.com/ewmKdCg.jpg)
I hope those signs gets replaced asap
Yes...a certain set of ancient signs still greet traffic along NJ Route 495 West in North Bergen. As observed at about 4 PM Eastern today, during a passing shower:
(http://i.imgur.com/ewmKdCg.jpg)
Yes...a certain set of ancient signs still greet traffic along NJ Route 495 West in North Bergen. As observed at about 4 PM Eastern today, during a passing shower:
(http://i.imgur.com/ewmKdCg.jpg)
I hope those signs gets replaced asap
(http://i.imgur.com/ksIG5NJ.jpg)Looking good!
Replaced signs just past the ramp to 514 WB that now show the correct direction for 440 now, and no Parkway shield.
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?No. The MUTCD agrees with you.
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?No. The MUTCD agrees with you.
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?
Will they add a GSP shield as a supplement here to direct motorists? I know that most would use exit 11 anyway.Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?
I mentioned that in a previous post. These are just not right.
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?
I mentioned that in a previous post. These are just not right.
I'd take that narrow shield over this wide one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8277506,-72.9443363,3a,30.1y,127.13h,89.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTvmUfl4pTGs-0L57nDlc2Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DTvmUfl4pTGs-0L57nDlc2Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D222.29347%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) courtesy NYSDOT Region 10.
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?No. The MUTCD agrees with you.
I'd take that narrow shield over this wide one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8277506,-72.9443363,3a,30.1y,127.13h,89.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTvmUfl4pTGs-0L57nDlc2Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DTvmUfl4pTGs-0L57nDlc2Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D222.29347%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656) courtesy NYSDOT Region 10.
Will they add a GSP shield as a supplement here to direct motorists? I know that most would use exit 11 anyway.Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?
I mentioned that in a previous post. These are just not right.
That "Pa.-Del.-Md." sign, as I said on another thread, says "America Awaits!" May I add that it resonates with me further because I was born and raised in PA, live in MD now, have visited DE innumerable times for various reasons (shopping, work, vacationing, sports watching, etc.), and lived briefly in NJ (Cape May County) in the mid-'80s. That sign is a landmark and I'd like to see it kept, but if it goes, it probably won't be the end of the world.
ixnay
was there a recent sign replacement on the bottom of the Turnpike? (South of Exit 6) those signs seem newer than I remember with different destinations (Mt Laurel replaced Philadelphia on one of them if I remember right) they're still in the unique Turnpike style.
Hey it lasted as long as the reconfigured 16E and 17 project that eliminated the original 17, and made the north mainline toll plaza at Exit 16E. That is well over 50 years.
Hey we made it through the gantry on US 1 & 9 being removed at North Avenue in Elizabeth that was also a piece of history. I thought for sure that would last forever, and that NJDOT would just replace the panels for the next upgrades. For those of you who are wondering which structure that is, was the old wrought iron gantry just north of North Avenue and at the split between Express and local that also had a twin in State Road, DE at the US 13 & 40 split that DelDOT removed as well.
was there a recent sign replacement on the bottom of the Turnpike? (South of Exit 6) those signs seem newer than I remember with different destinations (Mt Laurel replaced Philadelphia on one of them if I remember right) they're still in the unique Turnpike style.
They were replaced approximately 5 years ago (I forget exactly when).
Come to think of it there was a triplet at the entrance to the Cape May Ferry in Lewes on US 9. I think that is gone as well. Either DelDOT or the DRBA replaced it as well.Hey it lasted as long as the reconfigured 16E and 17 project that eliminated the original 17, and made the north mainline toll plaza at Exit 16E. That is well over 50 years.
Hey we made it through the gantry on US 1 & 9 being removed at North Avenue in Elizabeth that was also a piece of history. I thought for sure that would last forever, and that NJDOT would just replace the panels for the next upgrades. For those of you who are wondering which structure that is, was the old wrought iron gantry just north of North Avenue and at the split between Express and local that also had a twin in State Road, DE at the US 13 & 40 split that DelDOT removed as well.
That twin in State Road, DE was a landmark on my trips to summer vacations at the Delaware beaches growing up in the '60s and '70s. I believe there was another one arching over U.S. 13 SB as you passed Delaware State Hospital approaching the I-295 interchange.
Both of those old gantries came down during the '80s I believe.
ixnay
Hey it lasted as long as the reconfigured 16E and 17 project that eliminated the original 17, and made the north mainline toll plaza at Exit 16E. That is well over 50 years.
Hey we made it through the gantry on US 1 & 9 being removed at North Avenue in Elizabeth that was also a piece of history. I thought for sure that would last forever, and that NJDOT would just replace the panels for the next upgrades. For those of you who are wondering which structure that is, was the old wrought iron gantry just north of North Avenue and at the split between Express and local that also had a twin in State Road, DE at the US 13 & 40 split that DelDOT removed as well.
That twin in State Road, DE was a landmark on my trips to summer vacations at the Delaware beaches growing up in the '60s and '70s. I believe there was another one arching over U.S. 13 SB as you passed Delaware State Hospital approaching the I-295 interchange.
Both of those old gantries came down during the '80s I believe.
ixnay
I have a picture of it taken in 09 on my flickr, and it had the current one installed already. I had a previous shot taken early in the 00's, but I cannot find the old pics as it was on my old 35mm Nikon I shot it with.
I want to say that in 03, it was there, but I cannot be sure without the photograph. However, when I saw the new gantry in 09, I was surprised to see it then, so it must of been there the previous time I was there which was September 03.
nel.jpg - 9/16/06I have a picture of it taken in 09 on my flickr, and it had the current one installed already. I had a previous shot taken early in the 00's, but I cannot find the old pics as it was on my old 35mm Nikon I shot it with.
I want to say that in 03, it was there, but I cannot be sure without the photograph. However, when I saw the new gantry in 09, I was surprised to see it then, so it must of been there the previous time I was there which was September 03.
Alps has a shot of it (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9/n.html) on his site. He might be able to chime in with when those photos were taken to narrow down the time when it was replaced.
the NJ state archives has a picture of the original signs. The gantry was replaced when they rebuilt the North Ave. interchange.I remember the one SB on US 1 for US 22 before the current overpass that carries the connector road for the Newark- Liberty International Airport to Exit 57 on I-78. It was removed when they built the overpass, and I remember seeing it I thought that we were in Elizabeth as I did not realize that they had two identical gantries that looked the same. I had to be about 4 or 5 at the time, so that overpass was either built in 69 or 70. The signs that were on that gantry were moved to the bridge after it was completed while the gantry came down.
(http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/images/str00001/SignsRt25Overheadsign.jpg)
Along with a rendering of the sign at the US-22 circle.
(http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/images/str00001/RenderingsRt25Newark.jpg)
Complete archive listing is here: http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/str00001.html
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick. :-PI guess they think Philly is some dinky city in the middle of nowhere. And you're
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick. :-PNo one in their right mind would take US 1 from Newark to Philadelphia today. The turnpike should be signed for it, though, regardless of whether the interchange with the PA Turnpike is there or not.
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick. :-P
I LOVE this sign!
(http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/img/headlights-wipers.jpg)
I LOVE this sign!
(http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/img/headlights-wipers.jpg)
We need some of those here. You'd think driving in the rain would be one thing Seattle drivers would be good at, but no.
I had driven a Hyundai Sonata for nearly 5 years. It had an option in which when the lights automatically go on when the engine was on (low beams = daytime running lights). I got so used to leaving that option on that I find myself having to double back and turn off the lights on my Honda Civic Hybrid after exiting the car all the time now -- not to mention to remember to tun on the lights at night, since my car now does have running lights, I think they are already on.
Oh, it's a law all right, but law enforcement is more interested in speeding tickets than safety issues.
When I first got my current car, a 2012 Ford Focus, I had a few instances where I'd forget to turn my headlights on at night. I soon figured out this was because, unlike every previous car I've ever owned or driven in the past 38+ years, the instrument cluster is illuminated at all times - even when the headlights are off.
but most of all I could be seen by other motorists which is why lights are necessary!I swear many people on the road have zero concept of this. They only think headlights are for you to see better.
When I first got my current car, a 2012 Ford Focus, I had a few instances where I'd forget to turn my headlights on at night. I soon figured out this was because, unlike every previous car I've ever owned or driven in the past 38+ years, the instrument cluster is illuminated at all times - even when the headlights are off.That is what happened to me in Missouri. Come to think of it the dashboard is lit at all times which also made me not realize that my car's lights were not on.
My girlfriend's car (2013 Focus) has automatic headlights and she leaves them in that setting always. I kind of hate it since I don't really trust it to turn them on and off when proper.
Especially since while it's easy to program a car to turn the lights on at night (use a photocell) or when the wipers are activated, there are other situations where headlight use is a good idea that the car won't recognize - most notably when driving on a rural two lane road with passing zones.
The only cars that I know have Daytime Running Lights as standard equipment (in USA) are General Motors, Honda and Toyota. I don't understand why the other car manufacturers have not gotten on-board with this. I believe in Canada DRL's are standard or required on all cars, presumably due to them having less daylight than we do. USA should make them standard too. Being seen better can only benefit us.Headlights annoy me, even lower-powered ones, when it's sunny. They interfere with my vision. Ford operates the same way as Toyota. "You can even turn off the DRL's if you want to." = the way every car should be.
And I agree with J&N re: headlight operation. My 2011 Toyota Camry has both DRL's and automatic headlights but I still have no problem turning them on manually in the rain. And if you forget to turn them off, it's no problem either, they shut off by themselves after you get out of the car. The multi-position switch lets you override the automatic functions. You can even turn off the DRL's if you want to. And yes the instrument lighting is on day and night, but there is an icon that lights up when the full headlights/tailights are on either automatically or manually.
When I first got my current car, a 2012 Ford Focus, I had a few instances where I'd forget to turn my headlights on at night. I soon figured out this was because, unlike every previous car I've ever owned or driven in the past 38+ years, the instrument cluster is illuminated at all times - even when the headlights are off.That is what happened to me in Missouri. Come to think of it the dashboard is lit at all times which also made me not realize that my car's lights were not on.
That is the problem auto makers are coming out with things they think we need. Just yesterday I saw a blinker bulb on the rear of the car that did not flash red or yellow. It flashed blue instead!
I will bet all the young people of today who just started driving will think that is cool and make that something they should have to be hip in front of the others just like some do with the 2 inch tires they previously came out with. The ones like many drive from certain neighborhoods are a trend now used by youths, so this I imagine will be the next one.
My girlfriend's car (2013 Focus) has automatic headlights and she leaves them in that setting always. I kind of hate it since I don't really trust it to turn them on and off when proper.
Especially since while it's easy to program a car to turn the lights on at night (use a photocell) or when the wipers are activated, there are other situations where headlight use is a good idea that the car won't recognize - most notably when driving on a rural two lane road with passing zones.
Doesn't the car have DRLs? As far as the wipers go, just turn them on manually, then when you get to your destination, then them back to auto mode. Just like one would do if they turned the lights on and off anyway.
Speaking of turn signals, does anyone else think that amber turn signals surrounded by red brake lights or taillights - which seems to be the latest design trend on many cars - are a bad idea?That is the problem auto makers are coming out with things they think we need. Just yesterday I saw a blinker bulb on the rear of the car that did not flash red or yellow. It flashed blue instead!
I will bet all the young people of today who just started driving will think that is cool and make that something they should have to be hip in front of the others just like some do with the 2 inch tires they previously came out with. The ones like many drive from certain neighborhoods are a trend now used by youths, so this I imagine will be the next one.
That blue flasher was probably aftermarket already. I *think* flasher lights must be red or orange. A ticket or two, and some mumbling about how cops always pick on teens instead of going after real criminals, and these lights will go away.
Speaking of turn signals, does anyone else think that amber turn signals surrounded by red bake lights or taillights - which seems to be the latest design trend on many cars - are a bad idea?Can't be any worse that those surrounded by red broil lights :sombrero: (sorry, your above-unintended typo was begging for some type of rebuttal).
Speaking of turn signals, does anyone else think that amber turn signals surrounded by red bake lights or taillights - which seems to be the latest design trend on many cars - are a bad idea?Can't be any worse that those surrounded by red broil lights :sombrero: (sorry, your above-unintended typo was begging for some type of rebuttal).
To more directly answer you question; given that all cars from the 1986 model year onward have the higher-mounted (i.e. 3rd) brake light in addition to the taillights, such a design (the red usually-LED taillights wrapping-around amber turn signals) should not be an issue. The 3rd/high-mount brake light is unhindered (or at least it's supposed to be) by turnsignals (be it red or amber) regardless of design or location of the latter.
If the wrap-around design was around prior to 1986; then, yes such would be a bad idea.
Personal choice/opinion (and I realize such is way off the original thread topic): I prefer red lenses/lights for the turn-signals
The only cars that I know have Daytime Running Lights as standard equipment (in USA) are General Motors, Honda and Toyota. I don't understand why the other car manufacturers have not gotten on-board with this. I believe in Canada DRL's are standard or required on all cars, presumably due to them having less daylight than we do. USA should make them standard too. Being seen better can only benefit us.
....
The only cars that I know have Daytime Running Lights as standard equipment (in USA) are General Motors, Honda and Toyota. I don't understand why the other car manufacturers have not gotten on-board with this. I believe in Canada DRL's are standard or required on all cars, presumably due to them having less daylight than we do. USA should make them standard too. Being seen better can only benefit us.I remember reading somewhere that one reason for Canada requiring them is the amount of travel on two-lane roads compared to in the USA. It's significantly easier to see an oncoming car with lights on when you're trying to decide whether it's safe to pull out and pass. Many US residents automatically think "Interstate" when they think of long-distance driving. DRLs are less beneficial on that sort of road because you don't normally encounter oncoming traffic on an Interstate or similar.
....
Hmmm.........haven't seen those. Are they original equipment or an aftermarket add-on? Can't believe they'd be legal. Wouldn't they be an illegal flashing white light?
You are correct about the high mount (third) brake light (have corrected the unintended typo in my original post). My point was that, IMO, the red brake light distracts from the amber turn signal due to the wrap around placement.Speaking of turn signals, does anyone else think that amber turn signals surrounded by red bake lights or taillights - which seems to be the latest design trend on many cars - are a bad idea?Can't be any worse that those surrounded by red broil lights :sombrero: (sorry, your above-unintended typo was begging for some type of rebuttal).
To more directly answer you question; given that all cars from the 1986 model year onward have the higher-mounted (i.e. 3rd) brake light in addition to the taillights, such a design (the red usually-LED taillights wrapping-around amber turn signals) should not be an issue. The 3rd/high-mount brake light is unhindered (or at least it's supposed to be) by turnsignals (be it red or amber) regardless of design or location of the latter.
If the wrap-around design was around prior to 1986; then, yes such would be a bad idea.
Personal choice/opinion (and I realize such is way off the original thread topic): I prefer red lenses/lights for the turn-signals
Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?Up to Exit 6.
Thanks, I'll be taking part of the NJTP on Tuesday on my Greyhound trip to St. Louis.Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?Up to Exit 6.
Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?What are people's thoughts on making the NJTP south of exit 6 I-895 or 695. Like the Harbor Tunnel Thruway in Baltimore .
It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route. It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)
It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route. It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)
It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route. It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)
No, because it's called "New Jersey Turnpike" all the way down already and that's sufficient.
I see the point about a number giving it some network legitimacy, but any change other than making it all 95 still means motorists "exit" 95 to stay on the through route, then re-enter, which is the main problem and one no x95 will address.
The NJ Turnpike should have been provided with an I-x95 number back in the 50s or 60s. But it wasn't. The worst confusion isn't that it doesn't have a I-x95 number; it's that there's nothing to let you know that I-95 has ended, and where you need to go to return to the real I-95 around Trenton.I believe that is by design. Why confuse people when they are most likely not going to miss I-95 until they're on it again in Delaware. If they are looking for something near I-95 in PA (or NJ for that matter) it might be a problem, but I think not signing it is the lesser of two evils.
The I-95 end at US 1 is signed via I-295 S Bound and I-195 E Bound.It doesn't really accomplish the only thing that any numbering change ought to do, which is to indicate that the New Jersey Turnpike is the preferred through route. It should be 95 the whole way but that is politically unpalatable, so no change should be made.Well doesn't an interstate designation make it apparent as the through route more than a state route? (At least once I-95 is signed as leaving the Turnpike)
No, because it's called "New Jersey Turnpike" all the way down already and that's sufficient.
I see the point about a number giving it some network legitimacy, but any change other than making it all 95 still means motorists "exit" 95 to stay on the through route, then re-enter, which is the main problem and one no x95 will address.
Do a poll of non-roadgeeks who know what the PA Turnpike is signed between NJ & King of Prussia, and you'll get a whole lot of "Uhs" & "Ums".
The NJ Turnpike should have been provided with an I-x95 number back in the 50s or 60s. But it wasn't. The worst confusion isn't that it doesn't have a I-x95 number; it's that there's nothing to let you know that I-95 has ended, and where you need to go to return to the real I-95 around Trenton.
I think Pete was talking about where I-95 ends on the Turnpike going Southbound and how to get to the other segment of I-95.There is no need to place an end sign there because it goes in directly to I-95 at Wilmington.
I think Pete was talking about where I-95 ends on the Turnpike going Southbound and how to get to the other segment of I-95.There is no need to place an end sign there because it goes in directly to I-95 at Wilmington.
True, there is no sign at Exit 7A directing you to the other segment to travel south from Lawrence, NJ; but that would be so misleading at this point. The shorter way to I-95 to Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Jacksoville, and Miami is to reconnect with I-95 later. If you placed signs at Exit 7A and people followed them, people would complain about the longer journey that they are going on. So it is better in their interest to make it seem like the NJT is I-95 than to make it not.
Of course we cannot get the proper interstate designations we wanted. Heck if it were not for the NIMBY's in Central Jersey we would have had the Somerset Freeway built and none of this would have never happened either.Not really. The Turnpike is the most direct way for through traffic regardless of whether the Somerset Freeway is there or not, so the potential confusion would still exist.
Maybe what they should do is install a sign that says something like "Baltimore, Washington, Points South -- USE NJTP" on the turnpike when I-95 gets signed across the river into Pennsylvania. That way, through traffic heading south is routed to avoid Philadelphia.
Just out of curiosity, do people routinely go through Richmond, Baltimore, Wilmington, NYC, Providence, etc just because I-95 is signed through them instead of going around? Why is it that I-95 through Philadelphia specifically so much of a concern?You know, you're plain KILLING Philadelphia. It gets no mention on the Turnpike, or on I-95 PERIOD. Just say I-95 South to Phildelphia and N. J. Turnpike to Shore Points.
You know, you're plain KILLING Philadelphia. It gets no mention on the Turnpike, or on I-95 PERIOD. Just say I-95 South to Phildelphia and N. J. Turnpike to Shore Points.Stop trying to make sense.
Just out of curiosity, do people routinely go through Richmond, Baltimore, Wilmington, NYC, Providence, etc just because I-95 is signed through them instead of going around? Why is it that I-95 through Philadelphia specifically so much of a concern?You know, you're plain KILLING Philadelphia. It gets no mention on the Turnpike, or on I-95 PERIOD. Just say I-95 South to Phildelphia and N. J. Turnpike to Shore Points.
Just out of curiosity, do people routinely go through Richmond, Baltimore, Wilmington, NYC, Providence, etc just because I-95 is signed through them instead of going around? Why is it that I-95 through Philadelphia specifically so much of a concern?
I think not. I-95 would have used present day I-287 to where the current Durham Avenue Exit 4 is, then head west then southwest across Somerset and part of Northern Mercer before connecting to the existing I-95 in Ewing. It would not be going out of the way at all, if it were built.Of course we cannot get the proper interstate designations we wanted. Heck if it were not for the NIMBY's in Central Jersey we would have had the Somerset Freeway built and none of this would have never happened either.Not really. The Turnpike is the most direct way for through traffic regardless of whether the Somerset Freeway is there or not, so the potential confusion would still exist.
I think not. I-95 would have used present day I-287 to where the current Durham Avenue Exit 4 is, then head west then southwest across Somerset and part of Northern Mercer before connecting to the existing I-95 in Ewing. It would not be going out of the way at all, if it were built.Of course we cannot get the proper interstate designations we wanted. Heck if it were not for the NIMBY's in Central Jersey we would have had the Somerset Freeway built and none of this would have never happened either.Not really. The Turnpike is the most direct way for through traffic regardless of whether the Somerset Freeway is there or not, so the potential confusion would still exist.
The bottom line is no matter how good you sign a road, a non road geek will mess things up. Heck no one still comprehends the yellow EXIT ONLY with lane control arrow sign and will never have. I wish I had a penny for how many people are in surprise that their lane exits and make that last minute switch I would be as rich as Bill Gates.
Wilmington replaces the Delaware Memorial Bridge which used to be signed for decades as that was the gateway to the Delmarva from New Jersey. It was well known as many either went south from NJ either via I-95 or US 13 or US 301 from there. That is why it is used most likely.
The bottom line is no matter how good you sign a road, a non road geek will mess things up.
I can tell you, working Exit 1, exactly what people asked about (especially on the Southbound side):
The bottom line is no matter how good you sign a road, a non road geek will mess things up.
I think what you meant to say was, no matter how much people really aren't messing things up, a road geek will find a way to invent a problem so they can invent a solution for it.
I can tell you, working Exit 1, exactly what people asked about (especially on the Southbound side):
Enough said. You win the discussion.
I mean, OK, there's always going to be the one-off oddball questions people ask (What state am I in, How do I get to Texas from here, etc). And there's always memorable questions that are headscratchers...like the trucker complaining about the tolls. I told him, just take 295 next time. His response...they charge tolls on 295 as well!
There *is* a toll on I-295. It's called the Delaware Memorial Bridge
P.S. NJTA employees are allowed to talk about 295?
How about a sign like this approaching Exit 6 SB.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8199/8154090898_a6c380c392_c.jpg)
And–Shore Points? Which shore?
Neither is this sign, but its obvious to motorists traveling I-81 N Bound. I think motorists would make the conclusion when seeing I-95 exit and the turnpike continuing that it is for the immediate area after I-95 exits.How about a sign like this approaching Exit 6 SB.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8199/8154090898_a6c380c392_c.jpg)
Because it's not specific. Thru to what? Philadelphia? Baltimore? Miami?
Why am I thinking that "Control City" sounds like the setting for some comic book superhero property?
ixnay
The secret fortress is actually nestled between the Turnpike and Parkway. ;)Why am I thinking that "Control City" sounds like the setting for some comic book superhero property?
ixnay
I think it's where the secret fortress is they run the Turnpike from.
The secret fortress is actually nestled between the Turnpike and Parkway. ;)Why am I thinking that "Control City" sounds like the setting for some comic book superhero property?
ixnay
I think it's where the secret fortress is they run the Turnpike from.
Not sure if this has yet been mentioned elsewhere in this forum but there is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound). It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.
All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview. This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage.
NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.Not sure if this has yet been mentioned elsewhere in this forum but there is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound). It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.
All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview. This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage.
Is this sign located in NJ or PA?
I can tell you the NJTA would not be putting up anything Clearview. I'm a little surprised they'd even let another agency put up Clearview on their property.NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.Not sure if this has yet been mentioned elsewhere in this forum but there is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound). It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.
All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview. This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage.
Is this sign located in NJ or PA?
I figured as such but since this BGS is for an interchange outside of the NJTPA's jurisdiction and not located along the mainline Turnpike (& beyond the ticketed system); maybe they just didn't care.I can tell you the NJTA would not be putting up anything Clearview. I'm a little surprised they'd even let another agency put up Clearview on their property.NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.Not sure if this has yet been mentioned elsewhere in this forum but there is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound). It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.
All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview. This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage.
Is this sign located in NJ or PA?
I figured as such but since this BGS is for an interchange outside of the NJTPA's jurisdiction and not located along the mainline Turnpike (& beyond the ticketed system); maybe they just didn't care.I can tell you the NJTA would not be putting up anything Clearview. I'm a little surprised they'd even let another agency put up Clearview on their property.NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.Not sure if this has yet been mentioned elsewhere in this forum but there is now (at least as of last night) a Clearview BGS along the westbound NJ-PA Turnpike Connector (Future I-95 southbound). It's a 3-mile advance notice for Exit 358 (US 13) interchange and was erected in anticipation of the upcoming AET conversion just west of the bridge. Unfortunately, I was not able to get a photo of such.
All lettering and numerals (except the US 13) shield are in Clearview. This BGS even looks odd by PTC standards because it seems to be smaller and uses narrower fonts compared to other PTC signage.
Is this sign located in NJ or PA?
If it's on their property, usually they care a lot.Key word in your quote; usually.
The toll barrier is just a point along the Turnpike; they certainly just don't say "Oh well, let it go to crap beyond that point".Are there any other signs located within the NJTP system for interchanges situated outside their system and jurisdiction?
Same thing with all their interchanges - the ramp system is well within their jurisdiction, even though it's beyond the toll plaza.No argument here but the BGS in question (and there was never an older version of such) is for an interchange located in another state and jurisdiction.
The I-87 Major Deegan Expressway has a sign located before the Express/Local Split near I-80, and that is outside NJ and the Turnpike. I do not know if it counts as it does not refer to the interchange proper, just to inform motorists (except Trucks) to use the lower level to avoid weaving on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge.
The toll barrier is just a point along the Turnpike; they certainly just don't say "Oh well, let it go to crap beyond that point".Are there any other signs located within the NJTP system for interchanges situated outside their system and jurisdiction?
"Please NO ENGINE BREAKING Thank You"Oh. Who would do such a thing?
No, I believe the topic is does the NJT sign out of state interchanges on its roadway. I brought up that because I-87 does not exit off of the NJ Turnpike in New Jersey.The I-87 Major Deegan Expressway has a sign located before the Express/Local Split near I-80, and that is outside NJ and the Turnpike. I do not know if it counts as it does not refer to the interchange proper, just to inform motorists (except Trucks) to use the lower level to avoid weaving on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge.
You lost me. All of 87 is "before" the express/local split of a highway it doesn't connect to.
I believe there's a VMS sign with PA Turnpike Traffic Times on the NJ/PA Connector, just before the bridge. (Granted, not a BGS though)
I seem to think that the sign you refer to dates back to when NJDOT still owned this section of I-95, pre-1992. The one I see on StreetView (at Exit 68 NB Local) does not look like it has been replaced since then. There is another one past the I-80 interchange, just before Jones road overpass, that also looks original (not replaced).No, I believe the topic is does the NJT sign out of state interchanges on its roadway. I brought up that because I-87 does not exit off of the NJ Turnpike in New Jersey.The I-87 Major Deegan Expressway has a sign located before the Express/Local Split near I-80, and that is outside NJ and the Turnpike. I do not know if it counts as it does not refer to the interchange proper, just to inform motorists (except Trucks) to use the lower level to avoid weaving on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge.
You lost me. All of 87 is "before" the express/local split of a highway it doesn't connect to.
BTW NE 2 you can say anything now you want as I will not see it. Thanks to you buddy dzl in Chicago, I found the ignore button, and since I have been using that my life has gotten ten times better here on this forum.
Also, the other day I saw a BGS-style message on an NJTP VMS listing distance and travel time to US 13 in Delaware (with shield and "Wilmington" as control city)
Also, the other day I saw a BGS-style message on an NJTP VMS listing distance and travel time to US 13 in Delaware (with shield and "Wilmington" as control city)
Saw that last weekend. I'm guessing they started doing that when the bridge was getting repainted and had regular delays from lane closures.
I think the point that is being missed is that the NJ Turnpike opened up 60 years ago. The level of confusion can be summed up in 3 general questions:
I can tell you, working Exit 1, exactly what people asked about (especially on the Southbound side):
A) Where is I-95; or how many miles to I-95?
B) How far is it to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, Maryland House, Baltimore, and Washington DC (3 Miles, 50 miles, 70 miles, 110 miles). For some reason, no one ever asked about the Delaware Service Plaza or the Chesapeake Plaza.
C) How far is it to Philadelphia (You passed it a half-hour ago). Wha?????
Driving South, I don't agree with the Wilmington being a control city. I think Baltimore would've been a better choice. You don't need Washington DC, because even Delaware and Maryland doesn't sign DC until after Baltimore. But regardless, you don't need more than 1 control city.
Even if they're not going to Philadelphia, many drivers expect to see Philadelphia along the way from New York to Baltimore.
And the most important thing, related to many of you: No one ever asked what the route number of the NJ Turnpike was. Some assume it's I-95, especially going south. But if it was 495, 695, 795, 700, 273, 891, 4 or pi, no one cared.
Exit 6 should be signed Penn Turnpike / Philadelphia.Actually, Philadelphia is already on the new BGS' but it's temporarily masked out.
This should be signed now, not until the 276/95 interchange is completed. People can take 276 to US 1 into Philadelphia and they don't need the new interchange.Interesting thought and if US 1 was a continuous freeway or even a Jersey-type freeway with no traffic signals south of the PA Turnpike to I-76; such could be an option. But once one crosses into Philadelphia's city limits; US 1 becomes the infamous 12-lane Roosevelt Blvd. that has a reputation of being one of the most dangerous roadways in the nation. Such is another topic for another thread.
No, I believe the topic is does the NJT sign out of state interchanges on its roadway. I brought up that because I-87 does not exit off of the NJ Turnpike in New Jersey.The I-87 Major Deegan Expressway has a sign located before the Express/Local Split near I-80, and that is outside NJ and the Turnpike. I do not know if it counts as it does not refer to the interchange proper, just to inform motorists (except Trucks) to use the lower level to avoid weaving on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge.
You lost me. All of 87 is "before" the express/local split of a highway it doesn't connect to.
Exit 6 should be signed Penn Turnpike / Philadelphia.Actually, Philadelphia is already on the new BGS' but it's temporarily masked out.This should be signed now, not until the 276/95 interchange is completed. People can take 276 to US 1 into Philadelphia and they don't need the new interchange.Interesting thought and if US 1 was a continuous freeway or even a Jersey-type freeway with no traffic signals south of the PA Turnpike to I-76; such could be an option. But once one crosses into Philadelphia's city limits; US 1 becomes the infamous 12-lane Roosevelt Blvd. that has a reputation of being one of the most dangerous roadways in the nation. Such is another topic for another thread.
Exit 4 is signed for Philadelphia via a supplemental plate.Had NJ 90 been extended eastward as originally planned (it would've terminated at NJ 73 south of the Turnpike interchange); Philadelphia would've been placed on the main Exit 4 interchange signs.
Besides, I think we've had more than enough posts for what control cities *should* be posted on the NJ Turnpike.Agree in principle; but keep in mind that not every user (especially newbies)
Is the authority ever going to replace the post toll plaza guide signs at Exit 11 to reflect what the Garden State Parkway now has signed at Exit 129. Last GSV (taken just recently) shows the I-95 SOUTH NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH and I-95 NORTH NJ TURNPIKE NORTH sign installed back in 1988 still there.Your date of those 2 signs is at least 5 years off. Those current signs are of mid-90s vintage at the earliest. The predecessor signs (that I saw during my early years of driving between New England and the Delaware Valley on holiday weekends) had Trenton and New York for listed southbound and northbound destinations respectively.
Not exactly as those I am talking about were there when I lived there in Fords, NJ. I moved out in August of 1990 and they were up then. I do not know if they carbon copied them or not since then, but I can tell you the Trenton AND SOUTH and New York AND NORTH were removed (including the original bare metal sign gantry) during my tenor at Kessington Apartments from 1987 to 1990.Is the authority ever going to replace the post toll plaza guide signs at Exit 11 to reflect what the Garden State Parkway now has signed at Exit 129. Last GSV (taken just recently) shows the I-95 SOUTH NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH and I-95 NORTH NJ TURNPIKE NORTH sign installed back in 1988 still there.Your date of those 2 signs is at least 5 years off. Those current signs are of mid-90s vintage at the earliest. The predecessor signs (that I saw during my early years of driving between New England and the Delaware Valley on holiday weekends) had Trenton and New York for listed southbound and northbound destinations respectively.
And I moved from New England into the Delaware Valley in July 1990 and didn't head back up there again until Labor Day weekend of that year and I believe that the old dark BGS' w/button-copy all-caps lettering were still there. Additionally, I believe that they were still there through at least 1991 and maybe partly through 1992 or 1993.Not exactly as those I am talking about were there when I lived there in Fords, NJ. I moved out in August of 1990 and they were up then. I do not know if they carbon copied them or not since then, but I can tell you the Trenton AND SOUTH and New York AND NORTH were removed (including the original bare metal sign gantry) during my tenor at Kessington Apartments from 1987 to 1990.Is the authority ever going to replace the post toll plaza guide signs at Exit 11 to reflect what the Garden State Parkway now has signed at Exit 129. Last GSV (taken just recently) shows the I-95 SOUTH NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH and I-95 NORTH NJ TURNPIKE NORTH sign installed back in 1988 still there.Your date of those 2 signs is at least 5 years off. Those current signs are of mid-90s vintage at the earliest. The predecessor signs (that I saw during my early years of driving between New England and the Delaware Valley on holiday weekends) had Trenton and New York for listed southbound and northbound destinations respectively.
Exit 4 is signed for Philadelphia via a supplemental plate.Had NJ 90 been extended eastward as originally planned (it would've terminated at NJ 73 south of the Turnpike interchange); Philadelphia would've been placed on the main Exit 4 interchange signs.Besides, I think we've had more than enough posts for what control cities *should* be posted on the NJ Turnpike.Agree in principle; but keep in mind that not every user (especially newbies) are going to go through 61+ pages of posts to see what's been discussed and what's not been discussed. It's the general nature of thread forums that some things get repeated (Airliners.net's numerous Northwest DC-9 retirement (pre-Delta merger) speculation threads being a non-AARoads example).
No matter what, like it or not, Wilmington at least is progress for the NJT to now feature it.
Anyway, bring back the mileage signs along the Turnpike that had mileages to the cities ever 10 miles on the ten. I believe now the last mileage sign for NYC is at the 95/295 split for 135 miles to the big city and nothing at all on the NJT itself anymore including the 30 miles out sign at the Raritan River in New Brunswick that was there years ago when I lived in North Central Jersey.
Most states would sign the next exit and large city along the way, but giving that again would be a unique feature as having it every ten miles would be something different and probably be more useful in its own way.
Oh the burma shave signs. Yes I remember them as a kid.
If you mean the tiny "TRENTON - 30 MILES" sign southbound, it's still there. :)Yeah and that one needs to be moved as its more than 30 miles now. It was there because before I-195 and Exit 7A were built, Exit 8 was signed for motorists to use NJ 33 into Trenton. That is 30 miles from that point, but with I-195 and NJ 29 it is slightly longer.
I'm on the train approaching Newark and I saw something that was surprising. Every sign I saw along the Turnpike was MUTCD-compliant. When the heck did all of the new signs go up?I believe within the last six months. All the ones north of Exit 11 that were due for change were swapped out The signs south of there, including the 6 to 9 widening were already designed before the feds made the mandate so even though installed post MUTCD change, they were in the works before it all took place
To be honest, NJ 495 should remain to only being known by us roadgeeks and locals. The fact that you can get into Midtown Manhattan and I-495 from Newark is a boon. Extra points if you get there from I-78.I'm on the train approaching Newark and I saw something that was surprising. Every sign I saw along the Turnpike was MUTCD-compliant. When the heck did all of the new signs go up?I believe within the last six months. All the ones north of Exit 11 that were due for change were swapped out The signs south of there, including the 6 to 9 widening were already designed before the feds made the mandate so even though installed post MUTCD change, they were in the works before it all took place
I am glad that finally NJ 495 finally is included as its a major freeway into NYC and on the map as such, but ignored for decades.
To be honest, NJ 495 should remain to only being known by us roadgeeks and locals. The fact that you can get into Midtown Manhattan and I-495 from Newark is a boon. Extra points if you get there from I-78.
That statement is making my head spin. I was with you up to it being known to us road geeks and locals but after that I got lost.To be honest, NJ 495 should remain to only being known by us roadgeeks and locals. The fact that you can get into Midtown Manhattan and I-495 from Newark is a boon. Extra points if you get there from I-78.I'm on the train approaching Newark and I saw something that was surprising. Every sign I saw along the Turnpike was MUTCD-compliant. When the heck did all of the new signs go up?I believe within the last six months. All the ones north of Exit 11 that were due for change were swapped out The signs south of there, including the 6 to 9 widening were already designed before the feds made the mandate so even though installed post MUTCD change, they were in the works before it all took place
I am glad that finally NJ 495 finally is included as its a major freeway into NYC and on the map as such, but ignored for decades.
Re: youths and whoever else equipping their cars with non-compliant color lights, I agree with J&N that enforcement is the key. I bet you don't see that crap in California!Guess you could include people who import cars from France:
An update: these signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.779198,-74.0495654,3a,80.2y,302h,93.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy_eJiBSHKysuTrmpyz8OyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are now gone, as are these (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7797356,-74.0511591,3a,21.3y,303.86h,92.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4PU9RAW4-2jYpApbDfBFaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), lost to the MUTCD sign replacement project. I'll try to grab pictures of them the next time I'm up that way.
Re: this business about NJ-495. I don't understand why it's called that. Wasn't it originally all NJ-3 from the Lincoln Tunnel to where Route-3 now breaks off from the Turnpike approach? Seems to me that's what the old maps showed when I was a kid. And I think that continuity was better. Call it Route-3 all the way to the tunnel.
Re: this business about NJ-495. I don't understand why it's called that. Wasn't it originally all NJ-3 from the Lincoln Tunnel to where Route-3 now breaks off from the Turnpike approach? Seems to me that's what the old maps showed when I was a kid. And I think that continuity was better. Call it Route-3 all the way to the tunnel.
It was supposed to be part of a longer I-495, composed of the current NJ 495 freeway, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Mid-Manhattan Expressway, the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, and the LIE. It got the 495 designation in 1958. Once the MidMex was cancelled, I-495 became orphaned in NJ and the state downgraded it to NJ-495 in 1979, which it's been ever since. Steve Anderson's page (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-495/) on this road has a very thorough historical overview about this.
And thank god it was cancelled. People on this site love to parade Robert Moses for obvious reasons but far too many of his proposals like MidMEx and LoMEx would have completely destroyed some beautiful neighborhoods.
And thank god it was cancelled. People on this site love to parade Robert Moses for obvious reasons but far too many of his proposals like MidMEx and LoMEx would have completely destroyed some beautiful neighborhoods.
Agreed. Though I also believe the need for these was (and is) there. Bored tunnels from North Jersey, under Manhattan to emerge in Queens (I-495) and Brooklyn (I-78) would have worked well.
Returning to the subject of MUTCD sign replacements, today I drove from the Lincoln Tunnel to Exit 15W and made a few observations. The Pa. Del. Md. sign pictured above is indeed gone and the new sign shows Newark as the destination for 95/NJT South. Technically correct, but not as cool as the old sign.
And speaking of what's technically correct or not, I notice the NJTA seems to be making a technical error on the new (supposedly MUTCD compliant) exit signs. I've seen it southbound at Exit-15X and elsewhere. Specifically the sign placed at the beginning of a deceleration lane is supposed to have an arrow pointing up/right (as did the old NJT signs!) But the new signs typically say " 1/4 mile", instead of having the arrow. This is not in compliance with the Manual. Whether they have a specific reason for signing it this way, or they just don't know how to apply the Manual correctly is anybody's guess.
Interestingly at Exit-15W southbound on the Eastern Leg the sign is located overhead, halfway down the deceleration lane and has a down-pointing arrow over the exit-lane. Not technically correct, but harmless I guess.
Cl94, there are supposed to be 2 signs with arrows at each exit. One is the "exit-direction" sign that I spoke about above and IS the last sign before the ramp departs. The other is the so-called "gore-sign" which is normally ground-mounted on the split and also has an up/right arrow. NJTA traditional practice has often been to hang this sign overhead, but it's supposed to be ground-mounted to specifically show the exit split location.
Returning to the subject of MUTCD sign replacements, today I drove from the Lincoln Tunnel to Exit 15W and made a few observations. The Pa. Del. Md. sign pictured above is indeed gone and the new sign shows Newark as the destination for 95/NJT South. Technically correct, but not as cool as the old sign.
And speaking of what's technically correct or not, I notice the NJTA seems to be making a technical error on the new (supposedly MUTCD compliant) exit signs. I've seen it southbound at Exit-15X and elsewhere. Specifically the sign placed at the beginning of a deceleration lane (called the "exit-direction sign") is supposed to have an arrow pointing up/right (as did the old NJT signs!) But the new signs typically say "1/4 mile", instead of having the arrow. This is not in compliance with the Manual. Whether they have a specific reason for signing it this way, or they just don't know how to apply the Manual correctly is anybody's guess.
Interestingly at Exit-15W southbound on the Eastern Leg the sign is located overhead, halfway down the deceleration lane and has a down-pointing arrow over the exit-lane. Not technically correct, but harmless I guess.
Returning to the subject of MUTCD sign replacements, today I drove from the Lincoln Tunnel to Exit 15W and made a few observations. The Pa. Del. Md. sign pictured above is indeed gone and the new sign shows Newark as the destination for 95/NJT South. Technically correct, but not as cool as the old sign.
And speaking of what's technically correct or not, I notice the NJTA seems to be making a technical error on the new (supposedly MUTCD compliant) exit signs. I've seen it southbound at Exit-15X and elsewhere. Specifically the sign placed at the beginning of a deceleration lane (called the "exit-direction sign") is supposed to have an arrow pointing up/right (as did the old NJT signs!) But the new signs typically say "1/4 mile", instead of having the arrow. This is not in compliance with the Manual. Whether they have a specific reason for signing it this way, or they just don't know how to apply the Manual correctly is anybody's guess.
Interestingly at Exit-15W southbound on the Eastern Leg the sign is located overhead, halfway down the deceleration lane and has a down-pointing arrow over the exit-lane. Not technically correct, but harmless I guess.
They're (slowly) replacing the older overhead gore point signs with signage with actual arrows. Hasn't reached everywhere yet. You can see it at 15X going NB. I also have ac ouple of examples of this on the Western Spur here (http://imgur.com/TiAaEym) and here (http://imgur.com/LXhoN6p). Short answer is that they're going to get it right, it just hasn't happened all the way yet. You can actually see that they put the last sign right up on the cantilever for the old overhead gore point signs.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?They've found it provides better visibility to trucks. Indiana and Illinois toll roads also use the 25/25.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?They've found it provides better visibility to trucks. Indiana and Illinois toll roads also use the 25/25.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?They've found it provides better visibility to trucks. Indiana and Illinois toll roads also use the 25/25.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?They've found it provides better visibility to trucks. Indiana and Illinois toll roads also use the 25/25.
I have never heard that. I was in a review meeting with them maybe 5 years ago where they had said that if they could change it, they would.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?They've found it provides better visibility to trucks. Indiana and Illinois toll roads also use the 25/25.
I have never heard that. I was in a review meeting with them maybe 5 years ago where they had said that if they could change it, they would.
I find that a bit hard to believe. They've used the bigger lane markers since the road was built in 1951 and they've stood by them ever since as part of their enhanced standards. I don't see why they'd want to get rid of them.
And thank god it was cancelled. People on this site love to parade Robert Moses for obvious reasons but far too many of his proposals like MidMEx and LoMEx would have completely destroyed some beautiful neighborhoods.
Agreed. Though I also believe the need for these was (and is) there. Bored tunnels from North Jersey, under Manhattan to emerge in Queens (I-495) and Brooklyn (I-78) would have worked well.
Biggest problem with that would have been the length. At the time of construction, the Midtown Tunnel was one of the longest road tunnels in the world and certainly one of the longest underwater tunnels, with the longest being only 3.6 miles long. It took until the Mont Blanc Tunnel (7.2 miles) in the mid-60s to get above that. A continuous tunnel would have been close to 4 miles, underwater and would have needed to pass at about that depth (if not deeper) under Manhattan.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?
While I'm not really a fan of the oversized lines either, can anyone actually contradict their statements about why they use them? For example, I can't really recall a situation where someone stated they weren't able to see the lines, or could've figure out where the lane markings were located.
I can think of several occasions where I've been on roads with standard lines and during a rainstorm couldn't make them out, or was very thankful I could see the reflectors.
Not to mention the fact that it makes you appear like you are going 20 mph slower than you really are.Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?
It's so stupid and ugly; according to NJTurnpike it makes it more visible and no need for putting reflectors (unlike rest of New Jersey highways).
Not to mention the fact that it makes you appear like you are going 20 mph slower than you really are.Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?
It's so stupid and ugly; according to NJTurnpike it makes it more visible and no need for putting reflectors (unlike rest of New Jersey highways).
^^ Perhaps maybe when NJ Turnpike goes MUTCD it will use standard lanes?
02 The widths and patterns of longitudinal lines shall be as follows:
...
D.Broken line–normal line segments separated by gaps.
E.Dotted line–noticeably shorter line segments separated by shorter gaps than used for a broken line. The width of a dotted line extension shall be at least the same as the width of the line it extends.
Guidance:
04 Broken lines should consist of 10-foot line segments and 30-foot gaps, or dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for delineation.
You are confusing what the MUTCD is about. The MUTCD covers everything road & highway related. The Turnpike isn't "going MUTCD". The only thing really out-of-sorts were the BGSs.
Have the signs at the mixing bowls been replaced? I'd be interested to see how the turnpike handles them à la MUTCD. And what is this "mandate" everyone is talking about that suddenly made the TA decide to become a bastion of federally standardized signage?They will be part flip-sign and part VMS. All using proper font and sizes etc.
Have the signs at the mixing bowls been replaced? I'd be interested to see how the turnpike handles them à la MUTCD. And what is this "mandate" everyone is talking about that suddenly made the TA decide to become a bastion of federally standardized signage?They will be part flip-sign and part VMS. All using proper font and sizes etc.
They thought about creating a Turnpike-only document, but in the end any provisions were just added to existing standard documents. Without a state Supplement, there's nowhere for Turnpike provisions to go - FHWA only deals with the main state agency.You are confusing what the MUTCD is about. The MUTCD covers everything road & highway related. The Turnpike isn't "going MUTCD". The only thing really out-of-sorts were the BGSs.
I suppose (at least in theory) that the Turnpike Authority could have some special turnpike-only provisions in the New Jersey MUTCD Supplement (if there is such a document).
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?
It's so stupid and ugly; according to NJTurnpike it makes it more visible and no need for putting reflectors (unlike rest of New Jersey highways).
They thought about creating a Turnpike-only document, but in the end any provisions were just added to existing standard documents. Without a state Supplement, there's nowhere for Turnpike provisions to go - FHWA only deals with the main state agency.
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?
It's so stupid and ugly; according to NJTurnpike it makes it more visible and no need for putting reflectors (unlike rest of New Jersey highways).
How is it stupid? (Ugly is subjective, and clear enough.)
Heh, the streetview image shows a rare proper I-95 reassurance marker. Wish they would put more up.That stretch of the NJ Turnpike has been part of I-95 since the early years of the Interstate System. IIRC, I-95 reassurance markers (with or without direction cardinals) have been along the stretch, north of Exit 10, for quite some time (decades).
Heh, the streetview image shows a rare proper I-95 reassurance marker. Wish they would put more up.That stretch of the NJ Turnpike has been part of I-95 since the early years of the Interstate System. IIRC, I-95 reassurance markers (with or without direction cardinals) have been along the stretch, north of Exit 10, for quite some time (decades).
My, isn't that lovely trash, too? Cool assembly, though. :-D
My, isn't that lovely trash, too? Cool assembly, though. :-D
That trash is about what I'd expect at Exit 12...
So what old signs are left on the Turnpike and ramps? Anything?
That's not quite true. Many of the pull throughs have been replaced with more standard signage:So what old signs are left on the Turnpike and ramps? Anything?
In terms of the traditional NJ Tpk signage...A lot. Every interchange from 1 - 9 is going to be there for a while. Last time I was up that way, 10 & 11 are traditional as well.
That's not quite true. Many of the pull throughs have been replaced with more standard signage:So what old signs are left on the Turnpike and ramps? Anything?
In terms of the traditional NJ Tpk signage...A lot. Every interchange from 1 - 9 is going to be there for a while. Last time I was up that way, 10 & 11 are traditional as well.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.750686,-75.2809936,3a,75y,28.5h,95.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3UjHoytVWBJGtohXIbkCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
The entrances for Exit 6 through 7A also have relatively standard signs instead of "New York and NORTH / Delaware and SOUTH": https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1273376,-74.6996911,3a,75y,43.34h,91.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6wKt6MZOs3KIsQs4guJdhA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Exit 8 and 8A entrances are a bit odd, though as they have I-95 shields, but "Turnpike North" and "Turnpike South" as "control cities": https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2632497,-74.50704,3a,75y,275.66h,84.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5ZB9FnRh6i4J6LJQDy5qJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
True. I was thinking in terms of the Exit signage, exit tabs, and the arrows.
True. I was thinking in terms of the Exit signage, exit tabs, and the arrows.
Well, with the recent widening of the Turnpike and the extension of the car/truck lane system down to Exit 6, you'd think if they were going to put MUTCD-compliant BGS's, they'd put them up at that time. However, the last time I went up the Turnpike, we had brand new BGS's in this stretch with NJTP style arrows.
It was the result of the agreement the NJTA had with the Feds. I don't know the exact date, but at some point the Feds required the NJ Turnpike to use MUTCD compliant signage on future projects.
It was not a Federal requirement. It was the NJTA's desire to comply now before their hand was forced.True. I was thinking in terms of the Exit signage, exit tabs, and the arrows.
Well, with the recent widening of the Turnpike and the extension of the car/truck lane system down to Exit 6, you'd think if they were going to put MUTCD-compliant BGS's, they'd put them up at that time. However, the last time I went up the Turnpike, we had brand new BGS's in this stretch with NJTP style arrows.
It was the result of the agreement the NJTA had with the Feds. I don't know the exact date, but at some point the Feds required the NJ Turnpike to use MUTCD compliant signage on future projects. Since the 6-9 widening was already in progress (even in cases where bids for specific sections may not have not been put out to bid, or where the signs were not yet manufactured), the NJTA did not have to change their plans to require MUTCD-style BGS signage in that project.
I wouldn't be surprised if Exit 9 gets new signs sometime soon (maybe after they finish the NJ-18 interchange construction in 2014). Still got button copy up there! https://goo.gl/maps/ZTcPEkxvyoxI always found it amusing that they replaced the other sign but kept the thru traffic sign button copy.
I wouldn't be surprised if Exit 9 gets new signs sometime soon (maybe after they finish the NJ-18 interchange construction in 2014). Still got button copy up there! https://goo.gl/maps/ZTcPEkxvyox
Ah, ok. What if their hand was forced? Would they have been required to actually put up the 95 shields?? Lol
I-95 shields appear on entrance BGSs after (inside) toll barriers as far south as Exit 8:Ah, ok. What if their hand was forced? Would they have been required to actually put up the 95 shields?? Lol
I think there's a better chance of seeing I-595 shields in Maryland first lol
Yeah they have them in some locations, but oddly notallocationsat locations where they should've been posted as of yet.
Yeah they have them in some locations, but oddly notallocationsat locations where they should've been posted as of yet.
Autocorrect?
I-95 shields appear on entrance BGSs after (inside) toll barriers as far south as Exit 8:Ah, ok. What if their hand was forced? Would they have been required to actually put up the 95 shields?? Lol
I think there's a better chance of seeing I-595 shields in Maryland first lol
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2632497,-74.50704,3a,75y,275.66h,84.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5ZB9FnRh6i4J6LJQDy5qJQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
(the exit from I-195 for the Turnpike has one too, but that was erected by NJDOT, not NJTA)
I should clarify, any button copy signage left? I haven't been on the turnpike since November.
Such as and more...
I think the TRENTON - 30 MILES sign is still there. I think it's southbound, just beyond Exit 9 in North Brunswick (maybe New Brunswick)?I distinctly remember a series of signs reading "NEW YORK -- NN MILES" starting at least 90 miles, on the NB pike in the early '70s. They, too, were low to the ground and with button copy. But in the late '90s, those signs had been replaced with another series of signs, starting from 100 miles. These were higher up, about the height of a services sign, and had an unusual font. Not sure if they were button copy, and I suspect they were not placed at the same locations as the old signs. These all vanished around 2000 or so.
Saw that near Exit 11 NB, they are pouring the foundations for the new sign bridges for the MUTCD replacement project. They also have a work area near the 2 mile point of Exit 12 for more sign work it looks like. This means that the remaining button copy in this area is very endangered now.
Saw that near Exit 11 NB, they are pouring the foundations for the new sign bridges for the MUTCD replacement project. They also have a work area near the 2 mile point of Exit 12 for more sign work it looks like. This means that the remaining button copy in this area is very endangered now.
WOW I think we can count on one hand how much button copy is left (not counting the current Exit 12 signs). NJ-495 signage is gone, Exit 10 signage is gone, the relics around Exit 16 and 15E are gone. Any others left? The Exit 17 SB signs and the black Speed Limit 50 on I-78 still there? A shame I tell ya
Are the Turnpike's new VMS signs and gantries (albeit painted green rather than left bare Corten steel) spilling over to the Delaware River and Bay Authority's bridges?
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6953024,-75.5458938,3a,75y,72.79h,96.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGuhwb2YXo9bPoLpCUA1Nrg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US
Saw that near Exit 11 NB, they are pouring the foundations for the new sign bridges for the MUTCD replacement project. They also have a work area near the 2 mile point of Exit 12 for more sign work it looks like. This means that the remaining button copy in this area is very endangered now.
WOW I think we can count on one hand how much button copy is left (not counting the current Exit 12 signs). NJ-495 signage is gone, Exit 10 signage is gone, the relics around Exit 16 and 15E are gone. Any others left? The Exit 17 SB signs and the black Speed Limit 50 on I-78 still there? A shame I tell ya
Saw that near Exit 11 NB, they are pouring the foundations for the new sign bridges for the MUTCD replacement project. They also have a work area near the 2 mile point of Exit 12 for more sign work it looks like. This means that the remaining button copy in this area is very endangered now.
WOW I think we can count on one hand how much button copy is left (not counting the current Exit 12 signs). NJ-495 signage is gone, Exit 10 signage is gone, the relics around Exit 16 and 15E are gone. Any others left? The Exit 17 SB signs and the black Speed Limit 50 on I-78 still there? A shame I tell ya
Off the NJ Turnpike, you can still find a fair amount throughout the state.
It's sequential exit sequence. And those signs look god-awful. And I think the portion between exits 1 and 6 should be Interstate 695 or Interstate 895 (although that is getting into fictional territory).
Saw that near Exit 11 NB, they are pouring the foundations for the new sign bridges for the MUTCD replacement project. They also have a work area near the 2 mile point of Exit 12 for more sign work it looks like. This means that the remaining button copy in this area is very endangered now.
WOW I think we can count on one hand how much button copy is left (not counting the current Exit 12 signs). NJ-495 signage is gone, Exit 10 signage is gone, the relics around Exit 16 and 15E are gone. Any others left? The Exit 17 SB signs and the black Speed Limit 50 on I-78 still there? A shame I tell ya
Off the NJ Turnpike, you can still find a fair amount throughout the state.
Which is why I want to get down there and get some updated photos. My favs are the I-80s and the GSP interchange..but that's for another thread
Now gone:
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/old_njtp_gsp_bgs.jpg)
Richard Zaragoza's E-ZPass customer service nightmare began nearly a year ago when the Delaware man's mailbox filled up with E-ZPass violation notices from New Jersey.
Zaragoza repeatedly gave proof the violations weren't his, but E-ZPass kept sending more notices.
More than 140 in all.
Zaragoza's case concluded earlier this week with the arrest of a man who was the subject of a previous Bamboozled column (http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2015/08/bamboozled_no_hands_on_deck_after_contractor_deser.html).
Erich Niemann, owner of Restore the Shore Contracting, was arrested by state police and now faces criminal charges -- third degree theft by deception and receiving stolen property -- for using a license plate that was stolen from Zaragoza.
Niemann racked up nearly $50,000 in unpaid tolls and fees, although only a portion of that was linked to the stolen license plate, according to the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
An absolute disgrace. What kind of idiots work for these agencies that allowed this travesty to occur. Once the victim sent in a copy of the police report of the stolen plate, that should've been the end of it.
Now gone:The funny thing is the replacement signs feature control cities for the NJT but use the redundant GS Parkway for the Parkway North. You think they would give the Parkway a control city as well to keep the consistency!
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/old_njtp_gsp_bgs.jpg)
The stop sign is likely the access ramp from the NJTPA headquarters building (which was being expanded in 1972). Historical aerial images don't show where a light would have went around here as NJ-18 was always a trumpet interchange. It likely was temporary if anything.
Someone many moons ago mentioned a traffic light at the exit 9 ramps...That might have been me. We often went through Exit 9 in the early '70s, and there was indeed a traffic signal there. But it was always flashing yellow when we went through. Granted, it was a weekend or evening when we went that way (our primary Exit 9 usage was to visit a family friend in Somerset) so perhaps the NJTPA didn't see its primary commuter traffic at those times. The signal vanished altogether in 1974 IIRC.
Someone many moons ago mentioned a traffic light at the exit 9 ramps...That might have been me. We often went through Exit 9 in the early '70s, and there was indeed a traffic signal there. But it was always flashing yellow when we went through. Granted, it was a weekend or evening when we went that way (our primary Exit 9 usage was to visit a family friend in Somerset) so perhaps the NJTPA didn't see its primary commuter traffic at those times. The signal vanished altogether in 1974 IIRC.
Neat to see it again in that photo.
Maybe I'm interpreting the photo wrong because of the angle, but it's curious that there's a traffic light there since it appears that the "cross street" also has a stop sign (right above the No Turns sign in the photo).Come to think of it I do remember that light there. I saw it as a kid when my dad used to go to the now defunct Modells which I believe is now Sams Club. It was flashing at the time, but now that you mention it, yes I do recall seeing it. It was in the early 70's as the Morris Goodkind Bridge was the only bridge for US 1 across the Raritan. Its parallel span, now carrying US 1 SB, was opened to traffic in 1974, so it had to be before that date when I saw it.
The Turnpike decided to change their pull-thru control city approaching Interchange 5 Sounthbound.Did they change the Northbound one too? I would think getting rid of "Thru Traffic" would be more of a priority
https://goo.gl/maps/wonZXRVPi4r is now this. It's a greenout plate - the color is just slightly off from the original BGS and you can see the rivets they used, but from a distance it appears to be a perfectly done modification.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0518161316_Burst11.jpg
The Turnpike decided to change their pull-thru control city approaching Interchange 5 Sounthbound.Did they change the Northbound one too? I would think getting rid of "Thru Traffic" would be more of a priority
https://goo.gl/maps/wonZXRVPi4r is now this. It's a greenout plate - the color is just slightly off from the original BGS and you can see the rivets they used, but from a distance it appears to be a perfectly done modification.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0518161316_Burst11.jpg
Drove past exit 9 and new sign structures are in place (2 and 1 mile advance signs). They took out East Brunswick from the sign. These have exit tabs too.
Drove past exit 9 and new sign structures are in place (2 and 1 mile advance signs). They took out East Brunswick from the sign. These have exit tabs too.
So just 1 and 18 and New Brunswick is the only control city?
I agree with J & N. Baltimore would solve the whole issue. Who cares if it's two states away? It still makes sense.
Can't do that. On Interstate highways, the MUTCD requires the names of control-cities. Of course you could argue that the NJT from exits 1 thru 6 is not an Interstate highway............LOL
IIRC "New Jersey" is still listed as a control city on various highways in DE, PA, and NY. I know, the MUTCD requires actual cities to be listed,
but me personally I can see some states keep using state names as control cities and not have a problem with it.
IIRC "New Jersey" is still listed as a control city on various highways in DE, PA, and NY. I know, the MUTCD requires actual cities to be listed, but me personally I can see some states keep using state names as control cities and not have a problem with it.
Sherman, set the WABAC Machine to 2007: Pardon the blurry GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1061117,-74.7209037,3a,75y,267.9h,90.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE1iVRNZ_pHuE89AT8zjFTw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). Delaware was indeed used as a southbound NJTP destination.I agree with J & N. Baltimore would solve the whole issue. Who cares if it's two states away? It still makes sense.
Or take a cue from Illinois, and sign the southbound Turnpike between 6 and 1 as Delaware.
To try and answer ixnay's question; I'm guessing that the people who spec the MUTCD envision the Interstate system of highways as connecting widely spaced major cities across the USA, hence the rule requiring control cities. I personally agree that their thinking may be narrow minded, and that in some cases other types of destinations are reasonable. Such as state names, bridges & tunnels, etc. We've discussed this at length in other threads on this board.But many control cities on Interstates are anything but major. Very often it's the last municipality in the state or the first in a neighboring state. See Mahwah on I-287 for example. Also the Turnpike is not an Interstate (in the relevant area) and serves to *bypass* some of the very major cities that serve as control points (Trenton, Camden, Philadelphia, Wilmington)
New 1 mile approach sign for Exit 11 NB. Now has a GSP logo (finally!) but still lists "Garden State Parkway" as a destination along with Woodbridge.NJ always was redundant with shield and text for both the Parkway and the Turnpike. As far as center post signs go, I believe, that the NJT did not want to budget for two new assemblies as they were able to do in the 6-9 widening.
Also interesting to see that they went with one sign in the median between inner and outer roadways in more classic style, not with individual signs in each roadway as they've done with the 6-9 extension.
New 1 mile approach sign for Exit 11 NB. Now has a GSP logo (finally!) but still lists "Garden State Parkway" as a destination along with Woodbridge.NJ always was redundant with shield and text for both the Parkway and the Turnpike. As far as center post signs go, I believe, that the NJT did not want to budget for two new assemblies as they were able to do in the 6-9 widening.
Also interesting to see that they went with one sign in the median between inner and outer roadways in more classic style, not with individual signs in each roadway as they've done with the 6-9 extension.
As for the center post signs, I thought maybe they newer MUTCD disallowed them, but thumbing through it, I don't see any prohibition other than that signs should be within 10 feet of the nearest travel lane, which could go both ways.
I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.
I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.
Money? Remember that separate sign thing was budgeted into the construction costs. This is to be just a simple sign replacement, so the NJT is not going to add expenses to it.I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.
If that was their thinking for 6-9, why not also do that for the resigning project for 9-14?
Money? Remember that separate sign thing was budgeted into the construction costs. This is to be just a simple sign replacement, so the NJT is not going to add expenses to it.I wonder why the TA went for separate identical signs on each set of lanes from Exits 6-9. I always found the center post median-mounted signs very satisfactory.I think it's the idea that exit advance signs should be on the right, and these were ending up on the left of the truck lanes. Trucks in the right lane can see signs overhead, but not necessarily two lanes over if there's another truck next to them.
If that was their thinking for 6-9, why not also do that for the resigning project for 9-14?
Well, that's not right!! :-oPlease. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.
https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Well, that's not right!! :-oPlease. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.
https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Well, that's not right!! :-oPlease. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.
https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
But the green xbl arrow when it's clearly not during the morning rush hour?
Granted...there would be no buses even entering the contraflow lanes during this time, and I believe the gate was shut anyway. It was just a odd site I came across. If it was green WB when the xbl was open EB, it would be a much more serious issue!
At any time of day, any lane may display a conflicting indication from the indications immediately before and after. It's so common, I have to think it's SOP.Well, that's not right!! :-oPlease. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.
https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
But the green xbl arrow when it's clearly not during the morning rush hour?
Granted...there would be no buses even entering the contraflow lanes during this time, and I believe the gate was shut anyway. It was just a odd site I came across. If it was green WB when the xbl was open EB, it would be a much more serious issue!
Well maybe someday, the PANYNJ will install a zipper barrier and end that :sombrero:
Well maybe someday, the PANYNJ will install a zipper barrier and end that :sombrero:
I guess the PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the helix, but doesn't NJDOT own the rest of NJ 495?
ixnay
At any time of day, any lane may display a conflicting indication from the indications immediately before and after. It's so common, I have to think it's SOP.
PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the lane-use control signals, IIRC. They would have to enter into a tripartite agreement to operate a movable barrier system, but to me the bigger issue is roadway width, as to why it will never happen. Every bridge would have to be replaced with a single span, eliminating all median piers and light poles, before a movable barrier can be brought in. It has to replace the median entirely because there's not room for two barriers that would create a cattle chute situation.Well maybe someday, the PANYNJ will install a zipper barrier and end that :sombrero:
I guess the PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the helix, but doesn't NJDOT own the rest of NJ 495?
ixnay
PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the lane-use control signals, IIRC. They would have to enter into a tripartite agreement to operate a movable barrier system, but to me the bigger issue is roadway width, as to why it will never happen. Every bridge would have to be replaced with a single span, eliminating all median piers and light poles, before a movable barrier can be brought in. It has to replace the median entirely because there's not room for two barriers that would create a cattle chute situation.Well maybe someday, the PANYNJ will install a zipper barrier and end that :sombrero:
I guess the PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the helix, but doesn't NJDOT own the rest of NJ 495?
ixnay
Anyway, I really haven't heard of XBL crashes. People somehow do really well with it. It's the bus breakdowns that hurt the most, because then the other buses can't get around until it's towed.
Those bridges are coming due for replacement, believe it or not. Questions are the five W's and How as to the money to fund this project, and Whether (sixth W) the roadway will be widened at all for safety (shoulders or wider lanes).PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the lane-use control signals, IIRC. They would have to enter into a tripartite agreement to operate a movable barrier system, but to me the bigger issue is roadway width, as to why it will never happen. Every bridge would have to be replaced with a single span, eliminating all median piers and light poles, before a movable barrier can be brought in. It has to replace the median entirely because there's not room for two barriers that would create a cattle chute situation.Well maybe someday, the PANYNJ will install a zipper barrier and end that :sombrero:
I guess the PANYNJ has jurisdiction over the helix, but doesn't NJDOT own the rest of NJ 495?
ixnay
Those bridges will never be replaced unless they literally fall down. It's not going to happen.QuoteAnyway, I really haven't heard of XBL crashes. People somehow do really well with it. It's the bus breakdowns that hurt the most, because then the other buses can't get around until it's towed.
How often does that happen? I never see it on the traffic reports, so I'm assuming not too often.
Those bridges are coming due for replacement, believe it or not. Questions are the five W's and How as to the money to fund this project, and Whether (sixth W) the roadway will be widened at all for safety (shoulders or wider lanes).
Those bridges are coming due for replacement, believe it or not. Questions are the five W's and How as to the money to fund this project, and Whether (sixth W) the roadway will be widened at all for safety (shoulders or wider lanes).
Got a link? I googled "NJ 495 bridges" and found nothing. nycroads.com wasn't helpful either.
ixnay
Those bridges are coming due for replacement, believe it or not. Questions are the five W's and How as to the money to fund this project, and Whether (sixth W) the roadway will be widened at all for safety (shoulders or wider lanes).
Got a link? I googled "NJ 495 bridges" and found nothing. nycroads.com wasn't helpful either.
ixnay
www.state.nj.us/transportation should be your Number 1 source for anything road construction related (at least to get you started)!!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp17/sec5/route/rt495.pdf will reveal two projects: One project which should go to construction next year will replace the 495 overpasses over 1/9. Another project several years away will replace the overpasses related to Rt. 3.
There are also several web links which show the helix is due to be widened as well, although that construction is several years away.
There are several other overpasses under PANYNJ jurisdiction which I can't find addressed anywhere, at least on a quick search. Depending on the agency, projects not going into construction phases in the next year or so may be hard to find documentation for. It could be mentioned in their minutes of their meetings if you wanted to look thru them.
Not a project yet. Just noting the bridges' age and condition.Those bridges are coming due for replacement, believe it or not. Questions are the five W's and How as to the money to fund this project, and Whether (sixth W) the roadway will be widened at all for safety (shoulders or wider lanes).
Got a link? I googled "NJ 495 bridges" and found nothing. nycroads.com wasn't helpful either.
ixnay
Anyway, I really haven't heard of XBL crashes. People somehow do really well with it. It's the bus breakdowns that hurt the most, because then the other buses can't get around until it's towed.
How do you get the wrecker to the bus? Gotta wait fo the XBL to clear in front of the stall, then back the wrecker all the way up.Anyway, I really haven't heard of XBL crashes. People somehow do really well with it. It's the bus breakdowns that hurt the most, because then the other buses can't get around until it's towed.
Given how heavy the flow of bus traffic is there, it would seem worthwhile to pay to have a heavy-duty wrecker on standby when the XBL is running.
How do you get the wrecker to the bus? Gotta wait for the XBL to clear in front of the stall, then back the wrecker all the way up.Anyway, I really haven't heard of XBL crashes. People somehow do really well with it. It's the bus breakdowns that hurt the most, because then the other buses can't get around until it's towed.
Given how heavy the flow of bus traffic is there, it would seem worthwhile to pay to have a heavy-duty wrecker on standby when the XBL is running.
How do you get the wrecker to the bus? Gotta wait fo the XBL to clear in front of the stall, then back the wrecker all the way up.
How do you get the wrecker to the bus? Gotta wait fo the XBL to clear in front of the stall, then back the wrecker all the way up.
Excellent question.
I suppose my solution would be to station the wrecker at the point where the XBL begins, in the 16E interchange. Assuming the bus still still has brakes, use the wrecker to push the bus to the helix area. If the bus has to be hooked-up, stop the westbound lanes of N.J. 495 so the wrecker can get in front of the bus.
How do you get the wrecker to the bus? Gotta wait fo the XBL to clear in front of the stall, then back the wrecker all the way up.
Excellent question.
I suppose my solution would be to station the wrecker at the point where the XBL begins, in the 16E interchange. Assuming the bus still still has brakes, use the wrecker to push the bus to the helix area. If the bus has to be hooked-up, stop the westbound lanes of N.J. 495 so the wrecker can get in front of the bus.
But what about the buses that are stuck behind the dead bus?
This is new on I-280.
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7612/27435549151_b570159d58_c.jpg)
Why couldn't they have gotten the shield right like this at Exit 10 (for CR-514)?But this isn't right. The new standard should be a yellow outline, but not a yellow square. (That said, NJ puts everything in squares)
Why couldn't they have gotten the shield right like this at Exit 10 (for CR-514)?But this isn't right. The new standard should be a yellow outline, but not a yellow square. (That said, NJ puts everything in squares)
I like the New Jersey squares. Better readability. They should be a national standard, especially for county route shields because blue does not contrast well with green.The black squares are going away. Not sure about the yellow ones
Are the Exit 12 button copy signs still there Northbound? Anybody drive by recently?
Are the Exit 12 button copy signs still there Northbound? Anybody drive by recently?
They're on death-watch. The new foundations are being poured, or have been poured and are curing (depends on which part it is). I anticipate that by the end of the summer, those signs will be gone.
Are the Exit 12 button copy signs still there Northbound? Anybody drive by recently?
They're on death-watch. The new foundations are being poured, or have been poured and are curing (depends on which part it is). I anticipate that by the end of the summer, those signs will be gone.
I saw them today. and I saw these too with no roadwork in sight. I find it odd these haven't been replaced yet.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7362/27617256096_9367db8840_c.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7512/27040311664_cb40149f7c_c.jpg)
New 1 mile advance signs are up for Exit 9 northbound with the old sign still up. One gets a nice A/B comparison. I find the center mounted "billboard" style signs with exit tabs to be a bit weird looking. Does the MUTCD even permit that style of mounting exit signs on highways with dual-dual roadways?
Something about exit signs being on the right? Note that I am not bothering to reference the MUTCD, since it's a pain through Chrome with my settings (no native PDF display, have to click).New 1 mile advance signs are up for Exit 9 northbound with the old sign still up. One gets a nice A/B comparison. I find the center mounted "billboard" style signs with exit tabs to be a bit weird looking. Does the MUTCD even permit that style of mounting exit signs on highways with dual-dual roadways?
I checked the MUTCD when I saw the one for Exit 11. There's no clear language that it's not allowed, just a rule about there being close enough to a travel lane. There was a discussion earlier in the thread about this.
New 1 mile advance signs are up for Exit 9 northbound with the old sign still up. One gets a nice A/B comparison.Update: I was up there this past weekend, the old BGS has since been removed (no surprise).
New 1 mile advance signs are up for Exit 9 northbound with the old sign still up. One gets a nice A/B comparison.Update: I was up there this past weekend, the old BGS has since been removed (no surprise).
One question regarding the legend on the new Exit 9 BGS': why was the East Brunswick listing moved to a supplemental BGS listing (new major BGS' just list New Brunswick)? Last time I checked two control city listings are still allowed on exit ramp signage that have more than one turning/movement option further down.
New 1 mile advance signs are up for Exit 9 northbound with the old sign still up. One gets a nice A/B comparison.Update: I was up there this past weekend, the old BGS has since been removed (no surprise).
One question regarding the legend on the new Exit 9 BGS': why was the East Brunswick listing moved to a supplemental BGS listing (new major BGS' just list New Brunswick)? Last time I checked two control city listings are still allowed on exit ramp signage that have more than one turning/movement option further down.
I don't quite follow that, or why they felt the need to put both E. Brunswick and Rutgers University on separate signs.
Are any townships still listed on the BGS?Woodbridge for Exit 11 (GSP).
Are any townships still listed on the BGS?Woodbridge for Exit 11 (GSP).
Does it have to do with the fact that East Brunswick is a township? I think the NJTP has been removing townships (East Windsor, exit 8; South Brunswick/Monroe, exit 8a; Wilingboro exit 5) from the main signs and placing on supplemental. Are any townships still listed on the BGS?That would be very odd if true, since NJ townships are effectively no different from cities, towns, boroughs, or villages except in details of how each government works
Does it have to do with the fact that East Brunswick is a township? I think the NJTP has been removing townships (East Windsor, exit 8; South Brunswick/Monroe, exit 8a; Wilingboro exit 5) from the main signs and placing on supplemental. Are any townships still listed on the BGS?That would be very odd if true, since NJ townships are effectively no different from cities, towns, boroughs, or villages except in details of how each government works
One question regarding the legend on the new Exit 9 BGS': why was the East Brunswick listing moved to a supplemental BGS listing (new major BGS' just list New Brunswick)? Last time I checked two control city listings are still allowed on exit ramp signage that have more than one turning/movement option further down.I wonder if the rationale was that having control cities of New Brunswick and East Brunswick was just too repetitious? Perhaps the only reason they didn't it "The Brunswicks", since Exit 9 is also good for North B., is that South B. is accessed by Exit 8A.
New 1 mile advance signs are up for Exit 9 northbound with the old sign still up. One gets a nice A/B comparison.Update: I was up there this past weekend, the old BGS has since been removed (no surprise).
One question regarding the legend on the new Exit 9 BGS': why was the East Brunswick listing moved to a supplemental BGS listing (new major BGS' just list New Brunswick)? Last time I checked two control city listings are still allowed on exit ramp signage that have more than one turning/movement option further down.
I don't quite follow that, or why they felt the need to put both E. Brunswick and Rutgers University on separate signs.
Does it have to do with the fact that East Brunswick is a township? I think the NJTP has been removing townships (East Windsor, exit 8; South Brunswick/Monroe, exit 8a; Wilingboro exit 5) from the main signs and placing on supplemental. Are any townships still listed on the BGS?
Would "Thee Brunswicks" be allowed by the MUTCD?
I-95 in NH used to use The Hamptons for its Exit 2 listings.Would "Thee Brunswicks" be allowed by the MUTCD?
I always felt like that was a very NJDOT thing to do, since you never see it anywhere else really, but I've never seen them do it with New Brunswick and et. al., like they would with the Plainfields or the Oranges. I'm betting because New Brunswick isn't just Brunswick.
Would "Thee Brunswicks" be allowed by the MUTCD?
I always felt like that was a very NJDOT thing to do, since you never see it anywhere else really, but I've never seen them do it with New Brunswick and et. al., like they would with the Plainfields or the Oranges. I'm betting because New Brunswick isn't just Brunswick.
Breaking off of the municipal group name discussion for a second, I was looking at some older aerial imagery of the Woodbridge area to write a snarky Reddit response, but looking at the early construction activities around what became Exit 11 (with US 9 at the time), I noticed there's some weird ramps between the eventual Turnpike and US 9, see here: http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139 (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139)I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.
Does anyone know if these were just temporary construction access roads or was this going to be something different in the works like the weird cloverleaf interchange on the early NY Thruway near Rochester?
Breaking off of the municipal group name discussion for a second, I was looking at some older aerial imagery of the Woodbridge area to write a snarky Reddit response, but looking at the early construction activities around what became Exit 11 (with US 9 at the time), I noticed there's some weird ramps between the eventual Turnpike and US 9, see here: http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139 (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139)I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.
Does anyone know if these were just temporary construction access roads or was this going to be something different in the works like the weird cloverleaf interchange on the early NY Thruway near Rochester?
Breaking off of the municipal group name discussion for a second, I was looking at some older aerial imagery of the Woodbridge area to write a snarky Reddit response, but looking at the early construction activities around what became Exit 11 (with US 9 at the time), I noticed there's some weird ramps between the eventual Turnpike and US 9, see here: http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139 (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139)I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.
Does anyone know if these were just temporary construction access roads or was this going to be something different in the works like the weird cloverleaf interchange on the early NY Thruway near Rochester?
NJ 300?
I-95 in NH used to use The Hamptons for its Exit 2 listings.Would "Thee Brunswicks" be allowed by the MUTCD?
I always felt like that was a very NJDOT thing to do, since you never see it anywhere else really, but I've never seen them do it with New Brunswick and et. al., like they would with the Plainfields or the Oranges. I'm betting because New Brunswick isn't just Brunswick.
Damn, I mixed them up. 100 then.Breaking off of the municipal group name discussion for a second, I was looking at some older aerial imagery of the Woodbridge area to write a snarky Reddit response, but looking at the early construction activities around what became Exit 11 (with US 9 at the time), I noticed there's some weird ramps between the eventual Turnpike and US 9, see here: http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139 (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1947&zoom=16&lat=40.54424895421915&lon=-74.29088115692139)I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.
Does anyone know if these were just temporary construction access roads or was this going to be something different in the works like the weird cloverleaf interchange on the early NY Thruway near Rochester?
NJ 300?
The original designation of the Turnpike south of New Brunswick. NJDOT was going to build the freeway and designate it NJ 300, but a lack of funds resulted in the creation of the Turnpike Authority and it being built as a toll road.
Didn't NJT used to sign Exit-15W as "I-280/The Oranges"? I believe they did away with that on the new signing. I think now it shows Newark as the destination.Newark and Kearney to be exact unless since 2012 it was changed.
Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
WHAT.Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
14B was removed in early May. 14A is the last one.
WHAT.Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
14B was removed in early May. 14A is the last one.
WHAT.Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
14B was removed in early May. 14A is the last one.
Are the signs immediately west of the at-grade section still there, or were those ancient signs also casualties?
I took this photo of the signs entering at 14B on 4/12. You can see the new support installed behind them. I haven't entered here since that time, but when I saw the new post I grabbed the phone to get a quick shot thinking I probably wouldn't see these great old signs again.WHAT.Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
14B was removed in early May. 14A is the last one.
WHAT.Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
14B was removed in early May. 14A is the last one.
Are the signs immediately west of the at-grade section still there, or were those ancient signs also casualties?
There's this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.731997,-74.0458102,3a,45.3y,272.68h,91.72t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFpRgmjc_VFUTPICrqgYaEQ!2e0) and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7314222,-74.0495398,3a,55.4y,-94.07h,92.94t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s9S6Oyb_gfngLGBU2_1kf7g!2e0). They kept the classic gantries, but the signs themselves were replaced 5 or 6 years ago, when the 14th st viaduct was rebuilt.
That second gantry on NJ-139 is actually a brand new reproduction and technically not period correct design for that roadway!
I took this photo of the signs entering at 14B on 4/12. You can see the new support installed behind them. I haven't entered here since that time, but when I saw the new post I grabbed the phone to get a quick shot thinking I probably wouldn't see these great old signs again.WHAT.Does anyone know if the sign replacement project has made its way to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension? Google street view caught some beautiful (original?) assemblies last time it went through.14A is probably gone with the reconstruction there. 14B is still there and will take a long time to go.
14B was removed in early May. 14A is the last one.
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/NJTP%2014B_zpso3oqmwpz.jpg)
No control city on the westbound sign? I guess everyone knows it goes to Newark.Also does not the Turnpike go east with I-78 too?
It's signed similarly to the entrance at 16W, where northbound is just "95 NORTH / George Washington Br" - you're outside the ticket system at this point (remember that 14B and 14C are at the same place; 14C is just continuing on 78 eastbound.No control city on the westbound sign? I guess everyone knows it goes to Newark.Also does not the Turnpike go east with I-78 too?
Are they also replacing these and others like it before exit 10? These are the old format but not that old.Anything put in for the widening will stay until it's not reflective enough.
No control city on the westbound sign? I guess everyone knows it goes to Newark.Also does not the Turnpike go east with I-78 too?
It's signed similarly to the entrance at 16W, where northbound is just "95 NORTH / George Washington Br" - you're outside the ticket system at this point (remember that 14B and 14C are at the same place; 14C is just continuing on 78 eastbound.No control city on the westbound sign? I guess everyone knows it goes to Newark.Also does not the Turnpike go east with I-78 too?
Also re: the Penn Turnpike sign, how did they happen to use the wrong arrows?
It's signed similarly to the entrance at 16W, where northbound is just "95 NORTH / George Washington Br" - you're outside the ticket system at this point (remember that 14B and 14C are at the same place; 14C is just continuing on 78 eastbound.
Don't forget to/from NJ 495 from the north on the eastern spur (barrier toll SB, none NB) and the sports complex just north of exit 16W to/from the north. The ending toll for the western spur is between 16W and the sports complex, and the ending toll on the eastern spur is a shared barrier with 16E. Not sure what you mean by 18E and 18W being shared, especially since there is no 18E.There is an 18E. 16E and 18E are shared.
The barrier is hard to see in satellite view. Interesting that they don't just extend the guiderail or jersey barrier.Flexibility to reassign the center NB or SB booths based on which side of the plaza is getting more traffic.
If you are particularly sly, you can get the 16E rate instead of the 18E rate entering the mainline. Although they did extend those pylons a bit a few years back, I wonder why. ;)
If you are particularly sly, you can get the 16E rate instead of the 18E rate entering the mainline. Although they did extend those pylons a bit a few years back, I wonder why. ;)
The barrier is hard to see in satellite view. Interesting that they don't just extend the guiderail or jersey barrier.
Do they still have the Bus Only Toll Lane that was originally located in the middle of 16E and 18E? The lane was open during the same hours as the XBL on Route 495 and the last time I saw it was back in 1994, I believe.
Now with the EZ Pass thing, I would imagine that those took over that lane that was used. And if memory served me in the pre EZ Pass Days the bus driver never used cash. When Somerset Bus Company had their route from Clark into the Port Authority via Cranford, Rosselle, Elizabeth, and Newark, the driver had a coupon that he handed in with his ticket, as it must of been prepaid by the bus company. Also the Port Authority used decals for buses at the Lincoln Tunnel in the 1980's as they used that one lone toll lane to the left of the main plaza, to drive through it to accept it.
However, I believe the bus only lane was not for that purpose of prepaid tolls, I believe it was so the buses could have an extension of the XBL into the plaza, even though not partitioned off beyond it as the cars for Secuacus would have to cross their path, it still gave them privacy from the autos and trucks and an express route through the plaza which did used to have a long queue into it almost to the overpass before it.
Did the two-roadway setup or whatever that's called along part of the Turnpike reach the PA Turnpike Connector before? You know, the separate travel lanes for different types of vehicles? I didn't think that started till like Exit 9.The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).
The next area that's becoming a chokepoint is around Interchange 4, where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes per direction. During rush hours, especially in the afternoon, southbound traffic between interchanges 4 and 3 is starting to experience semi-regular congestion. While we have I-295 parallel to the NJ Turnpike down here, that highway will experience regular 10 mile backups, and people bail from 295 onto the Turnpike.
On peak travel days normally associated with summer travel or holiday travel, the entire 4 lane stretch between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and Interchange 4 can be a bit slow.
The next area that's becoming a chokepoint is around Interchange 4, where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes per direction. During rush hours, especially in the afternoon, southbound traffic between interchanges 4 and 3 is starting to experience semi-regular congestion. While we have I-295 parallel to the NJ Turnpike down here, that highway will experience regular 10 mile backups, and people bail from 295 onto the Turnpike.
On peak travel days normally associated with summer travel or holiday travel, the entire 4 lane stretch between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and Interchange 4 can be a bit slow.
Agreed, though I have not personally experienced it to be that bad - but I have been stuck in southbound traffic from U.S. 322 (Exit 2) to the southern mainline toll plaza more than once (but not since I have been using an in-vehicle application that does a reasonable job of mapping congestion ahead - I-295 that far south is seldom congested unless there's a crash), and it's an easy enough jump via N.J. 73, N.J. 168 or U.S. 322.
The next area that's becoming a chokepoint is around Interchange 4, where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes per direction. During rush hours, especially in the afternoon, southbound traffic between interchanges 4 and 3 is starting to experience semi-regular congestion. While we have I-295 parallel to the NJ Turnpike down here, that highway will experience regular 10 mile backups, and people bail from 295 onto the Turnpike.
a) Both of the above are somewhat true.The next area that's becoming a chokepoint is around Interchange 4, where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes per direction. During rush hours, especially in the afternoon, southbound traffic between interchanges 4 and 3 is starting to experience semi-regular congestion. While we have I-295 parallel to the NJ Turnpike down here, that highway will experience regular 10 mile backups, and people bail from 295 onto the Turnpike.
Are there plans to widen the southernmost section to 3 lanes each? Or is there an implied assumption that the demand won't be there once the I-95/PA Turnpike Connection is completed?
I think if the problem is between exits 4 and 3, the PA Turnpike interchange won't help much. Nobody would take that interchange to I-95 through Philly to go to Delaware or points South. I figure it will mostly serve traffic headed to Philly or points in between on I-95.The next area that's becoming a chokepoint is around Interchange 4, where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes per direction. During rush hours, especially in the afternoon, southbound traffic between interchanges 4 and 3 is starting to experience semi-regular congestion. While we have I-295 parallel to the NJ Turnpike down here, that highway will experience regular 10 mile backups, and people bail from 295 onto the Turnpike.
Are there plans to widen the southernmost section to 3 lanes each? Or is there an implied assumption that the demand won't be there once the I-95/PA Turnpike Connection is completed?
I think if the problem is between exits 4 and 3, the PA Turnpike interchange won't help much. Nobody would take that interchange to I-95 through Philly to go to Delaware or points South. I figure it will mostly serve traffic headed to Philly or points in between on I-95.The next area that's becoming a chokepoint is around Interchange 4, where it goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes per direction. During rush hours, especially in the afternoon, southbound traffic between interchanges 4 and 3 is starting to experience semi-regular congestion. While we have I-295 parallel to the NJ Turnpike down here, that highway will experience regular 10 mile backups, and people bail from 295 onto the Turnpike.
Are there plans to widen the southernmost section to 3 lanes each? Or is there an implied assumption that the demand won't be there once the I-95/PA Turnpike Connection is completed?
I think going to 3 lanes between 3 & 4 should be done, due to the growing commuting traffic in the area. Between 2 & 3 I believe is actually the lightest section of the turnpike. Between 1 & 2 is actually a little busier, but expansion isn't really warranted on a normal traffic volume basis.. That said, it would be nice to have 3 lanes south of the southern most Service Area to the toll plaza just to assist with motorists getting in the correct lane.
I think going to 3 lanes between 3 & 4 should be done, due to the growing commuting traffic in the area. Between 2 & 3 I believe is actually the lightest section of the turnpike. Between 1 & 2 is actually a little busier, but expansion isn't really warranted on a normal traffic volume basis.. That said, it would be nice to have 3 lanes south of the southern most Service Area to the toll plaza just to assist with motorists getting in the correct lane.
I have a feeling that once the 295/76/42 project is done (if we ever get there...), a lot of the traffic we see that in that area will improve. at least i think that's the idea.
I look at it this way: There's about 6 ways for traffic to travel north and south between Delaware & North Jersey:That's a nice write-up. However,
They use the BGS, using the destinations and/or route numbers.This one seems a bit muddled to me. Nobody does this exclusively because signage is not specific enough to help someone who otherwise has no idea where he's going. For example, if you're going to Philadelphia via I-95, it will not begin to be mentioned on BGS's until Delaware going north and (currently, pre-interchange) Exit 4 on the Turnpike going south. The only exception to this might be "ooh, here's I-95. I know my city is also on I-95, so I'll go this way." But that's pretty limited. How do you know you'll ever cross I-95 unless you're already on it from the beginning?
Or, they know Philly is the next major city they'll come toHow will they know this? Not all roads go through all major cities that are approximately along the route. Will these people take I-195 too because Trenton should be on the way? Also, if the choice is between Philly and Wilmington, won't they know that Wilmington is also along the route, and is in fact further away, thus bypassing Philadelphia?
I look at it this way: There's about 6 ways for traffic to travel north and south between Delaware & North Jersey:That's a nice write-up. However,QuoteThey use the BGS, using the destinations and/or route numbers.This one seems a bit muddled to me. Nobody does this exclusively because signage is not specific enough to help someone who otherwise has no idea where he's going. For example, if you're going to Philadelphia via I-95, it will not begin to be mentioned on BGS's until Delaware going north and (currently, pre-interchange) Exit 4 on the Turnpike going south. The only exception to this might be "ooh, here's I-95. I know my city is also on I-95, so I'll go this way." But that's pretty limited. How do you know you'll ever cross I-95 unless you're already on it from the beginning?
Also,QuoteOr, they know Philly is the next major city they'll come toHow will they know this? Not all roads go through all major cities that are approximately along the route. Will these people take I-195 too because Trenton should be on the way? Also, if the choice is between Philly and Wilmington, won't they know that Wilmington is also along the route, and is in fact further away, thus bypassing Philadelphia?
So, usually the BGS's will only be used in combination with one of the other ways you mentioned. If they're using paper maps, printed directions, or going by memory, they might take I-95 either because they'll get confused and think they are at a point where they should be getting onto I-95 (instead of in Delaware) or because they will think they discovered a new shortcut they have overlooked before.
People are even getting to a point where they cannot even remember simple directions especially when I tell them how to u turn through a simple interchange. "Take 3 lefts at the end of the Exit 8 ramp and you will head back on to this highway going the other way" I will tell them, and then they make me verify that statement over and over again. Even diamond interchanges people need assistance to navigate a simple u turn theses days as well.I think NJ drivers are better at U-turns what with all the jughandles
Yes and most drivers are not from New Jersey that I deal with. :bigass:People are even getting to a point where they cannot even remember simple directions especially when I tell them how to u turn through a simple interchange. "Take 3 lefts at the end of the Exit 8 ramp and you will head back on to this highway going the other way" I will tell them, and then they make me verify that statement over and over again. Even diamond interchanges people need assistance to navigate a simple u turn theses days as well.I think NJ drivers are better at U-turns what with all the jughandles
Its scary how people do not use common sense anymore! Also what are they teaching the next generation or their children is something I do not want to think about.
A reporter from nj.com (Star Ledger, etc) wrote up a report on all the Service Areas on the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, ranking them from worst to first (in his opinion, of course). http://www.nj.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2016/08/the_best_-_and_worst_-_turnpike_parkway_service_pl.html#incart_river_home_popHe failed to mention that Cheesequake and Atlantic, both in the top 10, have free access to the outside world. (Cheesequake's is now signed for official vehicles only - but also bus parking - and then signs inside direct you to continue for park & ride - so just play dumb.)
The reporter tends to have some interesting articles like this. He does a decent job of including the entire state in his reporting.
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.
Prior to that time, it only reached to just south of Exit 8A with outer/truck lanes being only 4 lanes up south of Exit 9; this piece was added during the late 80s/early 90s.
Prior to then, the dual-carriageway ended just south of Exit 9.And the outer roadways between Exits 9 and 10 opened in 1974 -- same year as Exit 7A. I'm not completely sure, but I think that before then, NB traffic could only get to Exit 10 via the truck lanes.
The Atlantic City service area no longer has access to Jimmie Leeds Rd. due to the NJSP Barracks that were constructed there. The good news is there is now a proper Exit 41 interchange off of the highway..... with no toll.Hey, that wasn't true last time I was down there.
The Atlantic City service area no longer has access to Jimmie Leeds Rd. due to the NJSP Barracks that were constructed there. The good news is there is now a proper Exit 41 interchange off of the highway..... with no toll.Hey, that wasn't true last time I was down there.
Any idea how long it's been since I've been down there? (:The Atlantic City service area no longer has access to Jimmie Leeds Rd. due to the NJSP Barracks that were constructed there. The good news is there is now a proper Exit 41 interchange off of the highway..... with no toll.Hey, that wasn't true last time I was down there.
I was down that way about 3 weeks ago, they do have it blocked off...
I moved out of NJ in August 1990, and they were not yet opened to traffic then. In 1989, the road was in the process of being built. I used to use the road to get to Reedman in Langhorne, PA via the NJ and PA Turnpikes and then exit at former PA Exit 28 and go north on US 1. I got my car in January of 1989, and had some issues with the car that made me want to take it all the way down there to have services.The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.
Prior to that time, it only reached to just south of Exit 8A with outer/truck lanes being only 4 lanes up south of Exit 9; this piece was added during the late 80s/early 90s.Prior to then, the dual-carriageway ended just south of Exit 9.And the outer roadways between Exits 9 and 10 opened in 1974 -- same year as Exit 7A. I'm not completely sure, but I think that before then, NB traffic could only get to Exit 10 via the truck lanes.
I moved out of NJ in August 1990, and they were not yet opened to traffic then. In 1989, the road was in the process of being built. I used to use the road to get to Reedman in Langhorne, PA via the NJ and PA Turnpikes and then exit at former PA Exit 28 and go north on US 1. I got my car in January of 1989, and had some issues with the car that made me want to take it all the way down there to have services.The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.
Prior to that time, it only reached to just south of Exit 8A with outer/truck lanes being only 4 lanes up south of Exit 9; this piece was added during the late 80s/early 90s.Prior to then, the dual-carriageway ended just south of Exit 9.And the outer roadways between Exits 9 and 10 opened in 1974 -- same year as Exit 7A. I'm not completely sure, but I think that before then, NB traffic could only get to Exit 10 via the truck lanes.
The first time I saw it open, was in May 1991, when I made my first visit back to the Garden State, and always remember that silly center lane consolidation that even annoyed my best friend who is not a road geek. I thought that was as odd as only making the truck lanes two lanes each way.
I moved out of NJ in August 1990, and they were not yet opened to traffic then. In 1989, the road was in the process of being built. I used to use the road to get to Reedman in Langhorne, PA via the NJ and PA Turnpikes and then exit at former PA Exit 28 and go north on US 1. I got my car in January of 1989, and had some issues with the car that made me want to take it all the way down there to have services.The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.
Prior to that time, it only reached to just south of Exit 8A with outer/truck lanes being only 4 lanes up south of Exit 9; this piece was added during the late 80s/early 90s.Prior to then, the dual-carriageway ended just south of Exit 9.And the outer roadways between Exits 9 and 10 opened in 1974 -- same year as Exit 7A. I'm not completely sure, but I think that before then, NB traffic could only get to Exit 10 via the truck lanes.
The first time I saw it open, was in May 1991, when I made my first visit back to the Garden State, and always remember that silly center lane consolidation that even annoyed my best friend who is not a road geek. I thought that was as odd as only making the truck lanes two lanes each way.
I wouldn't say "easily" expandable. All of the structures were built for 2 lanes wide and had to be widened (2006-2009 timeframe) before the widening really got going.
I think, at the time, 5 lanes was determined to be what they needed. They built the outer carriageway to be easily expandable to 3 lanes, but just paved it for 2 lanes. Even when traffic increased, they never went to 6 lanes southbound because it would just dump more traffic into the merge down to 3 lanes. On the northbound side, one of the earliest phases of the 6-9 widening was to make the truck lanes 3 lanes wide, since it would immediately improve traffic flow with no adverse effects.
I do not know why they did not do what they did at the north end where it goes into the two spurs. Have the turnpike narrow to two lanes after Exit 6 where the three lanes split into two through and two exit lanes. Just like at the north end were it goes two and two for the two spurs having the center lane split for both ways. Then the two lanes between merge together at the other end forming the three lanes of the spurs.
This could work well at 6 where the two car and the two truck lanes could come back together as three at the far end of the interchange. Thus the two lane exit lanes from both the car and truck could merge together to form the three westbound lanes of the extension. The northbound could have the three lanes split into two and two and at the point of the merge from the extension all come together with two lanes each of the on ramps merging into the car and truck lanes to make the three general lanes for both.
The NB to WB and EB to SB could exit and enter off the truck lanes or have long ramps that merge one mile south of Exit 6 sort of like the extended 14 ramps in Newark do now.
I do not know why they did not do what they did at the north end where it goes into the two spurs. Have the turnpike narrow to two lanes after Exit 6 where the three lanes split into two through and two exit lanes. Just like at the north end were it goes two and two for the two spurs having the center lane split for both ways. Then the two lanes between merge together at the other end forming the three lanes of the spurs.
This could work well at 6 where the two car and the two truck lanes could come back together as three at the far end of the interchange. Thus the two lane exit lanes from both the car and truck could merge together to form the three westbound lanes of the extension. The northbound could have the three lanes split into two and two and at the point of the merge from the extension all come together with two lanes each of the on ramps merging into the car and truck lanes to make the three general lanes for both.
The NB to WB and EB to SB could exit and enter off the truck lanes or have long ramps that merge one mile south of Exit 6 sort of like the extended 14 ramps in Newark do now.
Jeff addresses why they didn't do this. If the through movements were pinched down into two lane "ramps", then when they have to shut down one roadway for construction, they've introduced an artificial bottleneck, as you'd have 3 lanes squeezing to 2 only to widen back to 3. Better to have 3 lanes throughout, even if that segment a mile south of Exit 6 is massively overbuilt.
@ JEFFANDNICOLE: Wait...I don't think WB to SB is possible at Exit 6 in Mansfield. Google Maps (and my memory) doesn't show that movement. :hmmm:
@ JEFFANDNICOLE: Wait...I don't think WB to SB is possible at Exit 6 in Mansfield. Google Maps (and my memory) doesn't show that movement. :hmmm:
Here's the movement: https://goo.gl/maps/Y9su17vTpm82
And here's a GSV of the interchange (just before the widening project was completed): https://goo.gl/maps/1KC5PtrJkuq
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.
Prior to that time, it only reached to just south of Exit 8A with outer/truck lanes being only 4 lanes up south of Exit 9; this piece was added during the late 80s/early 90s.Prior to then, the dual-carriageway ended just south of Exit 9.And the outer roadways between Exits 9 and 10 opened in 1974 -- same year as Exit 7A. I'm not completely sure, but I think that before then, NB traffic could only get to Exit 10 via the truck lanes.
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago).ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.
Prior to that time, it only reached to just south of Exit 8A with outer/truck lanes being only 4 lanes up south of Exit 9; this piece was added during the late 80s/early 90s.Prior to then, the dual-carriageway ended just south of Exit 9.And the outer roadways between Exits 9 and 10 opened in 1974 -- same year as Exit 7A. I'm not completely sure, but I think that before then, NB traffic could only get to Exit 10 via the truck lanes.
I always thought the point of the NB roadway splitting after Joyce Kilmer/before exit 9 was construction that said, "Welcome to the NYC metro!"* The rest of the ride to exit 16E was/is a greatly extended B'way production number. (Then again, I was never at the wheel.)
*When the dual/dual was extended below exit 8A, then below exit 6, the effect was somewhat removed. But I understand the necessity.
ixnay
Incorrect. When the outer lanes were built between 8A and 9 in 1987-90, every structure including overhead bridges and turnpike mainline bridges over local roads were all built to accommodate three lanes. As jeffandnicole said, only two lanes were paved (to accommodate the concerns of local residents of East Brunswick). The only major modifications during the 2009-14 widening were paving the extra lane, moving guard rails, and adding sound walls. No bridges were widened or re-built in this stretch.I wouldn't say "easily" expandable. All of the structures were built for 2 lanes wide and had to be widened (2006-2009 timeframe) before the widening really got going.
I think, at the time, 5 lanes was determined to be what they needed. They built the outer carriageway to be easily expandable to 3 lanes, but just paved it for 2 lanes. Even when traffic increased, they never went to 6 lanes southbound because it would just dump more traffic into the merge down to 3 lanes. On the northbound side, one of the earliest phases of the 6-9 widening was to make the truck lanes 3 lanes wide, since it would immediately improve traffic flow with no adverse effects.
Yeah, you're right. I never noticed that in all my travels.Incorrect. When the outer lanes were built between 8A and 9 in 1987-90, every structure including overhead bridges and turnpike mainline bridges over local roads were all built to accommodate three lanes. As jeffandnicole said, only two lanes were paved (to accommodate the concerns of local residents of East Brunswick). The only major modifications during the 2009-14 widening were paving the extra lane, moving guard rails, and adding sound walls. No bridges were widened or re-built in this stretch.I wouldn't say "easily" expandable. All of the structures were built for 2 lanes wide and had to be widened (2006-2009 timeframe) before the widening really got going.
I think, at the time, 5 lanes was determined to be what they needed. They built the outer carriageway to be easily expandable to 3 lanes, but just paved it for 2 lanes. Even when traffic increased, they never went to 6 lanes southbound because it would just dump more traffic into the merge down to 3 lanes. On the northbound side, one of the earliest phases of the 6-9 widening was to make the truck lanes 3 lanes wide, since it would immediately improve traffic flow with no adverse effects.
A few posts back, I think J&N were actually taking about eastbound to southbound at Exit-6; as Kevin_224 correctly suggested it isn't possible to go westbound to southbound. No problem; we all have these occasional mental-blocks and such. And as I'm finding out, they get more frequent as we get older. LOL
The Atlantic City service area no longer has access to Jimmie Leeds Rd. due to the NJSP Barracks that were constructed there. The good news is there is now a proper Exit 41 interchange off of the highway..... with no toll. The Cheesequake "bus parking" entrance was always signed for official use only.I have seen the state police sit at the top of the bus parking lot at Cheesequake stopping people cutting through. I've been a lot more wary with these 'secret' exits - there is also one at the Monmouth rest area and the PNC Arts Center as well.
PNC goes straight past a maintenance yard that is usually staffed. While I've seen locals use it, I'd be very wary of that one.The Atlantic City service area no longer has access to Jimmie Leeds Rd. due to the NJSP Barracks that were constructed there. The good news is there is now a proper Exit 41 interchange off of the highway..... with no toll. The Cheesequake "bus parking" entrance was always signed for official use only.I have seen the state police sit at the top of the bus parking lot at Cheesequake stopping people cutting through. I've been a lot more wary with these 'secret' exits - there is also one at the Monmouth rest area and the PNC Arts Center as well.
The old entrance at the Atlantic City service area used to actually have a small "Jimmie Leeds Road" sign under the service area exit sign. It seems like they went back and forth on whether to officially acknowledge it in some way. The signs at the exit were eventually taken down a few years ago, but it had a traffic light on Jimmie Leeds. I think the fact that it provided the most direct route to the nearby hospital helped its case on getting it an unofficial exit status. The new interchange is great, but it's unfortunate that there is no longer access from JLR to the plaza.
Not exactly. He just mentioned the long two lane roadway from 8A to 9. FYI its already being done at the north end in Newark where the dual carriageway transitions into the the two spurs. There at that point is more volume than at Exit 6.I do not know why they did not do what they did at the north end where it goes into the two spurs. Have the turnpike narrow to two lanes after Exit 6 where the three lanes split into two through and two exit lanes. Just like at the north end were it goes two and two for the two spurs having the center lane split for both ways. Then the two lanes between merge together at the other end forming the three lanes of the spurs.
This could work well at 6 where the two car and the two truck lanes could come back together as three at the far end of the interchange. Thus the two lane exit lanes from both the car and truck could merge together to form the three westbound lanes of the extension. The northbound could have the three lanes split into two and two and at the point of the merge from the extension all come together with two lanes each of the on ramps merging into the car and truck lanes to make the three general lanes for both.
The NB to WB and EB to SB could exit and enter off the truck lanes or have long ramps that merge one mile south of Exit 6 sort of like the extended 14 ramps in Newark do now.
Jeff addresses why they didn't do this. If the through movements were pinched down into two lane "ramps", then when they have to shut down one roadway for construction, they've introduced an artificial bottleneck, as you'd have 3 lanes squeezing to 2 only to widen back to 3. Better to have 3 lanes throughout, even if that segment a mile south of Exit 6 is massively overbuilt.
Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.Interesting. The signs include the I-95 shield, but green out the destinations.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
My question is; what actually was greened out? The BGS panel is too narrow to list New York City but could fit either New York or Newark.
Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
My question is; what actually was greened out? The BGS panel is too narrow to list New York City but could fit either New York or Newark.
NJTA policy is that northbound is always signed to New York. This only creates a direct conflict at Exit 16E, but indirect at 14. (10 and 13 can be signed to Staten Island instead.) Only southbound gets the range of destinations from Newark to Wilmington.Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
My question is; what actually was greened out? The BGS panel is too narrow to list New York City but could fit either New York or Newark.
At least at Exit 10, "Newark" would be better, as New York can be easily accessed by staying on the Turnpike, or by taking the exit.
Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
My question is; what actually was greened out? The BGS panel is too narrow to list New York City but could fit either New York or Newark.
Back to my original question: why were the destination listing on the new northbound pull-through signage greened out?NJTA policy is that northbound is always signed to New York. This only creates a direct conflict at Exit 16E, but indirect at 14. (10 and 13 can be signed to Staten Island instead.) Only southbound gets the range of destinations from Newark to Wilmington.Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
My question is; what actually was greened out? The BGS panel is too narrow to list New York City but could fit either New York or Newark.
At least at Exit 10, "Newark" would be better, as New York can be easily accessed by staying on the Turnpike, or by taking the exit.
Could the greenout be covering "G Washington Br" or some variant thereof, since the MUTCD doesn't allow use of bridges as control points anymore?
Could the greenout be covering "G Washington Br" or some variant thereof, since the MUTCD doesn't allow use of bridges as control points anymore?The panel's too narrow for such; unless it was worded as G.W. Bridge.
Using my info - my guess sides with having put the wrong destination.NJTA policy is that northbound is always signed to New York. This only creates a direct conflict at Exit 16E, but indirect at 14. (10 and 13 can be signed to Staten Island instead.) Only southbound gets the range of destinations from Newark to Wilmington.Back to my original question: why were the destination listing on the new northbound pull-through signage greened out?
Fair enough, but why wouldn't that be masked out with the correct destination? The BGS panels are wide enough to support a New York listing.Using my info - my guess sides with having put the wrong destination.NJTA policy is that northbound is always signed to New York. This only creates a direct conflict at Exit 16E, but indirect at 14. (10 and 13 can be signed to Staten Island instead.) Only southbound gets the range of destinations from Newark to Wilmington.Back to my original question: why were the destination listing on the new northbound pull-through signage greened out?
Fair enough, but why wouldn't that be masked out with the correct destination? The BGS panels are wide enough to support a New York listing.Using my info - my guess sides with having put the wrong destination.NJTA policy is that northbound is always signed to New York. This only creates a direct conflict at Exit 16E, but indirect at 14. (10 and 13 can be signed to Staten Island instead.) Only southbound gets the range of destinations from Newark to Wilmington.Back to my original question: why were the destination listing on the new northbound pull-through signage greened out?
Could the greenout be covering "G Washington Br" or some variant thereof, since the MUTCD doesn't allow use of bridges as control points anymore?
Staten Island is not really New York (in the sense that people don't usually think of it as "New York City" like they do for Manhattan and Brooklyn (at to a lesser extend Bronx and Queens). Sure, you can get to some of these places via the Outerbridge Crossing, but it's not the best way, so I think "New York" is still safe at Exit 10. It's not until Exit 13 that it becomes a problem.
Most people are ignorant and think that "New York" or "New York City" is Manhattan. The rest of the four boroughs have identities of their own in most peoples mind. Though part of the big city, the island of Manhattan, particularly Midtown is the main part of NY.
Most people are ignorant and think that "New York" or "New York City" is Manhattan. The rest of the four boroughs have identities of their own in most peoples mind. Though part of the big city, the island of Manhattan, particularly Midtown is the main part of NY.People from Queens will say they are going into the city meaning going to Manhattan
Putting a form of NYC on the pull-thru at Interchange 10 is by definition a conflict with the Outerbridge Crossing destination at that exit. The "do nothing" alternative was most likely the easiest or cheapest alternative of all corrections.Recent Exit 129 signage exiting from the southbound GSP (NJTP Exit 11) that directs NYC-bound motorists to I-95 and not onto NJ 440 & the Outerbridge Crossing (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5401961,-74.3082826,3a,75y,159.25h,75.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sy28r0W5uLd7re8OAwEUfeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) disproves the notion of a conflict.
Most people are ignorant and think that "New York" or "New York City" is Manhattan. The rest of the four boroughs have identities of their own in most peoples mind. Though part of the big city, the island of Manhattan, particularly Midtown is the main part of NY.People from Queens will say they are going into the city meaning going to Manhattan
Again, this is where MUTCD's/FHWA's misguided (IMHO) restriction of only listing city/town names on primary signs as opposed to bridges/tunnels, city sections/boroughs or even state names can cause some issues and/or add more confusion.Most people are ignorant and think that "New York" or "New York City" is Manhattan. The rest of the four boroughs have identities of their own in most peoples mind. Though part of the big city, the island of Manhattan, particularly Midtown is the main part of NY.People from Queens will say they are going into the city meaning going to Manhattan
Yes, they do, and it makes me want to scream. They're already in the city, just a different borough.
If the NJTA wants people to use as much of the Turnpike as possible, then I see why they would only point "New York" or "New York City" by traveling the entire length going north to the George Washington Bridge. Its like labeling "To I-95" by going south to the Delaware Memorial Bridge instead of mentioning other exits in between.
Most people are ignorant and think that "New York" or "New York City" is Manhattan. The rest of the four boroughs have identities of their own in most peoples mind. Though part of the big city, the island of Manhattan, particularly Midtown is the main part of NY.People from Queens will say they are going into the city meaning going to Manhattan
Yes, they do, and it makes me want to scream. They're already in the city, just a different borough.
If the NJTA wants people to use as much of the Turnpike as possible, then I see why they would only point "New York" or "New York City" by traveling the entire length going north to the George Washington Bridge. Its like labeling "To I-95" by going south to the Delaware Memorial Bridge instead of mentioning other exits in between.
When anyone thinks of New York City is Broadway, Wall Street, Rockefeller center, Central Park....all in Manhattan.Most people are ignorant and think that "New York" or "New York City" is Manhattan. The rest of the four boroughs have identities of their own in most peoples mind. Though part of the big city, the island of Manhattan, particularly Midtown is the main part of NY.People from Queens will say they are going into the city meaning going to Manhattan
Yes, they do, and it makes me want to scream. They're already in the city, just a different borough.
Referring to Manhattan as "the city" is a continuation of common spoken usage that goes back well over a century, when each of the boroughs was a separate city. My grandparents (from Brooklyn) said it that way, my parents (from Brooklyn and Queens) said it that way, and my wife (from Manhattan) says it that way. As late as about 20 years ago the subway station closest to where my mother grew up in what is now called Ditmas Park had neon signs and buzzers which would turn on when the train entered the preceding stop: "Train to New York" or "Train to Coney Island." It's just how people in NYC talk.
BTW, I'd like to see some proof that "most people are ignorant."
When I was growing up, most of my relatives lived in Bay Ridge and the adult ones* usually referred to Manhattan as "New York," as in (for example) "I'm going to New York, do you want me to pick up anything for you?" This was pretty common among their neighbors too, and it's really not that odd when you think about history. Brooklyn was an independent city until 1898. My grandparents** were born between 1910 and 1920, so their parents grew up in an independent Brooklyn (or settled there after immigrating, more likely–at least on my mother's side, anyway, since my father's mother grew up in Wilkes-Barre and I don't know how she wound up in Flatbush and later Bay Ridge). I have no doubt at all that my grandparents grew up with that usage and it simply became a habit. Funny thing is, my mother didn't, and doesn't, speak that way, but then she left Brooklyn in 1969 when she married my father, and when you're elsewhere you have to be more precise since saying "the City" in Copperas Cove, Texas, won't mean "Manhattan" or even "New York" to anyone. My aunts who stayed in New York City (they now live in Queens–Breezy Point and Roxbury to be more precise) still say either "New York" or "the City," and I suppose that's a bit odder since they were born at least 50 years after consolidation. I guess you pick up on your parents' way of saying things.Growing up on the Jersey shore if some said "I am going to the city" driving on the NJTP it was Manhattan. ( See how I kept it on topic 😂) If you were going to Staten Island, Brooklyn or Queens, you would say so.
BTW, in a more general sense, this isn't unique to Manhattan in terms of New York—speak. Think about the road signs in Brooklyn that point you east to Long Island as if you were not already there. (I will concede that all the bridges contribute to an illusion that you are not on an island.)
*"Adult ones" meaning the ones who were adults when I was a kid. My two cousins who are two and four years older than I am have usually said "the City."
**"Grandparents" here referring to the three I knew. I never met my father's father because he died long before I was born, so the comments here don't apply to him. Of course now all of them are long gone and I can't ask any of them about it.
Indeed, Manhattan Island is Manhattan Borough but also New York County. The other boroughs all have different County names (Richmond, Kings, etc.). This makes Manhattan the only part of New York City that is also New York County. I don't know if even most New Yorkers know that, but it comports with thinking of Manhattan as equalling "New York."
Indeed, Manhattan Island is Manhattan Borough but also New York County. The other boroughs all have different County names (Richmond, Kings, etc.). This makes Manhattan the only part of New York City that is also New York County. I don't know if even most New Yorkers know that, but it comports with thinking of Manhattan as equalling "New York."
Indeed, Manhattan Island is Manhattan Borough but also New York County. The other boroughs all have different County names (Richmond, Kings, etc.). This makes Manhattan the only part of New York City that is also New York County. I don't know if even most New Yorkers know that, but it comports with thinking of Manhattan as equalling "New York."
...and I can practically guarantee that no New Yorker refers to any of the boroughs by their county name unless they're reading some official document. The New York state county line markers (NYI12-2a or NYI12-3a) are almost non-existent within NYC. The "Welcome to (borough name)" signs are far more common.
Yes they are. But Brooklyn is Kings County, Manhattan is New York County and Staten Island is Richmond County. Simple right? LOL
Indeed, Manhattan Island is Manhattan Borough but also New York County. The other boroughs all have different County names (Richmond, Kings, etc.). This makes Manhattan the only part of New York City that is also New York County. I don't know if even most New Yorkers know that, but it comports with thinking of Manhattan as equalling "New York."
...and I can practically guarantee that no New Yorker refers to any of the boroughs by their county name unless they're reading some official document. The New York state county line markers (NYI12-2a or NYI12-3a) are almost non-existent within NYC. The "Welcome to (borough name)" signs are far more common.
Until the 1970s Staten island was officially the Borough of Richmond.Yes they are. But Brooklyn is Kings County, Manhattan is New York County and Staten Island is Richmond County. Simple right? LOL
I realize that. But the prior comments said the boroughs do not have the same name as the counties. Given the number of hypertechnical people on this forum who will purport to "correct" you over a single misplaced letter in your post, I think my comment was pretty damn innocuous in terms of pointing out a correction.
I have plenty of old maps that refer to Staten Island as Richmond.
As far as the I-95/NJTP pull through signs, I don't understand why I-95 shields haven't been posted more northbound from Exit 7A northward (or maybe even from Exit 6 going north). Are the newer signs at Exits 9 and 10 going to be a trend?Personally, I hope so. As far as I'm concerned, and I've mentioned such before; there is absolutely no reason not to consistently sign the NJTP north of Exit 7A as I-95. Such, IMHO, should've been done over 20 years ago when I-195 and I-295 (to the north of 195) were connected.
Yes they are. But Brooklyn is Kings County, Manhattan is New York County and Staten Island is Richmond County. Simple right? LOL
I realize that. But the prior comments said the boroughs do not have the same name as the counties. Given the number of hypertechnical people on this forum who will purport to "correct" you over a single misplaced letter in your post, I think my comment was pretty damn innocuous in terms of pointing out a correction.
I have plenty of old maps that refer to Staten Island as Richmond.
Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.With all this discussion regarding the new pull-through BGS; I completely forgot about the Exit 9 & 10 BGS' themselves (I drove by both gantries again this past weekend); these new BGS' show a 1/4 MILE listing at the bottom-center of the panels. The old BGS' at these locations had the NJTP-style tapered arrow with no distance listing.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
Along NJTP/I-95 Northbound at Exits 9 & 10; there are now new pull-through BGS' that include I-95 shields along with NJTP shields at the respective exits.With all this discussion regarding the new pull-through BGS; I completely forgot about the Exit 9 & 10 BGS' themselves (I drove by both gantries again this past weekend); these new BGS' show a 1/4 MILE listing at the bottom-center of the panels. The old BGS' at these locations had the NJTP-style tapered arrow with no distance listing.
However, it appears that these pull-throughs have the control city/destination legend greened out. These BGS' are square and are laid out in a 3-line stack:
NORTH (direction cardinal lettering spread out over both shields)
95 NJTP (shields)
*greenout*
Assuming that NJTA will be complying with MUTCD standards; I am assuming that the new BGS' with the angled arrows will be erected where the current, large EXIT 9 & 10 BGS' are. If not, they'd be taking a page of PTC's old (pre-1980s) playbook of not showing a full-legend exit BGS with an arrow.
They replaced Rutherford for Sports Complex! A sporing venue over a proper municipality?
I could see Rutherford dropped as most ramp signs to NJ 3 West use Clifton, but I guess because the stadium and racetrack bring in money its a prominent control city in the NJTA's mind.
Well now LOL, there's a novel idea! Putting wording on an exit sign to help get traffic to the right place. Who would have thought? (chuckle!)My GPS is not working today lol!
I can confirm that several signs north of the recent widening have been replaced. Drove the Turnpike south of the Garden State yesterday afternoon.
Has there been any talk of widening the Turnpike to 6 lanes south of Exit 4? Volumes were quite high yesterday when driving back from the Birmingham meet.
I can confirm that several signs north of the recent widening have been replaced. Drove the Turnpike south of the Garden State yesterday afternoon.
Has there been any talk of widening the Turnpike to 6 lanes south of Exit 4? Volumes were quite high yesterday when driving back from the Birmingham meet.
There is no active talking going on from what I can see...at least that involves outside consultants, design, funding, etc. When overpasses have been replaced they have lengthened them to permit 3, if not 4, lanes per direction.
The volume is high most afternoon rush hours southbound between Interchanges 4 and 3 where it's becoming common to experience some congestion especially around the service plaza and approaching Interchange 3, and on many summer and holiday weekends. The situation is getting worse during those time periods, based on my observations. Outside of that, they are generally free-flowing.
Increased traffic, particularly southbound, is likely a side effect of the Exit 6 to 9 widening project. Now that the traffic bottleneck has been removed. It'll be interesting to see where the new bottlenecks are further south in the regional road network. Its clearly affecting the NJTP-Delaware Memorial Bridge corridor, don't know about the PA Turnpike system.
Unfortunately I think you're wrong on both counts. Removal of the merge bottleneck does allow more long-distance traffic to get down the Turnpike at once. Also, they are very much waiting on the PA connection to open to reassess widening.Increased traffic, particularly southbound, is likely a side effect of the Exit 6 to 9 widening project. Now that the traffic bottleneck has been removed. It'll be interesting to see where the new bottlenecks are further south in the regional road network. Its clearly affecting the NJTP-Delaware Memorial Bridge corridor, don't know about the PA Turnpike system.
I don't think it has that effect. There's a construction project on 295 In Delaware that they clearly messed up with the stripping and signage, and it's causing some major backups thru the toll plaza.
As far as 1-4 widening, I don't know if they're necessarily waiting, as any new overpass design even as far back as the mid 1990's (NJ 42) accounted for a potential widening. Compared to the days of the old Interchange 1, they at least haven't had to close the highway at Interchange 4 due to insane congestion issues.
What do you mean drawn up? They're not going to spend millions on design efforts until they've decided if they want to spend tens to hundreds of millions on the widening.QuoteUnfortunately I think you're wrong on both counts. Removal of the merge bottleneck does allow more long-distance traffic to get down the Turnpike at once. Also, they are very much waiting on the PA connection to open to reassess widening.
I agree completely with you and NJ on SB. The bottleneck point is now south of the PA turnpike, meaning that more SB long-distance traffic can indeed get to the narrow section.
And as I said before, I'm not shocked that NJTA wants to wait until the connection opens (that is, if PTC ever finishes the damn thing). I was more wondering if plans were already drawn up for potential widening scenarios so they wouldn't have to design something later on and delay construction.
Granted, once the connection opens, I'll probably drive through it once and then continue to cross at Delaware because it's more direct for through traffic, but other people and truckers might be less inclined to do so due to tolls.
I don't think it has that effect. There's a construction project on 295 In Delaware that they clearly messed up with the stripping and signage, and it's causing some major backups thru the toll plaza.
....
Seems to me whether stripping causes a backup depends on what she looks like. :-P
Even with tolls, I would be much more inclined to stay on the well maintained NJT than to take my chances with traffic congestion on I-95 thru Center-City Philadelphia.
Even with tolls, I would be much more inclined to stay on the well maintained NJT than to take my chances with traffic congestion on I-95 thru Center-City Philadelphia.
Totally agree - why would anyone driving from NJTP for south of Wilmington want to take the new 95 route (except for sight seeing)? It's longer mileage wise and more time, even with a moderate backup at NJTP exit 1 toll. It's more like a loop than a through route.
I don't think it has that effect. There's a construction project on 295 In Delaware that they clearly messed up with the stripping and signage, and it's causing some major backups thru the toll plaza.
....
Seems to me whether stripping causes a backup depends on what she looks like. :-P
Even with tolls, I would be much more inclined to stay on the well maintained NJT than to take my chances with traffic congestion on I-95 thru Center-City Philadelphia.
Totally agree - why would anyone driving from NJTP for south of Wilmington want to take the new 95 route (except for sight seeing)? It's longer mileage wise and more time, even with a moderate backup at NJTP exit 1 toll. It's more like a loop than a through route.
Concur. In addition, the Turnpike offers comforts that Pennsylvania cannot. If you have to take an emergency dump, a Turnpike service area is at worst 10 minutes up the mainline. I would not want to exit onto a surface street in the City of Brotherly Love to take a dumpski.
Plus, if you are disabled I'd rather be in the comforts of Turnpike tow trucks and not a chop shop off the Interstate in Philly.
I was riding on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail this afternoon and observed from the train that there's new MUTCD-compliant signage on the Newark Bay Extension. Also, it looks like I-78 is now signed approaching the Holland Tunnel. No photos, unfortunately, since it snuck up on me.
I was riding on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail this afternoon and observed from the train that there's new MUTCD-compliant signage on the Newark Bay Extension. Also, it looks like I-78 is now signed approaching the Holland Tunnel. No photos, unfortunately, since it snuck up on me.
Where at? There have been MUTCD signs for 14B for a while now. Did they replace others? I imagine that the ones at 14A will be replaced as part of the interchange work there.
I don't think it has that effect. There's a construction project on 295 In Delaware that they clearly messed up with the stripping and signage, and it's causing some major backups thru the toll plaza.
....
Seems to me whether stripping causes a backup depends on what she looks like. :-P
Darn extra p!Even with tolls, I would be much more inclined to stay on the well maintained NJT than to take my chances with traffic congestion on I-95 thru Center-City Philadelphia.
Totally agree - why would anyone driving from NJTP for south of Wilmington want to take the new 95 route (except for sight seeing)? It's longer mileage wise and more time, even with a moderate backup at NJTP exit 1 toll. It's more like a loop than a through route.
Concur. In addition, the Turnpike offers comforts that Pennsylvania cannot. If you have to take an emergency dump, a Turnpike service area is at worst 10 minutes up the mainline. I would not want to exit onto a surface street in the City of Brotherly Love to take a dumpski.
Plus, if you are disabled I'd rather be in the comforts of Turnpike tow trucks and not a chop shop off the Interstate in Philly.
Well, the service plazas aren't *that* frequent...you should hit one every 30 minutes or so though.
And many people will take 95 thru Philly because they are simply following the signs for 95. It already occurs fairly often going north thru Delaware.
I was riding on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail this afternoon and observed from the train that there's new MUTCD-compliant signage on the Newark Bay Extension. Also, it looks like I-78 is now signed approaching the Holland Tunnel. No photos, unfortunately, since it snuck up on me.
Where at? There have been MUTCD signs for 14B for a while now. Did they replace others? I imagine that the ones at 14A will be replaced as part of the interchange work there.
The Columbus Boulevard exit now has new signage. The sign for the exit itself has an exit only tab, and the sign for the Holland Tunnel now has an I-78 shield. That's where the train passed under.
I was riding on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail this afternoon and observed from the train that there's new MUTCD-compliant signage on the Newark Bay Extension. Also, it looks like I-78 is now signed approaching the Holland Tunnel. No photos, unfortunately, since it snuck up on me.
Where at? There have been MUTCD signs for 14B for a while now. Did they replace others? I imagine that the ones at 14A will be replaced as part of the interchange work there.
The Columbus Boulevard exit now has new signage. The sign for the exit itself has an exit only tab, and the sign for the Holland Tunnel now has an I-78 shield. That's where the train passed under.
Interesting. Wasn't sure they'd replace those signs. They were replaced in the last 7 or 8 years and didn't have any Turnpike arrows or anything.
Huh, I think I have a quibble with the Wikipedia entry regarding the Turnpike. In its exit list, it says the Turnpike begins at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, running concurrent with US 40 and I-295, and it regards the exit for NJ 49 as NJ Turnpike exit 1. Wouldn't that actually be I-295 Exit 1, since the Turnpike southbound (which at that point is, I agree, concurrent with both US 40 and I-295) declares mile zero immediately before then at the NJ49/US130 overpass?
I also note that the northbound NJ Turnpike is not concurrent with I-295, since it splits off from the roadway (the DRBA-maintained US 40) before it becomes the Turnpike at that overpass (also marked as DRBA-maintained mile 5.16). There's a rather pronounced pavement change at that point, too.
I'd say Turnpike Exit 1 is functionally the barrier toll, but is technically the unnumbered northbound exit where US 40 leaves the Turnpike. Southbound, it's technically the unnumbered NJ140/CR540 exit (and, functionally, it's the barrier toll.) I can understand not numbering those exits - there's another Exit 1 right near there (even though it's really I-295's exit for US130 and/or NJ 49.) I'd want Wikipedia to get that right, though.
Splitting hairs?
The fact that DRBA has its own mile markers, and for a rather long segment of road spanning two stated at that, has always puzzled me. Are there other instances of this happening anywhere?Huh, I think I have a quibble with the Wikipedia entry regarding the Turnpike. In its exit list, it says the Turnpike begins at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, running concurrent with US 40 and I-295, and it regards the exit for NJ 49 as NJ Turnpike exit 1. Wouldn't that actually be I-295 Exit 1, since the Turnpike southbound (which at that point is, I agree, concurrent with both US 40 and I-295) declares mile zero immediately before then at the NJ49/US130 overpass?
I also note that the northbound NJ Turnpike is not concurrent with I-295, since it splits off from the roadway (the DRBA-maintained US 40) before it becomes the Turnpike at that overpass (also marked as DRBA-maintained mile 5.16). There's a rather pronounced pavement change at that point, too.
I'd say Turnpike Exit 1 is functionally the barrier toll, but is technically the unnumbered northbound exit where US 40 leaves the Turnpike. Southbound, it's technically the unnumbered NJ140/CR540 exit (and, functionally, it's the barrier toll.) I can understand not numbering those exits - there's another Exit 1 right near there (even though it's really I-295's exit for US130 and/or NJ 49.) I'd want Wikipedia to get that right, though.
Splitting hairs?
Nope, you're correct on just about all accounts. Since anyone can play with Wikipedia, somebody that really has no knowledge of the highway can go in and type up anything they want. Unless it's locked, you are more than welcome to go in and make the changes!
When I said you're correct on just about all accounts, the only account (again, splitting hairs) is that neither the toll barrier or the 140/540 exit isn't 'Exit 1'. The toll plaza is 'Interchange 1'. 140/540 is simply an unnumbered exit, similar to 40 being an unnumbered exit on the northbound side.
DRBA Maintenance (and their milepost numbering system) ends at that 130/49 overpass. At that point, the NJ Turnpike begins (and 40 continues) to the left; 295 continues to the right, using milepost numbering as if MP 0.0 was signed at the NJ/DE state line on the bridge.
The fact that DRBA has its own mile markers, and for a rather long segment of road spanning two stated at that, has always puzzled me. Are there other instances of this happening anywhere?Huh, I think I have a quibble with the Wikipedia entry regarding the Turnpike. In its exit list, it says the Turnpike begins at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, running concurrent with US 40 and I-295, and it regards the exit for NJ 49 as NJ Turnpike exit 1. Wouldn't that actually be I-295 Exit 1, since the Turnpike southbound (which at that point is, I agree, concurrent with both US 40 and I-295) declares mile zero immediately before then at the NJ49/US130 overpass?
I also note that the northbound NJ Turnpike is not concurrent with I-295, since it splits off from the roadway (the DRBA-maintained US 40) before it becomes the Turnpike at that overpass (also marked as DRBA-maintained mile 5.16). There's a rather pronounced pavement change at that point, too.
I'd say Turnpike Exit 1 is functionally the barrier toll, but is technically the unnumbered northbound exit where US 40 leaves the Turnpike. Southbound, it's technically the unnumbered NJ140/CR540 exit (and, functionally, it's the barrier toll.) I can understand not numbering those exits - there's another Exit 1 right near there (even though it's really I-295's exit for US130 and/or NJ 49.) I'd want Wikipedia to get that right, though.
Splitting hairs?
Nope, you're correct on just about all accounts. Since anyone can play with Wikipedia, somebody that really has no knowledge of the highway can go in and type up anything they want. Unless it's locked, you are more than welcome to go in and make the changes!
When I said you're correct on just about all accounts, the only account (again, splitting hairs) is that neither the toll barrier or the 140/540 exit isn't 'Exit 1'. The toll plaza is 'Interchange 1'. 140/540 is simply an unnumbered exit, similar to 40 being an unnumbered exit on the northbound side.
DRBA Maintenance (and their milepost numbering system) ends at that 130/49 overpass. At that point, the NJ Turnpike begins (and 40 continues) to the left; 295 continues to the right, using milepost numbering as if MP 0.0 was signed at the NJ/DE state line on the bridge.
The fact that DRBA has its own mile markers, and for a rather long segment of road spanning two stated at that, has always puzzled me. Are there other instances of this happening anywhere?Huh, I think I have a quibble with the Wikipedia entry regarding the Turnpike. In its exit list, it says the Turnpike begins at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, running concurrent with US 40 and I-295, and it regards the exit for NJ 49 as NJ Turnpike exit 1. Wouldn't that actually be I-295 Exit 1, since the Turnpike southbound (which at that point is, I agree, concurrent with both US 40 and I-295) declares mile zero immediately before then at the NJ49/US130 overpass?
I also note that the northbound NJ Turnpike is not concurrent with I-295, since it splits off from the roadway (the DRBA-maintained US 40) before it becomes the Turnpike at that overpass (also marked as DRBA-maintained mile 5.16). There's a rather pronounced pavement change at that point, too.
I'd say Turnpike Exit 1 is functionally the barrier toll, but is technically the unnumbered northbound exit where US 40 leaves the Turnpike. Southbound, it's technically the unnumbered NJ140/CR540 exit (and, functionally, it's the barrier toll.) I can understand not numbering those exits - there's another Exit 1 right near there (even though it's really I-295's exit for US130 and/or NJ 49.) I'd want Wikipedia to get that right, though.
Splitting hairs?
Nope, you're correct on just about all accounts. Since anyone can play with Wikipedia, somebody that really has no knowledge of the highway can go in and type up anything they want. Unless it's locked, you are more than welcome to go in and make the changes!
When I said you're correct on just about all accounts, the only account (again, splitting hairs) is that neither the toll barrier or the 140/540 exit isn't 'Exit 1'. The toll plaza is 'Interchange 1'. 140/540 is simply an unnumbered exit, similar to 40 being an unnumbered exit on the northbound side.
DRBA Maintenance (and their milepost numbering system) ends at that 130/49 overpass. At that point, the NJ Turnpike begins (and 40 continues) to the left; 295 continues to the right, using milepost numbering as if MP 0.0 was signed at the NJ/DE state line on the bridge.
In a way, the NJ Turnpike is similar. It's really 2 separate roadways, NJ 700 & I-95.
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.Yes.
Some NJDOT municipal border signs snuck in on that stretch too: https://goo.gl/maps/ruNiA4UPNXz
Has the big MUTCD signing project made its way that far north yet?
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.Yes.
Some NJDOT municipal border signs snuck in on that stretch too: https://goo.gl/maps/ruNiA4UPNXz
Has the big MUTCD signing project made its way that far north yet?
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/101_4138-s.JPG)
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.I haven't seen any mile markers past 122 where the tiny "End NJ Turnpike" sign is. Are they really there beyond that point? If not, exits 72-74 are the de facto mileage on that stretch.
Isn't that a fine looking arch bridge over I-95 in the photo? Must have been expensive to build. I can't imagine what politics it took to get that included in the original design of the highway, considering it only carries a little side street named Edgewood Rd that connects the villages of Leonia and Englewood. I actually drove over it once to check it out.Can't see much from up there. It may have been the cheapest option - how else do you bridge a gap that high and wide?
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.Yes.
Some NJDOT municipal border signs snuck in on that stretch too: https://goo.gl/maps/ruNiA4UPNXz
Has the big MUTCD signing project made its way that far north yet?
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/101_4138-s.JPG)
Interesting that they reused the gantry here. Guess we won't have the mix of NJTP style signage mixed with the more MUTCD signs from the PA anymore.
Storm2k, the NJTA put Next Right on a new MUTCD sign???!!!! Must be a mistake. Next Right doesn't even exist in the Manual anymore. All exit signs must have distance messages and/or arrows. The option of using the words Next Right in place of the arrow on the so called "exit-direction sign" appeared in previous Manuals but not in the 2009 Edition.
NEXT RIGHT does still exist, in limited circumstances. KEEP RIGHT is the message that has disappeared. But NEXT RIGHT is intended for intersections, not as part of advance exit signage.Storm2k, the NJTA put Next Right on a new MUTCD sign???!!!! Must be a mistake. Next Right doesn't even exist in the Manual anymore. All exit signs must have distance messages and/or arrows. The option of using the words Next Right in place of the arrow on the so called "exit-direction sign" appeared in previous Manuals but not in the 2009 Edition.
Not sure what the deal is. All the other signs I've seen thusfar use 1/4 mile instead of Next Right. Not sure why these two are different.
NEXT RIGHT does still exist, in limited circumstances. KEEP RIGHT is the message that has disappeared. But NEXT RIGHT is intended for intersections, not as part of advance exit signage.Storm2k, the NJTA put Next Right on a new MUTCD sign???!!!! Must be a mistake. Next Right doesn't even exist in the Manual anymore. All exit signs must have distance messages and/or arrows. The option of using the words Next Right in place of the arrow on the so called "exit-direction sign" appeared in previous Manuals but not in the 2009 Edition.
Not sure what the deal is. All the other signs I've seen thusfar use 1/4 mile instead of Next Right. Not sure why these two are different.
A Supplemental Guide sign (see Figure 2E-24) should not list more than two destinations. Destination names should be followed by the interchange number (and suffix), or if interchanges are not numbered, by the legend NEXT RIGHT or SECOND RIGHT or both, as appropriate. The Supplemental Guide sign should be installed as an independent guide sign assembly.
STANDARD: Except as provided in Section 2E.24, Advance Guide signs, if used, shall contain the distance message.
I see no more brown rust gantries as the NJTA has been using since the early 80's here. Still, the redundant PIP text and shield are still there. Funny that they still use the upper casing here, but left out what NJDOT had in when they owned the freeway with the US 1, 9, & 46 shields accompanying the US 9W shield. Considering that US 1, 9, & 46 go back to where you came it was unused baggage.The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.Yes.
Some NJDOT municipal border signs snuck in on that stretch too: https://goo.gl/maps/ruNiA4UPNXz
Has the big MUTCD signing project made its way that far north yet?
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/101_4138-s.JPG)
I see no more brown rust gantries as the NJTA has been using since the early 80's here. Still, the redundant PIP text and shield are still there. Funny that they still use the upper casing here, but left out what NJDOT had in when they owned the freeway with the US 1, 9, & 46 shields accompanying the US 9W shield. Considering that US 1, 9, & 46 go back to where you came it was unused baggage.The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.Yes.
Some NJDOT municipal border signs snuck in on that stretch too: https://goo.gl/maps/ruNiA4UPNXz
Has the big MUTCD signing project made its way that far north yet?
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/101_4138-s.JPG)
Wow this is still left over from the NJDOT days. Not that surprised as older ones from the 1950s have survived many years, but I thought that NJTA replaced all of them when they added their signs here nearly 20 years ago.
The marshland is a big issue. Actually, the bigger issue is Interchange 3. The Turnpike I believe is resistant to putting 2 interchanges close together, and many hotels along 168 are there because of the Interchange. Personally, I think they can keep Interchange 3 and using open land run a parallel road along the NJ Turnpike to get to Rt. 42, but much of that land is marshland...I doubt exit 3 is an issue. Otherwise, exits 6 and 7 wouldn't be where they are, nor would exits 15E and 15W, or exit 15X, or the exit to the sports complex.
And I know the NJ Turnpike had mentioned the distance as a concern at one point, but it was so long ago I can't recall where I read that, and a quick Google search wasn't turnpike up anything.
And I know the NJ Turnpike had mentioned the distance as a concern at one point, but it was so long ago I can't recall where I read that, and a quick Google search wasn't turnpike up anything.
Best slip of the fingers ever.
Are the Exit 6 signs with the overlays still there or are they being replaced too?they are still there, as will remain all of the signs which were installed as part of the widening project.
"Looking for America On the NJ Turnpike" makes mention of the Authority's resistance against adding exits in general since they can reduce safety. Distance between exits is actually more of a concern on NJ-42, particularly after the missing moves with I-295 are added in. Its going to be weave central once those go in. They would have to get pretty elaborate with a collector-distributor system there if the Turnpike had an interchange too.
Tolls will not go up on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway next year, and the Turnpike Authority is hiring 15 more State Troopers to patrol the state's two major toll roads.
The Turnpike Authority's $1.74 billion budget also forecasts a 1 percent decrease in traffic on the Turnpike and a 1 percent increase on the Parkway in 2017, due to reopening of the Pulaski Skyway in both directions next fall.
That budget includes $1.1 million to add 15 more troopers to patrol the two toll roads, for which the authority will pay the State Police a total of $62.9 million in 2017. State Police coverage is considered a "contracted service" on the Turnpike and Parkway.
NJ.com: More cops will soon be handing out tickets on Parkway, Turnpike (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/11/more_cops_will_soon_be_handing_out_tickets_on_parkway_turnpike.html)Once the Skyway construction is done, the I-78 extension will fall under construction, so it's a swing the opposite way in terms of traffic loads. Hopefully NJDOT keeps US 1&9 Truck on its current scheme prioritizing mainline traffic, because it's not going to get any lighter.QuoteTolls will not go up on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway next year, and the Turnpike Authority is hiring 15 more State Troopers to patrol the state's two major toll roads.QuoteThe Turnpike Authority's $1.74 billion budget also forecasts a 1 percent decrease in traffic on the Turnpike and a 1 percent increase on the Parkway in 2017, due to reopening of the Pulaski Skyway in both directions next fall.QuoteThat budget includes $1.1 million to add 15 more troopers to patrol the two toll roads, for which the authority will pay the State Police a total of $62.9 million in 2017. State Police coverage is considered a "contracted service" on the Turnpike and Parkway.
NJ.com: More cops will soon be handing out tickets on Parkway, Turnpike (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/11/more_cops_will_soon_be_handing_out_tickets_on_parkway_turnpike.html)They'll never realize that more enforcement never helps. Haven't they heard of Waze?QuoteTolls will not go up on the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway next year, and the Turnpike Authority is hiring 15 more State Troopers to patrol the state's two major toll roads.QuoteThe Turnpike Authority's $1.74 billion budget also forecasts a 1 percent decrease in traffic on the Turnpike and a 1 percent increase on the Parkway in 2017, due to reopening of the Pulaski Skyway in both directions next fall.QuoteThat budget includes $1.1 million to add 15 more troopers to patrol the two toll roads, for which the authority will pay the State Police a total of $62.9 million in 2017. State Police coverage is considered a "contracted service" on the Turnpike and Parkway.
They'll never realize that more enforcement never helps. Haven't they heard of Waze?
noelbotevera applauds your ingenuity.They'll never realize that more enforcement never helps. Haven't they heard of Waze?
A ticket for a burned out headlight or taillight is about the same fine and penalty as a speeding ticket. And Waze ain't gonna fix that headlight as you approach the cop! :D
at night, the cops can see the glow of the cell phone against the driver's face. In NJ...no hand-held cell phone use. Thus, a driver trying to keep out of a $85 ticket is now facing themselves with a $200 ticket!
at night, the cops can see the glow of the cell phone against the driver's face. In NJ...no hand-held cell phone use. Thus, a driver trying to keep out of a $85 ticket is now facing themselves with a $200 ticket!
Ain't necessarily so. That same glow can be caused by a cell phone mounted in a holder, affixed to the dash...IOW, not in the driver's hand. Depending on the exact wording of the law, that may not be a violation.
Update: While returning home from a weeklong Thanksgiving visit in Massachusetts last night, I saw some of the new BGS' along the southbound Turnpike between Exits 11 through 9 are now erected; including new pull-through BGS' that had I-95 shields as well as NJTP shields. Unlike the northbound pull-through BGS' at these interchanges (at least Exits 10 & 9); the new southbound BGS' include a listed/unmasked control city (Trenton).Which control city for I-287 is omitted? On the at exit it originally had three going NB with SB using Metuchen and Edison Twp solely due to Perth Amboy being signed at Exit 11 already.
Which control city for I-287 is omitted? On the at exit it originally had three going NB with SB using Metuchen and Edison Twp solely due to Perth Amboy being signed at Exit 11 already.Correct, Edison Twp. has now been moved to supplemental BGS'.
I am assuming that its Edison in both counts as that being the whole interchange of Exit 10 is in that community while Perth Amboy is the city going North on 440 and Metuchen going North on 287.
Figures. Although I have no problem with Edison being moved to supplemental status, I think Somerville should replace Metuchen as its more a better suited place for a regional highway at that location.Given that the two lanes that enter I-287 from the Turnpike exit at US 1 and NJ 27, it would seem Metuchen is the primary destination for those entering 287 from the Turnpike.
Figures. Although I have no problem with Edison being moved to supplemental status, I think Somerville should replace Metuchen as its more a better suited place for a regional highway at that location.
Not really. The only reason those lanes end is because they're on the right. Most of that traffic is coming from the Parkway, US 9, Perth Amboy, or Staten Island.Figures. Although I have no problem with Edison being moved to supplemental status, I think Somerville should replace Metuchen as its more a better suited place for a regional highway at that location.Given that the two lanes that enter I-287 from the Turnpike exit at US 1 and NJ 27, it would seem Metuchen is the primary destination for those entering 287 from the Turnpike.
The new signs are nice, but some of the mileage on the signs near the exits should be corrected. For instance, the sign pictured in the link below should say 'next right' or 'keep right' instead of 1/4 mile..since it is shorter than that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4685575,-74.408315,16z
correct link: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5220153,-74.351034,3a,67.7y,71.13h,95.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su3e9LWknYrbRAYebme9E-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656The new signs are nice, but some of the mileage on the signs near the exits should be corrected. For instance, the sign pictured in the link below should say 'next right' or 'keep right' instead of 1/4 mile..since it is shorter than that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4685575,-74.408315,16z
The link is only pulling up the generic overhead map.
Regardless, generic terms (keep right/next right) don't convey the distance well, and either could mean a few feet...or a few miles.
Just knowing what's done in practice, the 1/4 sign is probably from the sign to the gore point, so it's probably definitely shorter to the decal lane.
However, the NJ Turnpike has a history of using false measurements...the 2 mile and 1 mile ahead signage for Interchange 1 are actually about 1.6 and .8 miles prior to the toll plaza.
correct link: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5220153,-74.351034,3a,67.7y,71.13h,95.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su3e9LWknYrbRAYebme9E-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656The new signs are nice, but some of the mileage on the signs near the exits should be corrected. For instance, the sign pictured in the link below should say 'next right' or 'keep right' instead of 1/4 mile..since it is shorter than that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4685575,-74.408315,16z
The link is only pulling up the generic overhead map.
Regardless, generic terms (keep right/next right) don't convey the distance well, and either could mean a few feet...or a few miles.
Just knowing what's done in practice, the 1/4 sign is probably from the sign to the gore point, so it's probably definitely shorter to the decal lane.
However, the NJ Turnpike has a history of using false measurements...the 2 mile and 1 mile ahead signage for Interchange 1 are actually about 1.6 and .8 miles prior to the toll plaza.
I'd have to say that's about 1/8 mile at best.correct link: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5220153,-74.351034,3a,67.7y,71.13h,95.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su3e9LWknYrbRAYebme9E-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656The new signs are nice, but some of the mileage on the signs near the exits should be corrected. For instance, the sign pictured in the link below should say 'next right' or 'keep right' instead of 1/4 mile..since it is shorter than that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4685575,-74.408315,16z
The link is only pulling up the generic overhead map.
Regardless, generic terms (keep right/next right) don't convey the distance well, and either could mean a few feet...or a few miles.
Just knowing what's done in practice, the 1/4 sign is probably from the sign to the gore point, so it's probably definitely shorter to the decal lane.
However, the NJ Turnpike has a history of using false measurements...the 2 mile and 1 mile ahead signage for Interchange 1 are actually about 1.6 and .8 miles prior to the toll plaza.
The MUTCD specifies that distances are to be rounded to the nearest quarter-mile. It may not always be entirely accurate but it's reasonable. New York State DOT back in 1960's used to use the actual distance which got a little absurd. They would show 1/10, 2/10, 6/10, of a mile, etc. It used to look goofy.How about 500 feet? The truth is, there are existing sign bridges at the beginning of the decel lane, which used to be the exit sign with arrow. Those were reused for advance signs, so they slapped 1/4 mile up.
It seems like the NJTA is over-applying the MUTCD to exit signing. According to the Manual, the exit-direction sign (the one with the arrow) is usually located at the beginning of the deceleration lane like NJTA had in their old system. With their new MUTCD signing, they have moved that sign to the theoretical gore-point and placed an advance sign (mileage to exit shown) where the arrow sign used to be. I don't understand why they've done this. Possibly an effort to provide a little extra signing to aid drivers, or possibly a misunderstanding of the policies in the MUTCD. Maybe jeffandnicole could shed some light on their thinking?Most of the figures show arrow signs directly over the gore. Only the last three in the chapter do not, but they are schematic. The ones preceding it are more authoritative in showing the actual gantry locations.
The new signs are nice, but some of the mileage on the signs near the exits should be corrected. For instance, the sign pictured in the link below should say 'next right' or 'keep right' instead of 1/4 mile..since it is shorter than that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4685575,-74.408315,16z
The new signs are nice, but some of the mileage on the signs near the exits should be corrected. For instance, the sign pictured in the link below should say 'next right' or 'keep right' instead of 1/4 mile..since it is shorter than that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4685575,-74.408315,16z
The real issue is that they're not applying this consistently. 9, 10, 11, 12 use the 1/4 mile for those signs, 13, 13A, and 14 are using Next Right, signs on both spurs are using 1/4 mile. Not sure why they're not consistent.
at night, the cops can see the glow of the cell phone against the driver's face. In NJ...no hand-held cell phone use. Thus, a driver trying to keep out of a $85 ticket is now facing themselves with a $200 ticket!
Ain't necessarily so. That same glow can be caused by a cell phone mounted in a holder, affixed to the dash...IOW, not in the driver's hand. Depending on the exact wording of the law, that may not be a violation.
While technically correct, there's usually a pretty big difference. If a cop were to be behind someone, they would probably clearly see a phone on the dash.
In regards to the NJ/PA Turnpike Closure:The MPT is going to be upgraded soon. Can't speak to detour signage though.
Going Northbound, the 2 VMSs prior to Interchange 5 showed the following message: "(I-276 Shield) Closed Use Exit 5 For Burlington Brstl Br" Surprisingly, no direct mention of Interchange 6 being closed which means you can't get to 130 as well, so you would have to know that I-276 was Interchange 6. I have a pic that I have to figure out how to upload, since Photobucket decided to make their app completely useless for uploading pics from an android phone.
Approaching Interchange 6, the VMS was in all red (I believe), stating Interchange 6 was closed.
At Interchange 6, the decal lanes are blocked off with cones. At the gore point, a Turnpike pickup truck is stationed there blocking the ramp with its yellow strobes flashing (and no one in the vehicle).
Also, a few months back, another greenout fell off one of the advanced signs for Exit 6, revealing 'South 95'. I've seen this, and was hoping it would be there for me to take a pic. I got distracted, and forgot to take the pic! I'll hopefully have another opportunity this week to be on the Turnpike for another shot at it.
However, the NJ Turnpike has a history of using false measurements...the 2 mile and 1 mile ahead signage for Interchange 1 are actually about 1.6 and .8 miles prior to the toll plaza.
In regards to the NJ/PA Turnpike Closure:
Going Northbound, the 2 VMSs prior to Interchange 5 showed the following message: "(I-276 Shield) Closed Use Exit 5 For Burlington Brstl Br" Surprisingly, no direct mention of Interchange 6 being closed which means you can't get to 130 as well, so you would have to know that I-276 was Interchange 6. I have a pic that I have to figure out how to upload, since Photobucket decided to make their app completely useless for uploading pics from an android phone.
Approaching Interchange 6, the VMS was in all red (I believe), stating Interchange 6 was closed.
At Interchange 6, the decal lanes are blocked off with cones. At the gore point, a Turnpike pickup truck is stationed there blocking the ramp with its yellow strobes flashing (and no one in the vehicle).
Also, a few months back, another greenout fell off one of the advanced signs for Exit 6, revealing 'South 95'. I've seen this, and was hoping it would be there for me to take a pic. I got distracted, and forgot to take the pic! I'll hopefully have another opportunity this week to be on the Turnpike for another shot at it.
In regards to the NJ/PA Turnpike Closure:
Going Northbound, the 2 VMSs prior to Interchange 5 showed the following message: "(I-276 Shield) Closed Use Exit 5 For Burlington Brstl Br" Surprisingly, no direct mention of Interchange 6 being closed which means you can't get to 130 as well, so you would have to know that I-276 was Interchange 6. I have a pic that I have to figure out how to upload, since Photobucket decided to make their app completely useless for uploading pics from an android phone.
Approaching Interchange 6, the VMS was in all red (I believe), stating Interchange 6 was closed.
At Interchange 6, the decal lanes are blocked off with cones. At the gore point, a Turnpike pickup truck is stationed there blocking the ramp with its yellow strobes flashing (and no one in the vehicle).
Also, a few months back, another greenout fell off one of the advanced signs for Exit 6, revealing 'South 95'. I've seen this, and was hoping it would be there for me to take a pic. I got distracted, and forgot to take the pic! I'll hopefully have another opportunity this week to be on the Turnpike for another shot at it.
On the 25th, when I drove up to Monmouth County from Maryland on a business trip, I noticed that they changed the suggested alternate route from Exit 5 to "Use (I-195 Shield) to (I-295 Shield)" (which you'd have to know means Exit 7A) on VMSs north of Exit 4. I was confused by the change, especially since the original suggested alternate used Exit 5 -- this would confuse people, I think, to change the suggested alternate before non-local travelers used the original alternate! Returning from NJ on the 26th I did not use the NJTP (used I-195 to NJ-29 to US-1 to PA Turnpike instead).
I noticed the Turnpike pickup trucks at the Exit 6 ramps WERE occupied, at least in the driver's seat. I thought this was a waste of resources; having the unmanned truck there accomplishes the same thing.
However, the NJ Turnpike has a history of using false measurements...the 2 mile and 1 mile ahead signage for Interchange 1 are actually about 1.6 and .8 miles prior to the toll plaza.
Might that have something to do with the sorta-recent relocation of the toll plaza at exit 1?
The VMS's on NJ 42 North just say "Turnpike Exit 6 Closed / Use Alternate Route". Presumably they expect people to still get on the Turnpike where the alternate route is spelled out. But from that far south, would taking I-76 (and/or I-95 North depending on where you're headed) be a better alternate to the PA Turnpike? Or does going through Philly negate any benefits of taking that route?In regards to the NJ/PA Turnpike Closure:
Going Northbound, the 2 VMSs prior to Interchange 5 showed the following message: "(I-276 Shield) Closed Use Exit 5 For Burlington Brstl Br" Surprisingly, no direct mention of Interchange 6 being closed which means you can't get to 130 as well, so you would have to know that I-276 was Interchange 6. I have a pic that I have to figure out how to upload, since Photobucket decided to make their app completely useless for uploading pics from an android phone.
Approaching Interchange 6, the VMS was in all red (I believe), stating Interchange 6 was closed.
At Interchange 6, the decal lanes are blocked off with cones. At the gore point, a Turnpike pickup truck is stationed there blocking the ramp with its yellow strobes flashing (and no one in the vehicle).
Also, a few months back, another greenout fell off one of the advanced signs for Exit 6, revealing 'South 95'. I've seen this, and was hoping it would be there for me to take a pic. I got distracted, and forgot to take the pic! I'll hopefully have another opportunity this week to be on the Turnpike for another shot at it.
On the 25th, when I drove up to Monmouth County from Maryland on a business trip, I noticed that they changed the suggested alternate route from Exit 5 to "Use (I-195 Shield) to (I-295 Shield)" (which you'd have to know means Exit 7A) on VMSs north of Exit 4. I was confused by the change, especially since the original suggested alternate used Exit 5 -- this would confuse people, I think, to change the suggested alternate before non-local travelers used the original alternate! Returning from NJ on the 26th I did not use the NJTP (used I-195 to NJ-29 to US-1 to PA Turnpike instead).
I noticed the Turnpike pickup trucks at the Exit 6 ramps WERE occupied, at least in the driver's seat. I thought this was a waste of resources; having the unmanned truck there accomplishes the same thing.
I got on the Turnpike at Interchange 5 today and saw the signs North of there, which now say:
(276) | USE (195)
CLOSED | EXIT 7A
I had to get off at Exit 7A for work anyway....traffic was slow after the toll plaza...but there was an accident contributing to that.
The VMS on 195 said "PA Turnpike Customers (yes, customers), Take I-95 to Pennsylvania" (or something close to that). 195 to 29 was packed...but fairly normal for a rush hour.
I have since noticed those turnpike pickups have had someone in them....maybe they were laying down the first time I passed. Not only a waste of resorces, but that has got to be boring as all hell.
The VMS's on NJ 42 North just say "Turnpike Exit 6 Closed / Use Alternate Route". Presumably they expect people to still get on the Turnpike where the alternate route is spelled out. But from that far south, would taking I-76 (and/or I-95 North depending on where you're headed) be a better alternate to the PA Turnpike? Or does going through Philly negate any benefits of taking that route?
The VMS on 195 said "PA Turnpike Customers (yes, customers), Take I-95 to Pennsylvania" (or something close to that). 195 to 29 was packed...but fairly normal for a rush hour.
A VMS on US-22 West (well west of the Turnpike) ran the generic "Exit 6 Closed, use alt routes" message. Someone must have hit the key to place it on all the sign boards instead of a few.Could be reinforcement for anyone who might follow 287 to 18 or the like to keep heading west to 202/206.
A VMS on US-22 West (well west of the Turnpike) ran the generic "Exit 6 Closed, use alt routes" message. Someone must have hit the key to place it on all the sign boards instead of a few.Could be reinforcement for anyone who might follow 287 to 18 or the like to keep heading west to 202/206.
I feel like they're going overkill. Most of the VMS signs here in Pennsylvania warn of the message as far west as Harrisburg...I found one on I-81 NB lit (basically, I-276 closed at exit 358), and it was 133 miles west...On the contrary, given that a sizeable chunk of long-distance truck traffic along I-81 northbound will normally exit off onto an eastbound highway (be it I-76, 78, 80 or 84) throughout the Keystone State; that far of an advance notice allows one to completely avoid the vicinity of that closed Delaware River crossing as they see fit.
FWIW, all the VMSes on both sides of 22 between 202-206 and the GSP appeared to have run the message last weekend. I've seen other non-related messages on them before, like Bayonne Bridge closures.I haven't noticed that problem statewide, so I don't know if it's corridor or regional related. Certainly doesn't sound right.
I feel like they're going overkill. Most of the VMS signs here in Pennsylvania warn of the message as far west as Harrisburg...I found one on I-81 NB lit (basically, I-276 closed at exit 358), and it was 133 miles west...On the contrary, given that a sizeable chunk of long-distance truck traffic along I-81 northbound will normally exit off onto an eastbound highway (be it I-76, 78, 80 or 84) throughout the Keystone State; that far of an advance notice allows one to completely avoid the vicinity of that closed Delaware River crossing as they see fit.
Images of the northbound side of the N.J. 700 part of the New Jersey Turnpike approaching the Exit 6 closure can be found on Facebook (you do not need an account with Facebook) here (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/nyregion/subway-complaints-straphangers-fuming.html).The above-link is either incorrect or obsolete. The link's an article regarding NY subway-related complaints.
That's what happens when your main purpose here is to post links elsewhere.Images of the northbound side of the N.J. 700 part of the New Jersey Turnpike approaching the Exit 6 closure can be found on Facebook (you do not need an account with Facebook) here (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/nyregion/subway-complaints-straphangers-fuming.html).The above-link is either incorrect or obsolete. The link's an article regarding NY subway-related complaints.
Images of the northbound side of the N.J. 700 part of the New Jersey Turnpike approaching the Exit 6 closure can be found on Facebook (you do not need an account with Facebook) here (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/nyregion/subway-complaints-straphangers-fuming.html).The above-link is either incorrect or obsolete. The link's an article regarding NY subway-related complaints.
The question is now when the actual twinning that was discussed for many years becomes a reality, will the two agencies now consider just building a completely new bridge with 6 lanes, full width inner and outer shoulders and a sidewalk? 9 million plus as NJ.com quoted the repairs to be 9.6M in their article on the subject.
I know that would be 9 million thrown away if so, but either way it may just be better off to plan for a replacement rather than a twin structure when the next phase of I-95 comes into play.
The question is now when the actual twinning that was discussed for many years becomes a reality, will the two agencies now consider just building a completely new bridge with 6 lanes, full width inner and outer shoulders and a sidewalk? 9 million plus as NJ.com quoted the repairs to be 9.6M in their article on the subject.
I know that would be 9 million thrown away if so, but either way it may just be better off to plan for a replacement rather than a twin structure when the next phase of I-95 comes into play.
I agree that a new bridge over the Delaware River is needed (when the Bristol, Pennsylvania interchange is complete, this will be the only four lane section of I-95 between Petersburg, Virginia and New Haven, Connecticut (save for I-95 through Wilmington, Delaware, where I-495 is an easy alternative routing and effectively provides 8 lanes of traffic for I-95 there)).
The question is now when the actual twinning that was discussed for many years becomes a reality, will the two agencies now consider just building a completely new bridge with 6 lanes, full width inner and outer shoulders and a sidewalk? 9 million plus as NJ.com quoted the repairs to be 9.6M in their article on the subject.
I know that would be 9 million thrown away if so, but either way it may just be better off to plan for a replacement rather than a twin structure when the next phase of I-95 comes into play.
The first part will be - can the repairs be done?
A major issue will be dealing with the homeowners on the PA side that sit practically beneath the bridge. There may be a few houses on the PA side that will have to be taken for the 2nd bridge. There's some sort of trucking depot on the NJ side that will be condemned as well.
If the bridge is replaced completed in its currently location, it may minimize or remove any necessary property takeovers, but the project will take longer as the old bridge will have to be demolished before the current one could be built.I agree that a new bridge over the Delaware River is needed (when the Bristol, Pennsylvania interchange is complete, this will be the only four lane section of I-95 between Petersburg, Virginia and New Haven, Connecticut (save for I-95 through Wilmington, Delaware, where I-495 is an easy alternative routing and effectively provides 8 lanes of traffic for I-95 there)).
10, actually. 495 is 3 lanes per direction. Only at the very northern tip where 495 meets 95 at the PA State line is it 2 lanes per direction, along with 495 Southbound as it meets 95 South.
I agree that a new bridge over the Delaware River is needed (when the Bristol, Pennsylvania interchange is complete, this will be the only four lane section of I-95 between Petersburg, Virginia and New Haven, Connecticut (save for I-95 through Wilmington, Delaware, where I-495 is an easy alternative routing and effectively provides 8 lanes of traffic for I-95 there)).
10, actually. 495 is 3 lanes per direction. Only at the very northern tip where 495 meets 95 at the PA State line is it 2 lanes per direction, along with 495 Southbound as it meets 95 South.
They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.
Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?
Is it known how long that fractured beam had been in that condition before it was discovered?
Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?
No...it would be impossible to enforce, especially with the free-flowing EZ Pass lanes. Plus being an interstate highway, and its location within the northeast corridor, it's a very important trucker route.
Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?
No...it would be impossible to enforce, especially with the free-flowing EZ Pass lanes. Plus being an interstate highway, and its location within the northeast corridor, it's a very important trucker route.
Very much agree.
Beyond your correct and realistic comments, the road also has to be able to support trucks belonging to the maintenance forces of both state turnpike agencies. Even a road like the Garden State Parkway (north of I-195) where most trucks are banned does have some truck traffic in the form of maintenance trucks as well as wreckers serving disabled and motorists. Some of those wreckers are (especially roll-back tow trucks designed to be able to tow at least two vehicles) are quite heavy.
There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway. The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly.There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.
Other than some low clearance shoulders, the only thing keeping trucks off the northern portion of the Parkway is NJTA laws and policies. If a truck want thru a toll plaza, the collector simply collects their appropriate toll and they continue on, until they are stopped by a state trooper. There's no weight restricted bridges or other issues keeping trucks off the highway.
There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway. The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly.There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.
There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway. The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly.There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.
In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign. In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads. I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path. Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.They do have GPS devices that are geared towards truckers. I forget what the prices are on them, but I suspect they're more expensive than your standard devices. Maybe those versions tell them not to use any restricted roads, lanes, etcetera.
I believe that you're right, but I don't know, because if you design bridges to almost never have a weight per axle of more than 5,000 lb, by definition they're not structurally deficient, and you don't need to post specific weight restrictions because the whole roadway is under one.There aren't and weren't any weight restrictions on the Parkway. The Driscoll Bridge was simply too narrow, with too few lanes, squeezed in way too tightly.There are and were restrictions as cited: 7,000 and 10,000.
I meant (not very clearly), in reference to the bridges. None of the bridges were weight restricted due to anything structurally wrong with them as far as I know.
In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign. In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads. I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path. Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.
They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.
Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).
And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.
But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).
The money will come at the expense of some other projects. Since the twin bridge wasn't anticipated until a few years later, everything else will be pushed back a bit. How much would it cost? My guess is in the single billions, but that's a guess. The Hudson County bridge has a lot more work on it all the time due to the heavy traffic and truck loads, so I wouldn't expect the same thing to happen there.They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.
Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).
And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.
But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).
From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution. My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it? I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?
The money will come at the expense of some other projects. Since the twin bridge wasn't anticipated until a few years later, everything else will be pushed back a bit. How much would it cost? My guess is in the single billions, but that's a guess. The Hudson County bridge has a lot more work on it all the time due to the heavy traffic and truck loads, so I wouldn't expect the same thing to happen there.
Glad I clinched that bridge when I did. Just a couple months before it closed, too!They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.
Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).
And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.
But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).
From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution. My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it? I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?
Glad I clinched that bridge when I did. Just a couple months before it closed, too!
Glad I clinched that bridge when I did. Just a couple months before it closed, too!So it was your fault.
They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.
Yes, all of the structural steel was just scraped and cleaned and primered and re-painted by a contractor working for NJTA (that's how the beam fracture was discovered, when an engineer working for New Jersey was out inspecting the work).
And I recall reading that the ropes were recently replaced too.
But I am not a bridge engineer, and this failure could have had catastrophic consequences had it not been discovered, so I will wait to hear what the real engineers have to say first (for example, I thought that the fractured beam (once it was identified) could be simply repaired by a splice or complete replacement, and then the bridge would be ready to carry traffic - but unfortunately, things are not quite so easy).
From what I've been reading in various articles and commentary, they are bringing in very senior experts from all over the country, which are leading people to believe 1) this is way more serious than first thought 2) it is unlikely there will be a quick, easy, or inexpensive solution. My question is - if they do have to replace the bridge (with one or two new bridges) how much would it cost and how would they pay for it? I also think the Hudson County extension bridge between exits 14 and 14a was built with a similar style bridge, so I'm wondering if that has been inspected yet?
You are right about GPS units as they should be confiscated. I work collecting tolls and most of the problem we have is people that are not prepaired to pay the tolls ( are not with cash in their wallets, in the suitcase located in the trunk, etc) all because the GPS is not telling people that there are other options. Of course most of the people use the GPS just like they keep upgrading their other devices like cell phones because its ego pleasing to own modern inventions and it takes the load off of thinking in a high demand society.In fact I am waiting for that one day when a bridge collapses because a semi driver ignores a WEIGHT LIMIT 4 TONS sign. In fact I am wondering if many truck drivers are using the same GPS the cars are using that carelessly tell motorists to use any road even if it is restricted to SunPass or EZ Pass only customers on the toll roads. I am sure the GPS does the same too, by sending any vehicle on the direct way even if there is a weigh restriction along its path. Considering that today's truckers are not like those of many years ago who were well informed of the national road network, it could be possible that some drivers are using that device.
Truck drivers using cheap GPS units designed for automobiles are indeed a problem (the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration even devotes a page to the problem here (https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/faq/Bridge-Strikes-%26-GPS)).
I believe GPS units and software designed for cars but used in trucks is why there are so many tractor/semitrailer combinations illegally using the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway ("secret" MD-295), as well as the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway in D.C. (often these have a sign that reads "COMMERCIAL VEHICLES EXCLUDED" or something similar, while on intersecting state-maintained roads, the signs read "NO TRUCKS").
Of course, the various parkways in New York (city and state), usually signed at the entrances with "PASSENGER CARS ONLY" signs.
IMO all parkways that ban trucks should be signed with NO TRUCKS in text and graphic form at all access points.
Last time I had a WCBS-880 traffic report on, they reported a tractor/semitrailer combination had blundered onto the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut and had to be backed away from a low overpass (I had not personally heard about such an incident before, but I am certain that it happens rather frequently).
Anytime that the police catch a heavy commercial vehicle on a road where it should not be, they should make it standard procedure to confiscate the GPS unit from the driver as evidence, and tell them to ask for it back from the judge. They might suggest to the driver that they ask the boss to get them a GPS unit designed for use in a commercial vehicle.
You are right about GPS units as they should be confiscated. I work collecting tolls and most of the problem we have is people that are not prepaired to pay the tolls ( are not with cash in their wallets, in the suitcase located in the trunk, etc) all because the GPS is not telling people that there are other options. Of course most of the people use the GPS just like they keep upgrading their other devices like cell phones because its ego pleasing to own modern inventions and it takes the load off of thinking in a high demand society.
Of course it would have to be post incident like you said when a truck gets caught but when the infraction is as simple as a common automobile with a common issue at a toll booth, it cant be done just like enforcing speed limits which cops gave up on decades ago. With a truck using a GPS that could severely damage a bridge or in the case you described, held up traffic so he can go in reverse to leave the area as the low overpass prevents him from going forward, efforts need to be made to have confiscation measures ensured as many now are using the devices ignorantly. Plus in general truck drivers are careless and these days unprofessional to their trade as many stupid questions are asked by truckers to me as a toll collector on a major truck haul route in an area that has many warehouses and distributors about their orientation.
10,000 pounds gross allows 3/4 ton (like mine) and many 1 ton trucks (at least those with two wheels in the rear, but probably not "dually" trucks with four wheels in the back).
10,000 pounds gross allows 3/4 ton (like mine) and many 1 ton trucks (at least those with two wheels in the rear, but probably not "dually" trucks with four wheels in the back).
......and today I saw a dually towing a long goose neck trailer (about the length typically seen being towed by a semi) on the GSP northbound near Exit 135. Both the truck and trailer had Texas plates, likely clueless to the weight restrictions.
jeffandnicole, your comments remind me of how little old ladies who write checks at the grocery store invariably wait until everything is rung up before even starting to dig through their massive pocketbooks to find the checkbook, let alone filling in the check!
10,000 pounds gross allows 3/4 ton (like mine) and many 1 ton trucks (at least those with two wheels in the rear, but probably not "dually" trucks with four wheels in the back).
......and today I saw a dually towing a long goose neck trailer (about the length typically seen being towed by a semi) on the GSP northbound near Exit 135. Both the truck and trailer had Texas plates, likely clueless to the weight restrictions.
Meanwhile..... detour notices were posted on the GSP northbound from around MP 75 to MP 98 advising traffic to "NW Philadelphia" that I-276 was closed and to use I-195 instead. I'd say a mere fraction of the traffic, if any, was heading to the PA Turnpike at that point!
jeffandnicole, your comments remind me of how little old ladies who write checks at the grocery store invariably wait until everything is rung up before even starting to dig through their massive pocketbooks to find the checkbook, let alone filling in the check!
I enjoyed my 3.5 years there. I've always said though...you learn a lot about the motoring public. After just a single weekend, you find out how scary it is to be on the road with everyone else. You truly never comprehend how dumb people are on the highways until you get a chance to talk with them.
In terms of the toll booth...I've had people, after sitting for a few miles, approach, and think it's just some sort of checkpoint and ask if they can just keep going. Most people have no idea how to read the toll ticket they get on the NJ Turnpike. Guaranteed, someone would approach each weekend with $2 or $3 in their hand. On entry. There were no signs stating to pay a toll ahead. They just had money out ready to pay instead of taking the ticket.
(b) Use of the Parkway and entry thereon by the following, unless otherwise authorized by the Authority, is prohibited:
1. All vehicles, except cars, campers, omnibuses, attached noncommercial trailers or semitrailers are prohibited from the Parkway north of Interchange 105
10,000 pounds gross allows 3/4 ton (like mine) and many 1 ton trucks (at least those with two wheels in the rear, but probably not "dually" trucks with four wheels in the back).
......and today I saw a dually towing a long goose neck trailer (about the length typically seen being towed by a semi) on the GSP northbound near Exit 135. Both the truck and trailer had Texas plates, likely clueless to the weight restrictions.
I saw the NJSP with a similar truck/trailer combination stopped on the southbound GSP just south of I-78 (at the point where the trooper got the truck and trailer to stop, the right shoulder was very narrow and the trooper deliberately had his car partially blocking the right lane).
The excellent Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (https://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551) has some stories from the Turnpike's toll plazas, back in the days when there was no E-ZPass.
In terms of the toll booth...I've had people, after sitting for a few miles, approach, and think it's just some sort of checkpoint and ask if they can just keep going. Most people have no idea how to read the toll ticket they get on the NJ Turnpike. Guaranteed, someone would approach each weekend with $2 or $3 in their hand. On entry. There were no signs stating to pay a toll ahead. They just had money out ready to pay instead of taking the ticket.
Per the NJTA Regulations, actually, ALL vehicles are prohibited from the Parkway North of Exit 105!! Then, the regulation details the exceptions of vehicles that aren't prohibited...which includes cars!Whence motorcycles?
Here's the actual rule, from http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/regulationsunofficialversionforWebsite.pdf, § 19:9-1.9 Limitations on use of Roadway :Quote(b) Use of the Parkway and entry thereon by the following, unless otherwise authorized by the Authority, is prohibited:
1. All vehicles, except cars, campers, omnibuses, attached noncommercial trailers or semitrailers are prohibited from the Parkway north of Interchange 105
Thus, as both cars and trailers are exceptions, it's pretty clear that cars towing a trailer are permitted on the Parkway North of Exit 105.
Then again, motorcycles are permitted (I presume) in the "Cars Only" lanes on the turnpike mainline.Thus, as both cars and trailers are exceptions, it's pretty clear that cars towing a trailer are permitted on the Parkway North of Exit 105.Whence motorcycles?
QuoteI saw the NJSP with a similar truck/trailer combination stopped on the southbound GSP just
south of I-78 (at the point where the trooper got the truck and trailer to stop, the right shoulder was very narrow and the trooper deliberately had his car partially blocking the right lane).
Did the cop stop them for being on the road illegally...were they speeding...or did they have a breakdown? That's why I'm always hesitant on saying someone was stopped for one specific reason, because there's always numerous reasons why they could've been stopped. Most people assume someone pulled over was speeding, although there's literally hundreds of reasons why someone was on the shoulder with a cop behind them. And I would think if a cop was going to pull someone over, they would do so where safe. They try not blocking lanes for an accident, much less a generic traffic stop.
The excellent Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (https://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551) has some stories from the Turnpike's toll plazas, back in the days when there was no E-ZPass.
Written by two Rutgers profs. It also tells of the regulation of taking photographs or footage on the NJTP. How long that reg has been on the books, and why it was enacted, LfAotNJTP fails to say.
ixnay
Then again, motorcycles are permitted (I presume) in the "Cars Only" lanes on the turnpike mainline.Thus, as both cars and trailers are exceptions, it's pretty clear that cars towing a trailer are permitted on the Parkway North of Exit 105.Whence motorcycles?
"Car" means a passenger motor vehicle, including, but not limited to, station wagons, hearses, funeral flower and funeral service vehicles for which issuance of passenger car plates is authorized, taxicabs, motorcycles, two-axle four-tire campers, panel vans, pickup trucks and similar vehicles having a gross weight not exceeding 10,000 pounds.
Then again, motorcycles are permitted (I presume) in the "Cars Only" lanes on the turnpike mainline.Thus, as both cars and trailers are exceptions, it's pretty clear that cars towing a trailer are permitted on the Parkway North of Exit 105.Whence motorcycles?
GPSs have nothing to do with people not knowing it's a toll road. Collecting tolls from 2001-2004, people didn't have GPSs in their vehicles. They didn't have their money ready then either...even though they were sitting in traffic approaching the booth, and could, I would think, see the transacting of money to and from the car to the booth of those in front of them.10,000 pounds gross allows 3/4 ton (like mine) and many 1 ton trucks (at least those with two wheels in the rear, but probably not "dually" trucks with four wheels in the back).
......and today I saw a dually towing a long goose neck trailer (about the length typically seen being towed by a semi) on the GSP northbound near Exit 135. Both the truck and trailer had Texas plates, likely clueless to the weight restrictions.
The signs simply say "No trucks". They don't say anything as to weight. And a passenger vehicle + trailer is not a truck.
Tolls aren't that intuitive to people who have never encountered one before at all or of that type. You've got main line tolls vs exit tolls, paying at each plaza or getting a ticket, what E-ZPass is, different meanings of "express". Even if you do research before travelling on one, you might be unprepared for on of the above situations.
......and today I saw a dually towing a long goose neck trailer (about the length typically seen being towed by a semi) on the GSP northbound near Exit 135. Both the truck and trailer had Texas plates, likely clueless to the weight restrictions.
The signs simply say "No trucks". They don't say anything as to weight. And a passenger vehicle + trailer is not a truck.
No people do not comprehend road signs anymore.
Heck even if you are a stranger to an area where you would figure you would be paying attention to the road signs so you know what you are doing and where you are going, many are not reading and comprehending, and also not orientating themselves with the surroundings.
...
I even get people asking me if they can get back on the freeway after the toll booths, thinking that the toll lanes departing the express lanes is an exit to someplace. At first I did not understand what each person meant, but then a lady explained to me in detail if the road she is on merges back to the road to the left her (meaning the express lanes.) Then many ask, also, what is the name or route number of the road they are on.
I think modern people are disoriented and losing touch with reality. It amazes me that questions that a doofus would normally ask that are considered to be "Duh" are asked by reputable people without the "Duh, where have you been."
I've had people that just went two hours out of their way because they went from I-80 East to I-95 South. They really wanted I-95 North. They didn't question anything for nearly two hours...like, why haven't I gotten into New York yet, or seen a sign for New York for the past 100 miles.
I've had people ask what state they're in.And did you answer... Confusion ? :sombrero:
If you were working where I think based on your post (Southbound Exit 1), this one isn't all that bad. If you zoned out you might not remember whether you've already paid the Turnpike toll and are in Delaware. If it were Northbound you've got people accidentally taking 295 instead of 95 trying to get to PA and realizing it early enough to get back on track easily.I've had people ask what state they're in.And did you answer... Confusion ? :sombrero:
If you were working where I think based on your post (Southbound Exit 1), this one isn't all that bad. If you zoned out you might not remember whether you've already paid the Turnpike toll and are in Delaware. If it were Northbound you've got people accidentally taking 295 instead of 95 trying to get to PA and realizing it early enough to get back on track easily.I've had people ask what state they're in.And did you answer... Confusion ? :sombrero:
There was a fair amount of confusion of people going south, thinking they were still on 95. That is understandable...even if they haven't seen a I-95 sign for many miles (there were a few in the median saying 'To 95', but they were extremely rare). And if they were heading to Delaware and points south, it wasn't really a big deal. But if were going to, say, Philadelphia, they were a bit upset when I told them they passed it a half-hour ago! (Interchanges 4 & 3 were signed for Philly at the time, but they figured they were on 95 and would simply run directly into the city.)
Great stories Roadman, and J&N. As one who comes from a family of competent driver/travelers, the stories you're telling are absolutely amazing. Hard to believe so many people could be so "up in the clouds".
BTW J&N, what year was the new Interchange-1 completed and were the express e-z pass lanes completed at the same time or later on?
Cpzilliacus, re: your suggestion to sign the south end of the NJT as I-895, I wonder if that might actually cause more confusion by adding another route number to the mix. I think "NJ Turnpike" with its logo that's been around for so many years is probably better recognized, though you wouldn't think so from reading J&N's stories. LOL
I once remember years ago, I got into an argument with someone over I-95 and the NJT. They kept insisting that it was the whole length, but of course its not. ....
Most people I encountered that were confused were those going Southbound. At some point, they should've signed Exit 7A, 195 between the Turnpike and 95, and 295 between 195 and US 1 as Temp 95.
Most people I encountered that were confused were those going Southbound. At some point, they should've signed Exit 7A, 195 between the Turnpike and 95, and 295 between 195 and US 1 as Temp 95.
Cpz, let's just hope the bridge gets reopened before the 95/276 interchange ramps are finished. LOL
Cpz, let's just hope the bridge gets reopened before the 95/276 interchange ramps are finished. LOL
I agree. And let's hope that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission does not use the bridge closure over the Delaware as an excuse to slow the Bristol project down.
One thing to keep in mind is that while that bridge is closed; the now-one-year-old westbound AET gantry on the PA side is collecting zero dollars in terms of revenue for PTC. This closure financially hurts them more than the NJ Turnpike Authority.Cpz, let's just hope the bridge gets reopened before the 95/276 interchange ramps are finished. LOL
I agree. And let's hope that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission does not use the bridge closure over the Delaware as an excuse to slow the Bristol project down.
Well, there's: Light Speed, Very Fast, Fast, Average, Slow, Very slow, boringly slow, and PTC slow. How much slower can they get??
I agree. And let's hope that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission does not use the bridge closure over the Delaware as an excuse to slow the Bristol project down.I read an article recently (probably linked from either this forum or Facebook) that gave a completion date of 2021; could have sworn the ramps were due to be done sooner, so they might have already been delayed (let's hope they were just including "phase II" with the rest of the interchange).
One thing to keep in mind is that while that bridge is closed; the now-one-year-old westbound AET gantry on the PA side is collecting zero dollars in terms of revenue for PTC. This closure financially hurts them more than the NJ Turnpike Authority.The NJ Turnpike also collects tolls from all drivers crossing that bridge WB and a large chunk EB; they're also missing out on WB tolls to US 130.
I agree. And let's hope that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission does not use the bridge closure over the Delaware as an excuse to slow the Bristol project down.I read an article recently (probably linked from either this forum or Facebook) that gave a completion date of 2021; could have sworn the ramps were due to be done sooner, so they might have already been delayed (let's hope they were just including "phase II" with the rest of the interchange).
I never said that the NJ Turnpike Authority was immune from taking a financial hit over the closure; just it was taking less of a hit.One thing to keep in mind is that while that bridge is closed; the now-one-year-old westbound AET gantry on the PA side is collecting zero dollars in terms of revenue for PTC. This closure financially hurts them more than the NJ Turnpike Authority.The NJ Turnpike also collects tolls from all drivers crossing that bridge WB and a large chunk EB; they're also missing out on WB tolls to US 130.
Well, there's: Light Speed, Very Fast, Fast, Average, Slow, Very slow, boringly slow, and PTC slow. How much slower can they get??
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:I fail to see how the age of the gantry affects how much revenue it would ordinarily collect. And even shorter trips on the Turnpike are reduced revenue. I don't think anyone there would have longer trips. If you're getting off at exit 6, you're probably coming from the north to Philly's northern suburbs, so diverting to Trenton is the most logical choice. If you're coming from the south, you're probably local, and therefore not getting on the Turnpike at all when you divert (especially with I-295, which doesn't have an interchange with the Turnpike Extension). If you're from further south, you would have never taken the Turnpike here in the first place. And I'm sure the tolls for traffic using exit 6 include a surcharge for the bridge built-in, just like the Thruway does for all traffic crossing the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge. The PTC rate may be higher, but remember, it's covering one way what used to be collected both ways. I'm sure once that is compensated for, the differences aren't as large. Traffic diverting on the PTC is probably diverting no further than US 1.I never said that the NJ Turnpike Authority was immune from taking a financial hit over the closure; just it was taking less of a hit.One thing to keep in mind is that while that bridge is closed; the now-one-year-old westbound AET gantry on the PA side is collecting zero dollars in terms of revenue for PTC. This closure financially hurts them more than the NJ Turnpike Authority.The NJ Turnpike also collects tolls from all drivers crossing that bridge WB and a large chunk EB; they're also missing out on WB tolls to US 130.
A few additional items to consider:
1. The one-way westbound AET toll gantry charges a much higher toll rate ($5 E-ZPass/$6.50 toll-by-plate) than what was charged at the westbound entry-point from US 130 ($2 off-peak NJ E-ZPass/$3 all others) and has only been in place for just over a year. This AET gantry acts as a separate (westbound) toll for crossing the bridge.
Prior to 2016, this location was the end of the PA Turnpike's ticketed toll system and had a full-blown toll plaza spanning both directions.
2. Those that were exiting off the NJ Turnpike at Exit 6 are still using the NJ Turnpike but are just exiting off at another interchange; whether prior to or beyond Exit 6 is dependent upon their final destination and traffic conditions.
3. Those coming from PA, but not exiting off for US 130 were only either picking up a toll ticket or going through E-ZPass for Point-of-Entry purposes only. Depending on their destination & traffic conditions; they will still use the NJ Turnpike but just at different entry points.
Cpz, and everybody: just as a fantasy, wouldn't that be some kick-in-the-"head" though, if the 95/276 ramps actually were completed before the bridge reopened, or worse yet if it has to be replaced. Wouldn't that be the ultimate highway irony, considering how many years (40 in my case) we have waited for that interchange to be built?I know you said just as a fantasy, but the most recent news indicates that they're getting the bridge in position for a permanent fix, which suggests it will be reopening this year, and I don't mean December.
I fail to see how the age of the gantry affects how much revenue it would ordinarily collect.The erection of that AET gantry last year coincided with a toll increase (more than just doubling the westbound toll, no surprise to most people here) as well as a conversion of a portion of the PA Turnpike from the ticketed system to a somewhat free highway between the under-construction I-95 interchange the bridge.
Of course, the toll rates on the PTC are obscenely high, so that could be a factor, but not one that was mentioned.That was precisely why I mentioned earlier that the bridge closure would financially hurt the PTC more than the NJ Turnpike Authority. The bridge closure occurring just about a year after the high AET rate taking effect almost a sense of Karma to it.
I'd also be more curious to know if the number of westbound trips dropped within the past year due to PTC's toll rates being higher (for cash customers) than what the DRPA was charging further south for their crossings.
The makeup of the travelers going from NJ to PA on the Turnpikes would seem to indicate that most of those people would not benefit at all from travelling across a DRPA bridge, as it would lead to longer travel times and mileage.That would depend on one's destination.
If it's Center City/South Philadelphia or Delaware County (I fall in the latter); using one of the DPRA bridges becomes a credible alternative.
So I'm guessing all of the button copy on the NJ Tpke is now gone?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7628/28101158336_68c15c94a5_c.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/JPcMkW)
It is also interesting that the US 1 and US 22 shields on that Exit 14 sign are not cutouts but are squares that have a green background
The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.Probably a good move as US 22 is no longer the through route across Central Jersey being I-78 took over that title. Yes its still regionally important, but not enough to warrant sign salad for.
The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.Probably a good move as US 22 is no longer the through route across Central Jersey being I-78 took over that title. Yes its still regionally important, but not enough to warrant sign salad for.
US 22 is also not directly accessible from exits 14-14C, so at best it should be a TO 22 (which is how it's signed after the toll plaza along with NJ 21)The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.Probably a good move as US 22 is no longer the through route across Central Jersey being I-78 took over that title. Yes its still regionally important, but not enough to warrant sign salad for.
Apples & oranges comparison. Those listed-Mass Pike examples involve a direct connection to the smaller/minor road within the interchanges. In the case of the I-95/MA 128 interchange; MA 30 is only listed for the primary interchange signage along I-90 westbound and not the eastbound signage due to the latter not having a direct-connection ramp to MA 30 within the interchange.The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.Probably a good move as US 22 is no longer the through route across Central Jersey being I-78 took over that title. Yes its still regionally important, but not enough to warrant sign salad for.
I'm not sure if this is the same thing or something completely different, but the Mass Pike exit for I-91 also has a US 5 shield, the exit for I-290/395 also has a MA 12 shield, and the exit for I-95/MA 128 also has a MA 30 shield. (Both US 5 and MA 12 parallel the Interstates mentioned, and MA 30 parallels the Mass Pike.)
The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.
There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway? :PI can't help but think of this
The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.
https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo
There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway? :P
The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.
https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo
There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway? :P
Taken alongside the NBE's ex-service plazas (facing each other in best Fenwick-Barton/Wilson-Stockton/Cleveland-Edison style). Anyone remember whose names were on those plazas?
And notice the storage truck up ahead - Moishe's. Moishe happens to be a character in the Tim LaHaye/Jerry Jenkins Left Behind series of novels.
ixnayu
Another detail I remember from the reports was that the service areas (which had opened in 1956 when the extension was opened) had problems very quickly - by around 1960, they scaled back from 24 hours to closing sometime after dark because of low demand, and then altogether closed I think in the late 60s. Its interesting to think how they would do today given higher traffic volumes.
Probably not all that great. I-78 east of 14A is mostly a commuter route.The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.
https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo
There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway? :P
Taken alongside the NBE's ex-service plazas (facing each other in best Fenwick-Barton/Wilson-Stockton/Cleveland-Edison style). Anyone remember whose names were on those plazas?
And notice the storage truck up ahead - Moishe's. Moishe happens to be a character in the Tim LaHaye/Jerry Jenkins Left Behind series of novels.
ixnayu
Wikipedia says the names were John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant, and I seem to remember that from reading old Turnpike annual reports. Another detail I remember from the reports was that the service areas (which had opened in 1956 when the extension was opened) had problems very quickly - by around 1960, they scaled back from 24 hours to closing sometime after dark because of low demand, and then altogether closed I think in the late 60s. Its interesting to think how they would do today given higher traffic volumes.
The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.I am impressed that NJTA is recognizing I-78 as being on their road system. Sad that Clinton is gone from Exit 14 signs as I thought its still a worthwhile place to mention even in Bedminster on I-287 where in the mid 90s it was switched from previous Clinton to Easton, PA, I was kind of heartbroken when it was done.
https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo
There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway? :P
The new signs on the Newark Bay Extension still show US-22 for Exit 14. Speaking of, a new mileage sign popped up on the NBE.I am impressed that NJTA is recognizing I-78 as being on their road system. Sad that Clinton is gone from Exit 14 signs as I thought its still a worthwhile place to mention even in Bedminster on I-287 where in the mid 90s it was switched from previous Clinton to Easton, PA, I was kind of heartbroken when it was done.
https://goo.gl/maps/mifMfc6RNmo
There is apparently nothing of interest in NJ on I-78 west of Newark. NJDOT's choices of Clinton and Easton didn't make the cut (Clinton was also removed from the Exit 14 signs). How much traffic is actually going to Harrisburg anyway? :P
Anyway glad Harrisburg is mentioned as that is near where the other terminus of I-78 is located and gives a traveler an idea of how far the whole trip is even if the PA Capital is still 15 miles beyond the end. Allentown, I am better pleased over Easton as that was only good when I-78 defaulted onto US 22 at Exit 3 in Greenwich, NJ. As Easton is where that route entered the PA city and of course Route 22 serves that city's heart where now I-78 bypasses the central core with one exit to it and still several miles from its business center.
NJDOT, at least on GSV, still uses Clinton on the Express Lanes guide at its start west of Exit 14's toll plaza. Of course the GSP will always use Springfield as its WB control city at Exit 142, carbon copied from the old days when I-78 terminated there before the road finally got completed almost 20 years behind schedule thanks to NIMBY's in Berkley Heights and in Union County Government.
Then "Newark" is still the pull through EB despite it being "New York City" on 287 as well. Funny as one sees Clinton, then Phillipsburg before you reach Clinton. Then again MoDOT does the same on I-70 with Columbia being the principal mileage control east of KC, but long before you reach Columbia cities like Wentzville start appearing instead. Or even here in FL, we have Daytona Beach on I-95 NB from West Palm Beach that dissappears at the Brevard County line about 100 miles from the destination in favor of Jacksonville.
I wonder if the mainline will now include mileage for places like Newark, Trenton, Camden, and even Wilmington if the NBE is finally getting this one sign.
At first some news agenciesmade stuff uprepeated anonymous tweets saying the arrests were part of the incident at the Service Area
Why don't the NJTA take advantage of the new sign installations to convert the sequential exit numbers to mile based numbers like nearby CT is doing?
Years ago an engineer William Buckley said that the NJTA has always had a goal of going mile based with its exits but could not because of competition from other turnpike worthwhile projects, but now opportunity arises. The costs can be defrayed as these new MUTCD compliant signs have tabs already that would host the new numbering. Only added OLD or FORMER tabs would be extra, but the labor costs would not change.
Why don't the NJTA take advantage of the new sign installations to convert the sequential exit numbers to mile based numbers like nearby CT is doing?Not to mention everyone having to relearn the answer to "What exit?"
Years ago an engineer William Buckley said that the NJTA has always had a goal of going mile based with its exits but could not because of competition from other turnpike worthwhile projects, but now opportunity arises. The costs can be defrayed as these new MUTCD compliant signs have tabs already that would host the new numbering. Only added OLD or FORMER tabs would be extra, but the labor costs would not change.
I tried googling William Buckley, Engineer, and the NJ Turnpike, and the 3 don't seem to be related. If this Buckley guy has nothing to do with the NJ Turnpike, I wouldn't take anything from him to be representative of what the NJ Turnpike wants to do.It was over 20 years ago and it was done when I asked him why the free section of the Turnpike don't continue the exit numbering of the Turnpike. He told me that it will stay the same until that day the NJTA goes mile based, but so many worthwhile projects are first. He even did not know about the free section using potential I-95 mileage if the Somerset Freeway had been built, but he is convinced that its in line with I-80's scheme and the authority thought also that having the numbers it has will make it easier for drivers on I-80.
I read the meeting minutes of the NJ Turnpike Authority on a monthly basis. I don't recall anyone even bringing up this topic. I seriously doubt they would have two major projects involving exit signage (the 6 - 9 Widening and the 9 - 18 resigning), and not once officially bring up mileage based signage if they had a goal of going mileage based.
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.
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.
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.
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).I don't see them doing that. The main line of the Turnpike will remain the main line, and will need continuous numbers. If they do opt to use I-95 mileage numbers for some reason, they can't also use mileage-based numbers south of I-95 because that will mean Exit 51 (formerly 6) followed by Exit 8 (formerly 7), and eventually another Exit 51 (formerly 12). On the other hand, they could keep sequential numbers on that stretch with a smooth transition as Exit 6 would be around Mile 6 on 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).I don't see them doing that. The main line of the Turnpike will remain the main line, and will need continuous numbers. If they do opt to use I-95 mileage numbers for some reason, they can't also use mileage-based numbers south of I-95 because that will mean Exit 51 (formerly 6) followed by Exit 8 (formerly 7), and eventually another Exit 51 (formerly 12). On the other hand, they could keep sequential numbers on that stretch with a smooth transition as Exit 6 would be around Mile 6 on I-95.
Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276. Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?
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 happen to think that that situation is a travesty, but at least nominally they are not the same roadway like the Turnpike is. As for Exit 354, I have no idea.
So "they can't" isn't true whatsoever. Basically, the NJ Turnpike's continuous routing could be between the PA Turnpike and the GWB as it will be known as I-95, and south of current day Interchange 6 is more/less an extention of the future I-95 portion of the Turnpike, rather than being known as the mainline as it has been for the past 60some years.Well of course they can do whatever they want, but they shouldn't. Then, too, the NJTA has a vested interest in keeping traffic on the current mainline for financial reasons, not to mention that through traffic *should* be using the mainline and *not* I-95 unless they're going into PA.
Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276. Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?
The one on I-76 because otherwise they'd tell you to use the "Fort Washington" interchange.Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276. Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?
You're on the PA Turnpike/I-76 going Eastbound. You're told to use Exit 339.
Which one?
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.
The one on I-76 because otherwise they'd tell you to use the "Fort Washington" interchange.Look up what happens when I-76 East exits the PA Turnpike, and becomes I-276. Sequential numbering continues to occur in both directions from that interchange.This is completely different because the numbering is ascending. They were lucky they were able to do that. What would have happened if the numbering had to be descending?
You're on the PA Turnpike/I-76 going Eastbound. You're told to use Exit 339.
Which one?
But seriously, what's your point? You are presumably replying to my assertion that two different sets of exit numbers on the same roadway would be confusing. Your example does not exhibit this issue, nor is it an example of how it could be done in NJ. Sure, having two different roads with similar exit numbers nearby is also potentially confusing, but it is not the same thing.
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.
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.
Definitely a general question.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?
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.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).
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.
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.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)
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.
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.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)
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.
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
As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one.
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?) ....
There is a solution to make mile-based numbers work on I-95 and the turnpike: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744.0I'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.That may work for you, but the exit numbers on the NJ Turnpike are perhaps the most important in the country. Everybody uses them and nobody looks at sign legends. I can't even name, without looking it up, what routes and municipalities Exit 5 serves. Or 8. Or 12. And I only know 1-4 and 9-11 because I've lived in those areas. So any change to the Turnpike's exit numbers will be extremely painful, no matter how logical it might be.
How did PTC do it on the extension having numbers 1-110 are also mile posts on the western mainline from Ohio to 110 miles in. They use the same ticket system for both the NE Extension and the Mainline.If you're referring to the Northeast Extension (once PA 9 then later I-476); the mile markers were changed to start at 20 in Plymouth Meeting (I-276) to coincide with I-476/Blue Route's mileage. The fact that the Lansdale interchange (PA 63) kept the same exit number (31) was purely coincidental. Although, in reality, it should have changed to Exit 30 (due to actual mile marker location) but the existing 31, in the eyes of the PTC, was close enough to forego a change.
NJTP always used the numbers and they stood out more than the road names, but we need to change with the times. With Modern GPS nobody anymore cares about route numbers and exit numbers, as the voice says exit now in 1000 feet.FTFY, NJT is the acronym for New Jersey Transit. :) I'm assuming that you were referring to the NJ Turnpike itself and not the Turnpike Authority (NJTA or NJTPA).
What's funny is that in other posts on other threads, people are very adamant towards exit numbers, especially milepost-based exit numbers, to the point where if the exit number is just slightly off from its milepost location some people get pissed.In my instances, I was commenting from a perceived general public perspective (i.e. non-engineers/highway officials/roadgeek's view); not necessarily my own views/thoughts/opinions.
Yet, in this thread, there's a heavy argument towards exit numbers don't matter anyway.
I just hope no one here saying exit numbers aren't important haven't written about their importance in other threads!
Had the NJ Turnpike used mile-marker based interchanges from the get-go (like other highways in NJ did); would there even be a discussion on the matter here?
Then that issue would still exist had the original I-95/Somerset Freeway been built; the only difference being where the location of the NJ Turnpike becomes part of I-95 (Exit 10 instead of Exit 6).Had the NJ Turnpike used mile-marker based interchanges from the get-go (like other highways in NJ did); would there even be a discussion on the matter here?
Yes, because part of the discussion is: Do they start the numbers from the NJ/PA Turnpike bridge once that officially becomes I-95 based on I-95's Mileposts?. Otherwise, motorists coming from I-95 in PA would have seen exit numbering starting in the 50's on the NJ Turnpike.
How did PTC do it on the extension having numbers 1-110 are also mile posts on the western mainline from Ohio to 110 miles in. They use the same ticket system for both the NE Extension and the Mainline.
How did PTC do it on the extensionThe general public refers to PA Turnpike exits by name, not number. It didn't matter that Exit 26 became Exit 339, because it's still the Fort Washington interchange.
How did PTC do it on the extensionThe general public refers to PA Turnpike exits by name, not number. It didn't matter that Exit 26 became Exit 339, because it's still the Fort Washington interchange.
I would imagine people would be looking for whatever the local norm is. When I travel I go by exit numbers, probably because I live right on the NJ Turnpike. I suppose that leaves PA residents at a disadvantage when they travel because there are no interchange names. But from what I've seen, most areas of the country don't care about either an exit number or exit name, so as long as those exits are signed well with the route number and/or destination, most long distance travelers wouldn't care how they are numbered. Heck, where I work, away from the NJ Turnpike, but on the AC Expressway, when I talk about Exit 5, they look at me like I'm crazy. It's the "route 9 exit".How did PTC do it on the extensionThe general public refers to PA Turnpike exits by name, not number. It didn't matter that Exit 26 became Exit 339, because it's still the Fort Washington interchange.
The general *local* public. Its doubtful someone on vacation looking for the exit knows it as the Fort Washington interchange. Both of which is true for most highway interchanges.
In the case of the PA Turnpike, the exit signage includes the interchange name as well as the exit & route number; something that, to my knowledge, appears to be unique/exclusive to the PA Turnpike.How did PTC do it on the extensionThe general public refers to PA Turnpike exits by name, not number. It didn't matter that Exit 26 became Exit 339, because it's still the Fort Washington interchange.
The general *local* public. Its doubtful someone on vacation looking for the exit knows it as the Fort Washington interchange. Both of which is true for most highway interchanges.
It would be amazing if the NJ Turnpike did that. I want to say the Maine Turnpike also names its exits, but not shown on signs. The NJ Turnpike has always only numbered them, no official names. I've seen Fictional Highways devoted to trying to name the interchanges (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5551).In the case of the PA Turnpike, the exit signage includes the interchange name as well as the exit & route number; something that, to my knowledge, appears to be unique/exclusive to the PA Turnpike.How did PTC do it on the extensionThe general public refers to PA Turnpike exits by name, not number. It didn't matter that Exit 26 became Exit 339, because it's still the Fort Washington interchange.
The general *local* public. Its doubtful someone on vacation looking for the exit knows it as the Fort Washington interchange. Both of which is true for most highway interchanges.
The NJ Turnpike's interchanges do have names. See the list on their website.I think those are unofficial names, based on the destinations listed on the primary signs.
Alps, I believe those NJTP Interchanges are official names. Although some have been changed over the years, I can remember seeing them on maps back in the 1960's. Such as Exit-11 being Woodbridge-The Amboys, and others further south being Hightstown-Trenton and Bordentown-Trenton.Still doesn't confirm that those aren't just the names listed on the destination signs. I would expect a single name for each interchange.
I am aware of the mileage on I-476 of how it works. I was just pointing out that the 20 to 110 mile markers are indeed duplicated and PTC had no issue using the same markers on both their freeways. :sombrero:How did PTC do it on the extension having numbers 1-110 are also mile posts on the western mainline from Ohio to 110 miles in. They use the same ticket system for both the NE Extension and the Mainline.If you're referring to the Northeast Extension (once PA 9 then later I-476); the mile markers were changed to start at 20 in Plymouth Meeting (I-276) to coincide with I-476/Blue Route's mileage. The fact that the Lansdale interchange (PA 63) kept the same exit number (31) was purely coincidental. Although, in reality, it should have changed to Exit 30 (due to actual mile marker location) but the existing 31, in the eyes of the PTC, was close enough to forego a change.NJTP always used the numbers and they stood out more than the road names, but we need to change with the times. With Modern GPS nobody anymore cares about route numbers and exit numbers, as the voice says exit now in 1000 feet.FTFY, NJT is the acronym for New Jersey Transit. :) I'm assuming that you were referring to the NJ Turnpike itself and not the Turnpike Authority (NJTA or NJTPA).
To your point, you are correct that NJ (particularly the Turnpike & Garden State Parkway) emphasizes exit numbers moreso than its neighboring counterparts so a change would be more cumbersome for long-time NJ residents/travelers to get accustomed to. OTOH, PA made the changeover just around the turn of the century and faced no real-known issues mainly because exit/interchange numbers weren't really emphasized/discussed out side of signs, roadmaps and car dealership advertisements. Heck, much of I-95 in PA (mainly in Philadelphia & Delaware Counties) had no numbered interchanges until the early-to-mid 1990s; so the sequential numbers (for that road anyway) weren't around long enough for people to become familiar when mile-marker-based interchange numbering was adopted. Granted, I-95's Delaware County interchange numbers wound up not changing at due to each one was close enough to their corresponding mile marker to not warrant a change.What's funny is that in other posts on other threads, people are very adamant towards exit numbers, especially milepost-based exit numbers, to the point where if the exit number is just slightly off from its milepost location some people get pissed.In my instances, I was commenting from a perceived general public perspective (i.e. non-engineers/highway officials/roadgeek's view); not necessarily my own views/thoughts/opinions.
Yet, in this thread, there's a heavy argument towards exit numbers don't matter anyway.
I just hope no one here saying exit numbers aren't important haven't written about their importance in other threads!
Had the NJ Turnpike used mile-marker based interchanges from the get-go (like other highways in NJ did); would there even be a discussion on the matter here?
I am aware of the mileage on I-476 of how it works. I was just pointing out that the 20 to 110 mile markers are indeed duplicated and PTC had no issue using the same markers on both their freeways. :sombrero:
Not to mention the fact that the Northeast Extension is situated far enough east that the nearest duplicate mile maker (MM 131) is still in the southern-central-to-western part of the state (between the Exit 110/US 219 & Exit 146/I-99/US 220 interchanges); i.e. well over 100 miles as-the-crow-flies the northern terminus of the extension's Exit 131.I was just pointing out that the 20 to 110 mile markers are indeed duplicated and PTC had no issue using the same markers on both their freeways. :sombrero:
The difference here is that the Northeast Extension (I-476) was always a separate road and extension of the Turnpike...so even though it continued the Exit numbering...it's still a separate road. I-476's Exit 74 (Mahoning Valley) really should be Exit 75 based on mileposts, but that would duplicate I-76's Exit 75 (New Stanton). I haven't checked to see how close I-76's Exit 57 and I-476's Exit 56 are to their mileposts, but those are the only potential duplicates between the two roads.
Signage update. This beauty (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5393481,-74.3058297,3a,33.1y,225.99h,101.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJxsO5riFWjPzPe6e21ewuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of a sign is gone as of last night. GSP sign now shows a GSP logo. No more US-1 shield on the righthand sign. Shows US-9 to NJ-440/I-287 instead. I'll try to grab new pictures when I have a chance.
Bout time they use the GSP logo, however sad to see the uppercase PARKWAY go. I still would have love to see control cities for the Parkway like Shore Points (SB) and Newark (NB) instead the department of redundancy department here. I will give the NJTA credit, though, for not using the G.S. Parkway like NJDOT does on I-78 in Union.
US 1 should have never been used here anyway, but believe it or not back in the mid 70's it did have trailblazing along the GSP service road and NJ 184 to US 9 North. Since the shields "TO US 1" were removed along the way it was useless to sign as it was to originally trailblaze. Also I see "The Amboys" is now just one Amboy, that is "Perth Amboy" is used as well.
No control cities for the GSP though. Oh well, can't win them all :P
Seen at Exit 11:That's a very recent replacement. This past Memorial Day; the old BGS for I-95 North was still there.
(http://i.imgur.com/tQQVKvZ.jpg)
So the new signs at 10 say New York. This sign at 11 says New York City. New sign at 12 doesn't even put space for a control city. I wish they'd just standardize it. Use New York for everything south of 16E/W and GWB for north of there, that's how I see it.
In that new overhead set, the downward/left pointing arrow is non-MUTCD practice and is very Massachusetts-like. Should point up/left. And on the northbound sign, the "New York City" legend appears too small.The left sign is not new. As for standardizing, they HAVE. I don't know why it's not coming out that way.
I absolutely agree that NJTA should standardize on this stuff.
The southbound sign hasn't been replaced yet, thats why. Note that it still has the lights mounted underneath it. Also note that when the PA interchange is finished that Philly is likely going to get snubbed again as a control city southbound as Maryland already ignores it northbound.
As for standardizing, they HAVE. I don't know why it's not coming out that way.Is it possible that somebody on the construction side be it the contractor or the resident engineer is overanalyzing MUTCD regarding what should be considered a control city and making on-the-spot changes out in the field. Such would explain the blank spaces underneath the I-95 & NJTP shields on the new northbound pull-through signage.
Every Rest Stop on the Turnpike, Ranked
https://www.eater.com/2017/6/13/15783216/best-new-jersey-turnpike-rest-stop-service-plaza
I like driving the NJTP and stopping at its service areas, but with only one exception, they all seem pretty similar to me. The Vince Lombardi is different from all the others mainly because it's such a time-consuming pain to drive in and out of, with that dizzy circular pattern of roadways.
Every Rest Stop on the Turnpike, Ranked
https://www.eater.com/2017/6/13/15783216/best-new-jersey-turnpike-rest-stop-service-plaza
You mean the compliant signs that lack errors? Are they atrocious on all the other highways too?Every Rest Stop on the Turnpike, Ranked
https://www.eater.com/2017/6/13/15783216/best-new-jersey-turnpike-rest-stop-service-plaza
The writer loses all credibility by saying the Turnpike's signage is atrocious. Had he limited that comment to the unfortunate new MUTCD-style signs, I'd agree with him.
Well 1995hoo it was actually a her; Helen Rosner was the name on the story. ...
Anyone think the two service areas on the Newark Bay Extension should be rebuilt?
They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.
Anyone think the two service areas on the Newark Bay Extension should be rebuilt?
If there's a lot of people running out of gas along that extension because of the long distances between service areas or exits with gas stations, yes. Other than that, no. They're not needed for such a short stretch of highway. As it is, the NJ Turnpike's service areas are closer together than on any other Turnpike system.
In the context of where it is in the article, the author would appear to be talking mainly about the area around Newark Airport with that statement, though I don't consider the new signage to be bad (especially using objective criteria, and not "I'm a roadgeek and want the unique signage back"). Also worth noting that the author probably doesn't hold any interest into the unique signage in any case, since she strikes me as more a "typical" person who happens to like "road trips", as in, seeing new destinations, usually with friends, and not using an airplane or cruise ship - the road being simply the means of getting from point A to point B, and not the prime attraction, like it is for the people on this forum.Every Rest Stop on the Turnpike, Ranked
https://www.eater.com/2017/6/13/15783216/best-new-jersey-turnpike-rest-stop-service-plaza
The writer loses all credibility by saying the Turnpike's signage is atrocious. Had he limited that comment to the unfortunate new MUTCD-style signs, I'd agree with him.
07000They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?
ixnay
07000They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?
ixnay
07000They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?
ixnay
Is it a borough, township, or CDP?
ixnay
Zip would be. 077xx or 08xxx07000They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?
ixnay
Unclear on the concept.Zip would be. 077xx or 08xxx07000They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?
ixnay
LGMS428
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?07000
ixnay
It's a city with a year round population of 873, and a summer population of 726,917Is it a borough, township, or CDP?07000They already slipped on the "official" control cities by using "Shore Points" at Exit 129 southbound. That isn't even MUTCD kosher these days as they want a city. A new pull-thru at Exit 123 uses Toms River.What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?
ixnay
ixnay
I was at the James Fenimore Cooper in April, and I didn't know what song they had in there, but I should have yelled out, "We need some Bon Jovi or Springsteen up in here!" since both of them are from New Jersey. Also, Cinnabon and Popeyes were closed.Please... don't... yell.
I was at the James Fenimore Cooper in April, and I didn't know what song they had in there, but I should have yelled out, "We need some Bon Jovi or Springsteen up in here!" since both of them are from New Jersey. Also, Cinnabon and Popeyes were closed.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/lie-welcome-center-opening-soon-will-ban-trucks-buses-1.12369024 (http://www.newsday.com/long-island/transportation/lie-welcome-center-opening-soon-will-ban-trucks-buses-1.12369024)??I was at the James Fenimore Cooper in April, and I didn't know what song they had in there, but I should have yelled out, "We need some Bon Jovi or Springsteen up in here!" since both of them are from New Jersey. Also, Cinnabon and Popeyes were closed.
While we're at it, we need some Billy Joel or Nine Days in the service areas on Long Island. Oh wait, Long Island doesn't have any service areas...
Seen at Exit 11:
(http://i.imgur.com/tQQVKvZ.jpg)
So the new signs at 10 say New York. This sign at 11 says New York City. New sign at 12 doesn't even put space for a control city. I wish they'd just standardize it. Use New York for everything south of 16E/W and GWB for north of there, that's how I see it.
Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.Dammit I agree with you. I hate when that happens. :P
Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.
Seen at Exit 11:Update: the southbound ramp signage has since been replaced w/similar-layout signage as its northbound ramp counterpart (except it uses 2 arrows rather than 3) and uses Trenton as the control city. While such is in-synch with the northbound Exit 129 signage; it's not in synch with the southbound Exit 129 signage.
(http://i.imgur.com/tQQVKvZ.jpg)
Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.I agree with you 100%.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?07000
ixnay
04440? ;-)
NJ loves to sign local roads in the shadows of freeways as they do the freeways themselves. I-287 for example is the best at it with both US 1 and US 22, although the latter got NYC until it was changed to Newark recently. Yet, the very same road in other areas, NJ 23 south gets Wayne when NJDOT signs NJ 23 south along its way for Newark. Also to mention that in Oakland NJ 208 uses Franklin Lakes instead of what NJDOT signs NJ 208 South as well.Seen at Exit 11:Update: the southbound ramp signage has since been replaced w/similar-layout signage as its northbound ramp counterpart (except it uses 2 arrows rather than 3) and uses Trenton as the control city. While such is in-synch with the northbound Exit 129 signage; it's not in synch with the southbound Exit 129 signage.
(http://i.imgur.com/tQQVKvZ.jpg)Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.I agree with you 100%.
Historical Note: When Exit 130 used to a US 1 southbound-only exit; both New Brunswick & Trenton were used on the main signage. When the cloverleaf ramp for US 1 northbound was retrofitted in; New Brunswick got demoted to auxiliary signage.
and I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?Some exits still have some.
Thank god, I like button copy myselfand I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?Some exits still have some.
Thank god, I like button copy myselfand I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?Some exits still have some.
Also, why do the poles look like they're 50 years old? Is this a style choice, or is NJT signs about to collapse due to age.
Since the last time I was on that part of the Turnpike, new pull-through signs have been installed overhead on the southbound side from (about) Exit 12 to Exit 7. All of them feature I-95, the Turnpike shield and Trenton as a control city. The ones at Exit 7 just show the Turnpike shield, with space for I-95 if PTC can ever complete the interchange project in Bristol, Pennsylvania (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) enough to complete I-95.I last used that stretch almost a month ago. While the recently-posted MUTCD-style southbound, pull-through BGS' had I-95 shields (Exits 12 through 9); the slightly older ones erected from Exit 8A to Exit 7 (as part of the widening project) did not have I-95 shields on them (but provided a space for such).
Those rust looking sign gantries have been around for 30 years. In fact when the Exit 13A project was completed it was one of the first to implement them.How do they get them to last that long? NY used the same material for guiderail once, but it only lasted 10 years, so we're replacing all of it with traditional galvanized steel.
Since the last time I was on that part of the Turnpike, new pull-through signs have been installed overhead on the southbound side from (about) Exit 12 to Exit 7. All of them feature I-95, the Turnpike shield and Trenton as a control city. The ones at Exit 7 just show the Turnpike shield, with space for I-95 if PTC can ever complete the interchange project in Bristol, Pennsylvania (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) enough to complete I-95.I last used that stretch almost a month ago. While the recently-posted MUTCD-style southbound, pull-through BGS' had I-95 shields (Exits 12 through 9); the slightly older ones erected from Exit 8A to Exit 7 (as part of the widening project) did not have I-95 shields on them (but provided a space for such).
Are you saying that the Turnpike Authority recently added I-95 shields to the Exit 8A through 7A pull-through signage (they should've IMHO, but that's another story) and/or changed the signage?
Those rust looking sign gantries have been around for 30 years. In fact when the Exit 13A project was completed it was one of the first to implement them.How do they get them to last that long? NY used the same material for guiderail once, but it only lasted 10 years, so we're replacing all of it with traditional galvanized steel.
I'll be using the NJ Turnpike again this coming weekend (making another trip to/from Massachusetts) so I can check/confirm whether or not the NJTA indeed added I-95 shields onto those pull-through BGS' at Exits 8 through 7A.Since the last time I was on that part of the Turnpike, new pull-through signs have been installed overhead on the southbound side from (about) Exit 12 to Exit 7. All of them feature I-95, the Turnpike shield and Trenton as a control city. The ones at Exit 7 just show the Turnpike shield, with space for I-95 if PTC can ever complete the interchange project in Bristol, Pennsylvania (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) enough to complete I-95.I last used that stretch almost a month ago. While the recently-posted MUTCD-style southbound, pull-through BGS' had I-95 shields (Exits 12 through 9); the slightly older ones erected from Exit 8A to Exit 7 (as part of the widening project) did not have I-95 shields on them (but provided a space for such).
I am not sure! The I-95 shields there caught my attention because I had not seen them before.Are you saying that the Turnpike Authority recently added I-95 shields to the Exit 8A through 7A pull-through signage (they should've IMHO, but that's another story) and/or changed the signage?
I think that they did - because they caught my attention. I recall entering the Turnpike at 7A last year, and there was space for the I-95 shield, but they were not there (this was after the entrance barrier where everyone decides to go north or south), only the Turnpike shield.
MD used them in Baltimore on I-95 after the Fort McHenry Tunnel section opened. They resembled the Garden State Parkway ones now being used. From what I have seen on GSV and on photos from other users, they rid them and went traditional gantries and bare metal.
Those rust looking sign gantries have been around for 30 years. In fact when the Exit 13A project was completed it was one of the first to implement them.How do they get them to last that long? NY used the same material for guiderail once, but it only lasted 10 years, so we're replacing all of it with traditional galvanized steel.
The brown guardrail on MD-200 is about 6 or 7 years old now, and except where it has been struck by vehicles, still looks good (and MDTA is very aggressive about replacing damaged guardrail, so damaged sections are usually removed and replaced within a few days or at most a few weeks).
Those rust looking sign gantries have been around for 30 years. In fact when the Exit 13A project was completed it was one of the first to implement them.How do they get them to last that long? NY used the same material for guiderail once, but it only lasted 10 years, so we're replacing all of it with traditional galvanized steel.
The brown guardrail on MD-200 is about 6 or 7 years old now, and except where it has been struck by vehicles, still looks good (and MDTA is very aggressive about replacing damaged guardrail, so damaged sections are usually removed and replaced within a few days or at most a few weeks).
The material is called weathering steel and is basically non-galvanized, non-stainless steel. It's meant to intentionally rust. From conversations with design engineers when I worked at PennDOT, it's often used because it looks rustic and is less expensive to manufacture.
I don't like it for one reason. Whenever it's mounted on or above concrete it creates horrible rust stains. This is because rust (iron oxide, of course) is water soluble and sheds in rainy weather. Then it's absorbed by the concrete.
I think the staining gives roadway facilities a shoddy, ill-maintained, almost abandoned look. Plus, the rustic nature is only faux-rustic and I generally don't like faux anything. Faux often equates to junky-looking.
But opinions may vary.
I'll be using the NJ Turnpike again this coming weekend (making another trip to/from Massachusetts) so I can check/confirm whether or not the NJTA indeed added I-95 shields onto those pull-through BGS' at Exits 8 through 7A.Since the last time I was on that part of the Turnpike, new pull-through signs have been installed overhead on the southbound side from (about) Exit 12 to Exit 7. All of them feature I-95, the Turnpike shield and Trenton as a control city. The ones at Exit 7 just show the Turnpike shield, with space for I-95 if PTC can ever complete the interchange project in Bristol, Pennsylvania (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) enough to complete I-95.I last used that stretch almost a month ago. While the recently-posted MUTCD-style southbound, pull-through BGS' had I-95 shields (Exits 12 through 9); the slightly older ones erected from Exit 8A to Exit 7 (as part of the widening project) did not have I-95 shields on them (but provided a space for such).
I am not sure! The I-95 shields there caught my attention because I had not seen them before.Are you saying that the Turnpike Authority recently added I-95 shields to the Exit 8A through 7A pull-through signage (they should've IMHO, but that's another story) and/or changed the signage?
I think that they did - because they caught my attention. I recall entering the Turnpike at 7A last year, and there was space for the I-95 shield, but they were not there (this was after the entrance barrier where everyone decides to go north or south), only the Turnpike shield.
I'll be using the NJ Turnpike again this coming weekend (making another trip to/from Massachusetts) so I can check/confirm whether or not the NJTA indeed added I-95 shields onto those pull-through BGS' at Exits 8 through 7A.Since the last time I was on that part of the Turnpike, new pull-through signs have been installed overhead on the southbound side from (about) Exit 12 to Exit 7. All of them feature I-95, the Turnpike shield and Trenton as a control city. The ones at Exit 7 just show the Turnpike shield, with space for I-95 if PTC can ever complete the interchange project in Bristol, Pennsylvania (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0) enough to complete I-95.I last used that stretch almost a month ago. While the recently-posted MUTCD-style southbound, pull-through BGS' had I-95 shields (Exits 12 through 9); the slightly older ones erected from Exit 8A to Exit 7 (as part of the widening project) did not have I-95 shields on them (but provided a space for such).
I am not sure! The I-95 shields there caught my attention because I had not seen them before.Are you saying that the Turnpike Authority recently added I-95 shields to the Exit 8A through 7A pull-through signage (they should've IMHO, but that's another story) and/or changed the signage?
I think that they did - because they caught my attention. I recall entering the Turnpike at 7A last year, and there was space for the I-95 shield, but they were not there (this was after the entrance barrier where everyone decides to go north or south), only the Turnpike shield.
I drove up the NJTP last night and was on the lookout for the first mention of I-95 northbound. The first I saw was at Exit 9. It's possible I missed ones further south, but I don't think I did.
Yeah, it definitely looks bad on the jersey barrier and whatever is near the support. But, it's perfectly safe. Most people don't even think about it. However, once in a while nj.com (the main NJ newspaper) will do a story about it and suddenly a bunch of people think the supports won't last a few years...even though those very supports have been up for a few DECADES!I'm definitely curious HOW they can last so long. NY used the same material for guiderail in the Adirondacks, Catskills and other scenic/park areas, and it has not held up nearly as well despite being around significantly less time. Check out this stuff on NY 9N, for example. This is why we don't use that stuff any more.
I-95 will be entering the Turnpike at exit 6; the current de facto I-95 route is exit 7A, so there's really no reason not to sign it north of there, and I don't understand why the Turnpike doesn't.I can think of two reasons:
Are these signs NJ TPKE jurisdiction?
On-ramp to the pike from US-46 EB in Ridgefield Park.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4263/35656343282_9bb705df82_c.jpg)
[url=https://flic.kr/p/WjQ5EC]
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4211/35656343472_cfcca3f390_c.jpg)
(https://flic.kr/p/WjQ5Bm)
That is from NJDOT maintained free 95 left over I believe. Plus US 46 is state maintained anyway.
Before I-190 (the Niagara Section of the NYS Thruway) lost its "N" prefix, there was (northbound) Exit N-18A (Grand Island Blvd.) and N-18B (Beaver Island Pkwy.).I always figured the X in 15X was the next letter after W. If they ever build another exit in that area and call it 15Y, I wouldn't be surprised. 15A would be really weird. Are there any places on any freeway where they needed to add another exit after E and W or N and S pairs? If so, what was it numbered?New York has used A in places like the Meadowbrook (M3AW, M3AE, just to be awesome).
Blame whoever built the Alphabet Loop in Kansas City for this...http://www.graveinfo.com/NJ/Secaucus/hcbg/news/JJ050703.htmlQuote"No one can identify any other roads with an X in the exit number. None at all," said Travis Johnson, information services manager at the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, whose members include 119 toll agencies from around the world. "You see things like exit 35A, but X is rare, if entirely unknown."
Ahem.
(http://www.okroads.com/080904/i35moexit2x.JPG)
from http://www.okroads.com/guides/mo/i35.html
Surprised that NJTA posted that, 'cause the MUTCD that they are now following requires place names as the destination, and elsewhere they seem to be following the rules closely.
By rule of thumb it should be Manhattan as reference to NYC in signing. The other boroughs should really be considered entities of their own rite.
BTW I-80 has NYC signed at Exit 53 in Wayne as to stay on I-80 rather than use US 46 to NJ 3 to the Lincoln Tunnel. I guess that has to do with both US 46 and NJ 3 not being full freeways and NJDOT wants a complete freeway routing to the city. But still it has the same scenario as NJ Turnpike at Exit 14: The through route goes to the GWB like it does in Wayne, and the exit route goes to one tunnel of the two leading also into NY. Therefore having NYC on the pull through would be the same as on I-80 there.
Also a directory list exit panel should be in place before Exit 14 letting motorists know of the three main exits into the big city, and New Haven Should become pull through from Exit 14 all the way to the GWB. Having that would make it out as destination arrived for New York City signed all the way from Baltimore (and even the I-495 beltway near College Park) along both I-95 and the unnumbered NJ Turnpike). :)
J & N's point above is well taken. Once you get that close to NYC, the bridges and tunnels are reasonable destinations, just not consistent with MUTCD theory. Though maybe the borough should also be shown with the bridge or tunnel.
By rule of thumb it should be Manhattan as reference to NYC in signing. The other boroughs should really be considered entities of their own rite.
BTW I-80 has NYC signed at Exit 53 in Wayne as to stay on I-80 rather than use US 46 to NJ 3 to the Lincoln Tunnel. I guess that has to do with both US 46 and NJ 3 not being full freeways and NJDOT wants a complete freeway routing to the city. But still it has the same scenario as NJ Turnpike at Exit 14: The through route goes to the GWB like it does in Wayne, and the exit route goes to one tunnel of the two leading also into NY. Therefore having NYC on the pull through would be the same as on I-80 there.
Also a directory list exit panel should be in place before Exit 14 letting motorists know of the three main exits into the big city, and New Haven Should become pull through from Exit 14 all the way to the GWB. Having that would make it out as destination arrived for New York City signed all the way from Baltimore (and even the I-495 beltway near College Park) along both I-95 and the unnumbered NJ Turnpike). :)
What signage looks like on I-80 EB at exit 53:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wayne,+NJ+07470/@40.8956718,-74.2568809,3a,66.8y,83.65h,87.3t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOsembS55Jvf6b3OAiv_x9Q!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c30260113c84d3:0xe654539a1cb20344
Other than Staten Island, I have only seen references to the individual boroughs within New York itself.
I was checking out a video of NJ 3 EB. No mention of I-95 at the Turnpike exit (Western Spur). The only I-95 shields I saw were cosigned for the Eastern Spur.
Roadman65, thanks for highlighting an ongoing issue with NJ DOT. They often overload their exit signs with too many destinations such as three, when there should only be two. The MUTCD recommends (and I agree) a maximum of three lines of copy, other than the distance message and exit number tag. So that allows for route number(s) on the top line plus two destinations. Works fine most other states. If necessary, two additional destinations can be shown on a supplemental sign located after the first advance sign.
The Turnpike too has been following this as well. Exit 8 now omits East Windsor and only uses Hightstown and Freehold. Exit 10 omits Edison on the three legend signs and only uses Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 4, though still I heard uses three Mount Laurel, Camden, and Philadelphia (on a tack on bottom tab) I am guessing until both PTC and PennDOT finally get that lengthy project of connecting the PA Turnpike with the Delaware Expressway complete at which Exit 6 will serve as the SB Turnpike's exit for Philly.
The Turnpike too has been following this as well. Exit 8 now omits East Windsor and only uses Hightstown and Freehold. Exit 10 omits Edison on the three legend signs and only uses Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 4, though still I heard uses three Mount Laurel, Camden, and Philadelphia (on a tack on bottom tab) I am guessing until both PTC and PennDOT finally get that lengthy project of connecting the PA Turnpike with the Delaware Expressway complete at which Exit 6 will serve as the SB Turnpike's exit for Philly.
The Turnpike too has been following this as well. Exit 8 now omits East Windsor and only uses Hightstown and Freehold. Exit 10 omits Edison on the three legend signs and only uses Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 4, though still I heard uses three Mount Laurel, Camden, and Philadelphia (on a tack on bottom tab) I am guessing until both PTC and PennDOT finally get that lengthy project of connecting the PA Turnpike with the Delaware Expressway complete at which Exit 6 will serve as the SB Turnpike's exit for Philly.
The 'Philadelphia' tab is indeed supplemental until the 95 interchange is completed in PA.
Exit 5 used to have 4 towns on the Southbound 2 Mile Ahead sign (with the bottom one being an add-on to make it look like one continuous sign), until it was cut back to two. https://goo.gl/maps/GMLQgCnnAt12
As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.
Surprised that NJTA posted that, 'cause the MUTCD that they are now following requires place names as the destination, and elsewhere they seem to be following the rules closely.
Section 2E.13 Designation of Destinations
Standard:
01 The direction of a freeway and the major destinations or control cities along it shall be clearly identified
through the use of appropriate destination legends (see Section 2D.37). Successive freeway guide signs shall
provide continuity in destination names and consistency with available map information. At any decision
point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.
As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.
ISHTA fairly much has to do that considering how many cities and towns there are in the Chicagoland area.As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.
ISTHA says hello with their supplemental signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/G24iKQY7W9q
https://goo.gl/maps/iR5oQ8KTKVr
ISHTA fairly much has to do that considering how many cities and towns there are in the Chicagoland area.As city-happy the NJ Turnpike is/was on their BGS, they still couldn't hold a candle to the Indiana Toll Road in the 70s, when they had supplemental BGSs which would regularly list 5 or more cities on the same sign that you could access from the upcoming exit.
ISTHA says hello with their supplemental signage.
https://goo.gl/maps/G24iKQY7W9q
https://goo.gl/maps/iR5oQ8KTKVr
I could see supplemental signs like this on the NJTP from Edison up to Ft. Lee.
Roadman your point is well taken. But just for argument's sake, if the FHWA wanted to strictly enforce the city name requirement, they could force the NJTA to sign Exit 14C as Lower-Manhattan, Exit 16E as Mid-Manhattan and Exit 18E as Upper-Manhattan. I'm NOT suggesting they should do that, but again if they were that insistent, who knows how absurd it could get?Manhattan is not a city. Didn't they get rid of a bunch of non-municipalities like Iselin on the Parkway? And are things like "Lower Manhattan" allowed even if Manhattan were a city? I know "Central Philadelphia" is on I-95 and I-76, and borough names are used within NYC, but are those even ok?
Roadman your point is well taken. But just for argument's sake, if the FHWA wanted to strictly enforce the city name requirement, they could force the NJTA to sign Exit 14C as Lower-Manhattan, Exit 16E as Mid-Manhattan and Exit 18E as Upper-Manhattan. I'm NOT suggesting they should do that, but again if they were that insistent, who knows how absurd it could get?Manhattan is not a city. Didn't they get rid of a bunch of non-municipalities like Iselin on the Parkway? And are things like "Lower Manhattan" allowed even if Manhattan were a city? I know "Central Philadelphia" is on I-95 and I-76, and borough names are used within NYC, but are those even ok?
The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.
Usually sign it accordance with downtown and business districts. In NYC its hard as each borough has its own downtown area and many different business districts for each neighborhood, but the main business center is the Financial Center along with Wall Street (hence why I-78 E Bound is signed as New York City from Newark Airport) so Exit 14 should be signed for Downtown Manhattan.
Midtown Manhattan too is a business district as many skyscrapers are erected there as it has global importance as well. It has Broadway, Times Square, and Central Park which are prominent destinations. In addition so it should get a mention for 16E as Midtown Manhattan.
JP is Iselin still used? I thought it was removed at Exit 131 (now 132) and Metropark is now Wood Ave. South. That is what GSV shows and some users here have observed in travel.
The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.
The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.
The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.
Weren't some of the Service Areas rebuilt not too long ago? Not talking about the one in Woodbridge; is that Grover Cleveland (?) that was rebuilt after Sandy.
The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.
The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.
The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.
Honestly, a 5-mile roadway doesn't need service areas. In fact, none of the toll roads in NJ are long enough to require gas services except the NJ Turnpike mainline which is part of an all toll network extending all the way to Chicago, though other amenities are helpful.The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.
The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.
The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.
It would not make sense for a full restaurant/gas station service area like on the mainline. The NBE serves mostly commuter traffic. People filling up on their way to and from the JC waterfront would benefit nicely from this. Less so the people going to the Holland Tunnel since there are numerous gas stations along 12th and 14th Streets already.
Honestly, a 5-mile roadway doesn't need service areas. In fact, none of the toll roads in NJ are long enough to require gas services except the NJ Turnpike mainline which is part of an all toll network extending all the way to Chicago, though other amenities are helpful.The issue with new Newark Bay Extension ones is that the old ones, the John Stevens and Peter Stuyvesant Service Areas are on such an abbreviated amount of land, that the current design probably would not fit. There's no other available land between 14A and 14B and expansion of both sites are impossible. If the Turnpike Authority and HMS can come up with an abbreviated version, they could make good use of them. The eastbound one (John Stevens) is even more bafflingly hard.
The way I read the article, they would become gas/convenience store only service areas if built.
The NJTA/HMS owned gas-only service area on the GSP is supposed to be expanded into a gas/convenience store service area as well.
It would not make sense for a full restaurant/gas station service area like on the mainline. The NBE serves mostly commuter traffic. People filling up on their way to and from the JC waterfront would benefit nicely from this. Less so the people going to the Holland Tunnel since there are numerous gas stations along 12th and 14th Streets already.
For Manhattan areas, I would use "Lower Manhattan", "Midtown", and "Upper Manhattan". As for the other boroughs, it really depends on a case by case basis. For example, using an exit from the BQE to the LIE , I would put "495 East-Hempstead" and "495 West TO (symbol for) Queens Midtown Tunnel -Midtown". If there are multiple exits for a boro, say for Queens off the Cross-Bronx, I'd use neighborhoods. Examples: "678 South-Whitestone/Flushing (can't use an airport as a control city), where on I-295 I'd use "295 South-Bayside/Fresh Meadows". I'm also a fan of using 2 control cities if warranted, so the exit from the Deegan to I-95 south would say "95 South-Trenton/Philadelphia"
For Manhattan areas, I would use "Lower Manhattan", "Midtown", and "Upper Manhattan". As for the other boroughs, it really depends on a case by case basis. For example, using an exit from the BQE to the LIE , I would put "495 East-Hempstead" and "495 West TO (symbol for) Queens Midtown Tunnel -Midtown". If there are multiple exits for a boro, say for Queens off the Cross-Bronx, I'd use neighborhoods. Examples: "678 South-Whitestone/Flushing (can't use an airport as a control city), where on I-295 I'd use "295 South-Bayside/Fresh Meadows". I'm also a fan of using 2 control cities if warranted, so the exit from the Deegan to I-95 south would say "95 South-Trenton/Philadelphia"
Holland = "Tribeca"
Lincoln = "Hell's Kitchen"
GWB = "Washington Heights"
...I'll get my coat.
6/4/94 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13771719/halsey_rest_area_closed_may_8_1994/)
As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate
IIRC it closed sometime after 13A was built. I seem to remember stopping there in it's last days and it was almost under one of the ramps for that interchange. I'd forgotten all about it until now. Surprised it was ever there at all considering there is another one only a few miles before it.
6/4/94 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13771719/halsey_rest_area_closed_may_8_1994/)
As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate
We're so sorry, Uncle Albert...
6/4/94 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13771719/halsey_rest_area_closed_may_8_1994/)
As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate
6/4/94 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13771719/halsey_rest_area_closed_may_8_1994/)
As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate
6/4/94 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13771719/halsey_rest_area_closed_may_8_1994/)
As noted in the article, 12 years ago, 13A was finished, sealing its fate
Nice find!
Noted at the end of the article was a truck parking lot. The Turnpike has tried, off and on for decades, to build one. I think it's a half-hearted attempt at most, as they could probably find a place if they really tried. The last attempt I know of was to build one in the Mt. Laurel area someplace...I never did hear of the exact location. But I did hear Mt. Laurel wasn't interested in having it in their town, and the location (south of Exit 6) seemed like it would be missing out on a fair amount of the NJ Turnpike truck traffic.
Looks like the NJ Turnpike Authority has rolled out a new website with a dedicated domain
http://www.njta.com/
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpikeLooks like the NJ Turnpike Authority has rolled out a new website with a dedicated domain
http://www.njta.com/
What did they have before? Anything?
They missed one!
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4372/36240035480_1c812d6715_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XdpDXW)
I heard they removed US 1 shields off the new Exit 9 signs with the new ones. I do remember when it was just NJ 18 and only New Brunswick as sole control destination.
In fact as late as 1985 there was a NJ 18 text guide on one of the overpasses that was a nice sign going NB when the freeway was only 6 lanes and two carriageways.
Sad to see the old signs go though.
Hmmm..........the photos seem to disprove what several people have said on here. Did they maybe eliminate the Route-1 shields in one direction only?I believe that to be the case. Southbound, US 1 would be accessed from Ints. 10-11. Northbound, 9 makes sense. I hope I don't have that flipped.
Hmmm..........the photos seem to disprove what several people have said on here. Did they maybe eliminate the Route-1 shields in one direction only?I believe that to be the case. Southbound, US 1 would be accessed from Ints. 10-11. Northbound, 9 makes sense. I hope I don't have that flipped.
If by Turnpike proper, you mean the mainline Turnpike; that would be correct. However, I encountered these old button copy signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9313857,-74.9550678,3a,75y,33.36h,91.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_VSRhZBgTrSF9AFtsR3FDA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D_VSRhZBgTrSF9AFtsR3FDA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D110.3052%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) while entering the Turnpike at Exit 4 this past weekend.They missed one!
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4372/36240035480_1c812d6715_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XdpDXW)
This sign has been replaced with a MUTCD complaint one on the same structure. AFIAK, this means that all the "classic" Turnpike signage is now gone north of 8A and there isn't any button copy on the Turnpike proper anywhere now.
There was a "TURNPIKE SOUTH KEEP RIGHT" sign on the on-ramp to the turnpike from the Sports Complex but IDK if that's still there or not. Every time I drive by the ramp is either closed or I can't get to it from the Sports Complex b/c it is also closed.
Glad to see Exit 4 hangs on and weren't there oddly shaped advance signs on side streets for exit 8? Somewhere?
I found this great shot somebody uploaded on flickr.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4512/37214045714_c7b830a0aa_z.jpg)
For those curious about new Turnpike MUTCD signs along the stretch north of 8A here is at least one.
Yeah...they are so..."standard".
There was a "TURNPIKE SOUTH KEEP RIGHT" sign on the on-ramp to the turnpike from the Sports Complex but IDK if that's still there or not. Every time I drive by the ramp is either closed or I can't get to it from the Sports Complex b/c it is also closed.Yes, both directions. http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_32 (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_32)
Glad to see Exit 4 hangs on and weren't there oddly shaped advance signs on side streets for exit 8? Somewhere?
Most likely the excuse was there was no room to mount a sign being the Passaic River Bridges are there.I assume you mean 15W. Given its suffix, I assume it wasn't always accessible from the Eastern Spur (even Southbound). If so, and given how Exit 15E is signed for Newark, I wonder if 15W was not signed for Newark to avoid duplication. And if you had to make a choice, 15E is actually located in Newark and 15W is not, so I can see their reasoning. Exit 14, while also in Newark, and could have been signed as such, opts for the more specific "Newark Airport". They could go the "Newark next three exits" route instead, but I don't recall the Turnpike ever doing that anywhere else.
Anyway, I am sure locals never complained about it as most New Jersians use the exit number for a reference. It was really something as previously Exit 16W never used Newark as a control city on the eastern leg. It was Kearny and The Oranges always, so the state's largest city never got a mention in the days of old except on the tickets (if anyone ever read them that is_.
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke:
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke:
I always wonder how they expect anyone to read those regulation signs. They're at toll booths and traffic is in motion there.
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke:
I always wonder how they expect anyone to read those regulation signs. They're at toll booths and traffic is in motion there.
They're for your $afety (that way when someone pulls you over for breaking some obscure regulation, you can't claim ignorance of the rules)
Roadman your point is well taken. But just for argument's sake, if the FHWA wanted to strictly enforce the city name requirement, they could force the NJTA to sign Exit 14C as Lower-Manhattan, Exit 16E as Mid-Manhattan and Exit 18E as Upper-Manhattan. I'm NOT suggesting they should do that, but again if they were that insistent, who knows how absurd it could get?
Wouldn't be the first time the writers of the MUTCD created a problem where there wasn't one. Take the issue of down arrows and APL signs for instance or discouraging a street name and city name on the same sign.
Also, Wilmington isn't a natural or common destination for those going south; you're actually already south of the city when you enter Delaware.
If we don't want to use a state or landmark, Baltimore would've been the best pull-thru option for the NJ Turnpike.
Also, Wilmington isn't a natural or common destination for those going south; you're actually already south of the city when you enter Delaware.
If we don't want to use a state or landmark, Baltimore would've been the best pull-thru option for the NJ Turnpike.
Wilmington isn't anyone's final destination? Then by your logic, Washington shouldn't be used either. By the time 95 enters DC on the Wilson Bridge, one is already south of the city. And Boston shouldn't be used either. 95 never enters Boston. I think you're missing the concept/purpose of a control city.
Also, Wilmington isn't a natural or common destination for those going south; you're actually already south of the city when you enter Delaware.
If we don't want to use a state or landmark, Baltimore would've been the best pull-thru option for the NJ Turnpike.
Wilmington isn't anyone's final destination? Then by your logic, Washington shouldn't be used either. By the time 95 enters DC on the Wilson Bridge, one is already south of the city. And Boston shouldn't be used either. 95 never enters Boston. I think you're missing the concept/purpose of a control city.
Would it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ TpkeI thought I saw a few others around, but I didn't take any pictures of them.
The NJ Turnpike should've matched NJDOT, which already had the signs posted and have many more pull-thru signs than the NJ Turnpike.To me that doesn't matter. The Turnpike ends at I-295, and when that crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge, you enter Wilmington. So, as far as I'm concerned, Wilmington is the right control city.
Also, Wilmington isn't a natural or common destination for those going south; you're actually already south of the city when you enter Delaware.
Would it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...They debated for a long time before settling on Wilmington.
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ TpkeI thought I saw a few others around, but I didn't take any pictures of them.The NJ Turnpike should've matched NJDOT, which already had the signs posted and have many more pull-thru signs than the NJ Turnpike.To me that doesn't matter. The Turnpike ends at I-295, and when that crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge, you enter Wilmington. So, as far as I'm concerned, Wilmington is the right control city.
Also, Wilmington isn't a natural or common destination for those going south; you're actually already south of the city when you enter Delaware.
Would it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...They debated for a long time before settling on Wilmington.
Wow, I would love to see an old photo of that sign. Its early-90s successor sign (as most here know) read NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden DelawareWould it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...They debated for a long time before settling on Wilmington.
Up until the early 1990s there was an old button copy sign at exit 6 southbound (not the famous overhead art deco sign) that said the following: "NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden Washington KEEP LEFT"
I'm just stating the facts as well, especially when stated that someone believes they enter Wilmington when crossing from NJ to DE.I suppose Wilmington could be used until Commodore Barry Bridge or at least NJ 73. They already post travel times to Wilmington via Exit 4 and Exit 1 on VMSs sometimes. After that, there don't seem to be any good choices. some bad ones are Pennsville, Carneys Point, New Castle, Newark (DE), and Baltimore. Dover is also possible because US 40 is signed that on the other side of the bridge.
Also...is Wilmington the most appropriate city? Its *never* used going Northbound until you're about 2 miles away, and even on our eternal debates on these boards regarding Maryland and its use of New York, Wilmington isn't even a consideration of an alternative city. It's simply too small of a city that'll be of much assistance to most motorists.
Another consideration: In my days of working the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 1, people most often asked how far it is to (in order of most often asked): 1) Baltimore, 2) Washington DC, 3) the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and 4) the Maryland House. Philly was asked as well, due to motorists not realizing they're not on 95 and thus didn't realize they already passed the city. If Wilmington was asked, it was a rare. It's simply not a city motorists could reference as a destination...or even a spot along their route. When people are more aware of a rest stop than a city, it's use as a control city should be severely questioned.
I'm just stating the facts as well, especially when stated that someone believes they enter Wilmington when crossing from NJ to DE.
Wow, I would love to see an old photo of that sign. Its early-90s successor sign (as most here know) read NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden DelawareWould it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...They debated for a long time before settling on Wilmington.
Up until the early 1990s there was an old button copy sign at exit 6 southbound (not the famous overhead art deco sign) that said the following: "NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden Washington KEEP LEFT"
Wow, I would love to see an old photo of that sign. Its early-90s successor sign (as most here know) read NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden DelawareWould it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...They debated for a long time before settling on Wilmington.
Up until the early 1990s there was an old button copy sign at exit 6 southbound (not the famous overhead art deco sign) that said the following: "NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden Washington KEEP LEFT"
Is this the one?
(http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/files/2009/08/Route40RoadTrip-thumb-500x335-480x321.jpg)
http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2009/08/21/classic_ng_road_trip_route_40/
ixnay
Wow, I would love to see an old photo of that sign. Its early-90s successor sign (as most here know) read NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden DelawareWould it need to be in Delaware, though? Maryland skips over not one but THREE states to sign New York! And you'd think Philadelphia would be a major enough control city...They debated for a long time before settling on Wilmington.
Up until the early 1990s there was an old button copy sign at exit 6 southbound (not the famous overhead art deco sign) that said the following: "NJ TURNPIKE SOUTH Camden Washington KEEP LEFT"
Is this the one?
(http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/files/2009/08/Route40RoadTrip-thumb-500x335-480x321.jpg)
http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2009/08/21/classic_ng_road_trip_route_40/
ixnay
This[/url] is the replacement sign they're talking about. I vaguely remember the original from the late 80s, I want to say it was replaced around the time they extended the dual-dual config down to 8A, as they did a bunch of sign replacements during that time.
Also on US 22 in NJ many signs are worded Newark/ New York as there also is a Newark, New York as well. :)This[/url] is the replacement sign they're talking about. I vaguely remember the original from the late 80s, I want to say it was replaced around the time they extended the dual-dual config down to 8A, as they did a bunch of sign replacements during that time.
Oh, exit 6 SB. Sorry, I misread.
Ironic that the sign for "Camden/Delaware" should be so worded, because there *is* a Camden, Delaware, home to Caesar Rodney High School and a charter bus company.
ixnay
The bearings between the bridge deck and a pier at milepost 0.5 of the Extension became overextended, causing the eastbound bridge deck to drop several inches. Repairs crews have begun jacking the structure back into place in order to repair the bearings.
The bearings are steel pieces that connect the bridge deck to the pier. They are designed to allow for controlled movement of the bridge deck, such as expansion or contraction due to temperature changes. A contractor working in the area discovered that several bearings on the pier beneath the eastbound roadway at milepost 0.5 had rotated out of position.
Ruh roh...Some combination of cold weather and the vast hordes of overloaded trucks pounding a structure that wasn't designed to handle them for decades, exacerbated by the Skyway closure pushing more vehicles eastbound (the direction of the slippage)? Maybe?
ADVISORY: Eastbound Newark Bay-Hudson Extension closed between 14 and 14A for emergency structural repairs (http://www.njta.com/newsroom/2017/2018-1/nbhce-closure)QuoteThe bearings between the bridge deck and a pier at milepost 0.5 of the Extension became overextended, causing the eastbound bridge deck to drop several inches. Repairs crews have begun jacking the structure back into place in order to repair the bearings.QuoteThe bearings are steel pieces that connect the bridge deck to the pier. They are designed to allow for controlled movement of the bridge deck, such as expansion or contraction due to temperature changes. A contractor working in the area discovered that several bearings on the pier beneath the eastbound roadway at milepost 0.5 had rotated out of position.
Hopefully this is limited to the one location and there aren't other structural issues along that part of the extension leading to a longer closure. Having it happen on a holiday week is a good thing, but if there's a closure beyond the end of this week, it could make for an even longer commute with Truck 1-9 being the only available approach to Jersey City and the Holland Tunnel.
Workers used 10 jacks to lift the span off the pier overnight last night. Repairs continue at this hour. The timeline for completion has not changed - still expected to be this evening, probably not until after the pm rush.
Hudson Extension Update (https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/946390263357956097)QuoteWorkers used 10 jacks to lift the span off the pier overnight last night. Repairs continue at this hour. The timeline for completion has not changed - still expected to be this evening, probably not until after the pm rush.
At least it sounds like they haven't found any other bits that need to be repaired... yet.
Some combination of cold weather and the vast hordes of overloaded trucks pounding a structure that wasn't designed to handle them for decades, exacerbated by the Skyway closure pushing more vehicles eastbound (the direction of the slippage)? Maybe?
Some combination of cold weather and the vast hordes of overloaded trucks pounding a structure that wasn't designed to handle them for decades, exacerbated by the Skyway closure pushing more vehicles eastbound (the direction of the slippage)? Maybe?
Does the New Jersey Turnpike Authority have weigh-in-motion detectors at its entrance lanes to identify and (possibly deter) overweight trucks from entering the Turnpike? The Pennsylvania Turnpike does, at least on its ticket system.
Re: the current bridge issue, I'm surprised to see this kind of problem on a NJTA facility. I always thought the Authority did more rigorous inspections and maintenance than their counterparts in New York State.I can't really say much at present, but from what I know, I don't think this was an issue they could have foreseen. What happened must have been triggered by the cold snap and some other circumstances that I can't even speculate on. I have some thoughts, but if I'm at all thinking on the right lines, this issue was mostly invisible.
A new bridge is planned in the reasonably short term. I don't know if this accelerates it any, but I think they broached mid to late 2020s. (I think.)QuoteWorkers used 10 jacks to lift the span off the pier overnight last night. Repairs continue at this hour. The timeline for completion has not changed - still expected to be this evening, probably not until after the pm rush.
At least it sounds like they haven't found any other bits that need to be repaired... yet.
Yeah, but since it was built around the same era as the Tapaan Zee bridge, I wonder if NJTA might study a replacement more sooner then they thought?
No. And it's not like there's a State Trooper available at the toll plazas anyway to go after them.
I'm not even sure the PA Turnpike has them either. If they do...same thing applies regarding available State Police. Also notable...one theory floated about the PA/NJ Turnpike bridge crack last year was an overweight trucker was on the bridge. If that was the case, he entered on the PA Turnpike without detection.
A new bridge is planned in the reasonably short term. I don't know if this accelerates it any, but I think they broached mid to late 2020s. (I think.)
No. And it's not like there's a State Trooper available at the toll plazas anyway to go after them.
In theory, the system is supposed to deter overweights from entering the Pennsylvania Turnpike ticket system in the first place (no trooper needed), though I am not sure how they will do that with the transition to all-electronic toll collection.I'm not even sure the PA Turnpike has them either. If they do...same thing applies regarding available State Police. Also notable...one theory floated about the PA/NJ Turnpike bridge crack last year was an overweight trucker was on the bridge. If that was the case, he entered on the PA Turnpike without detection.
It has been a while, but the entry lanes on the Pennsylvania Turnpike with the ticket dispensers had an indicator that the entering truck was overweight, and the machine would not dispense a ticket. Presumably there was a weigh-in-motion detector in each entering lane.
At this point, with AET, or even just with E-ZPass, I'd expect that the only way to catch them is to actually send out the cars. Which probably only happens for gross negligence or on slow days.No. And it's not like there's a State Trooper available at the toll plazas anyway to go after them.
In theory, the system is supposed to deter overweights from entering the Pennsylvania Turnpike ticket system in the first place (no trooper needed), though I am not sure how they will do that with the transition to all-electronic toll collection.I'm not even sure the PA Turnpike has them either. If they do...same thing applies regarding available State Police. Also notable...one theory floated about the PA/NJ Turnpike bridge crack last year was an overweight trucker was on the bridge. If that was the case, he entered on the PA Turnpike without detection.
It has been a while, but the entry lanes on the Pennsylvania Turnpike with the ticket dispensers had an indicator that the entering truck was overweight, and the machine would not dispense a ticket. Presumably there was a weigh-in-motion detector in each entering lane.
At this point, with AET, or even just with E-ZPass, I'd expect that the only way to catch them is to actually send out the cars. Which probably only happens for gross negligence or on slow days.
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke:What's the one that's no longer available?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4505/38050859446_e8a3976bd3_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZYqAQN)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4401/36456978320_d41305e56f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XxzxvJ)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4411/35798253494_f2ca7762db_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Wxnpz9)
This sign is gone...there was some debate about this but yep it's long gone.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4560/37836862774_247768eee1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ZDvP61)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4581/38521570222_f28774720a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21G27KQ)
I hope they reinstall the original button copy sign soon.FTFY
Refresh our memories about the deaths connected with the widening of the Turnpike in central NJ, which were referred to on another thread (I don't have time to do a search this morning). I'm sure they were mentioned on this board (maybe on this thread but, you know...)
ixnay
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has published the "2018 Capital Project & Investment Plan" report, which heavily details the projects that were included in the October, 2008 $7 Billion Capital Improvement Plan for the Turnpike & Parkway. The largest, most visible components of that plan were the dual-dual widening of the NJ Turnpike, along with the 3rd lane widening of the Parkway (much of which wasn't originally part of the plan). Interesting of note is that while the NJ Turnpike widening was substantially completed in 2014, the Turnpike still has $75 million to pay out for that project, which will bring the net total to $2.23 billion; still well under the original estimated cost of the project.
The majority of that $7 billion has now been spent or allocated to current and projected 2018 projects.
Descriptions of many of the projects and their current status are within the report. Many of the current projects are bridge/overpass related improvements, interchange/intersection improvements, and building facilities projects, including State Police, maintenance and salt shed buildings.
Also noted under Sections 3.0, Other Capital Spending, is that repaving projects should increase by 150 lane miles. In 2016, $26 million was spend on repaving projects. In 2017, $51 million was budgeted for repavings. In 2018, $70 million is budgeted on repavings. NJ Turnpike had historically been very good on keeping up with a smooth surface. There's been a notable increase in rutting on the southern end of the Turnpike and more significant pavement deterioration on the northern end, and projects that only repave the travel lanes while deferring on shoulder lanes. Since large areas of both the Turnpike and Parkway have been reconstructed over the past several years, this $70 million will go a long way towards fixing up other areas of both highways that haven't been touched over the past decade.
The report, for your reading amusement: http://www.njta.com/media/3511/2018-capital-project-investment-plan.pdf
Guess they've worked out some more money from paving. I know there's been a big focus on bridge work since a lot of the bridges--especially on the southern stretch of the Turnpike below Exit 6--are now pretty old and need work or replacement.
Another interesting tidbit is the replacement of the toll plaza canopy signs (denoting if it's an ezpass lane or not) are being replaced at a bunch of toll plazas. I'm hoping this means the expanded thing of putting a sign over every lane to say it's ezpass only, or ticket/cash and ezpass.
Another interesting tidbit is the replacement of the toll plaza canopy signs (denoting if it's an ezpass lane or not) are being replaced at a bunch of toll plazas. I'm hoping this means the expanded thing of putting a sign over every lane to say it's ezpass only, or ticket/cash and ezpass.
Coming down the Pike - ha, ha, ha - will be some heavier infrastructure projects. Based on recent news, you might have an idea which area will be the focus over the next 10 years. I will not say more than that.
I find it interesting that when the Pearl Harbor Extension becomes I-95, traveling northbound onto the mainline turnpike, I-95 through traffic has to merge onto the turnpike which continues as I-95 north seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/WVzCSdHGZnQ2 This shows the merge onto the trucks buses and cars roadway. I actually don't like how when you're driving on I-95 and your lane suddenly ends. They could've had the left lane of the mainline turnpike merge into the middle lane and had the I-95 (exit 6) traffic continue with their own lane for the inner roadway and for the outer roadway start out with 2 lanes when the turnpike divides prior to exit 6 and have the lane extended all the way for I-95 through traffic. I can't think of any other place along the entire I-95 where this happens.It'll be happening on the PA side at the new interchange in both directions as well if I understand correctly.
Just because the number comes in from one road to make this other road the continuation will not change the traffic pattern much. Yes it seems weird that the straight through in number has to merge, still the Turnpike is the same on both sides of the merge as well. Though the NJ Turnpike is not a continuous number its like it is one.I-76 in PA does this at least twice too, first when turning into an exit only lane for Exit 346B, and then when merging into the PA Turnpike.
There are lots of places where an interstate merges onto another freeway and loses its lanes. I-280 in Newark is prime example of that hence its main lanes going westbound become the ramp lanes to the Garden State Parkway and Clinton Street. Yet NJDOT has kept this arrangement for well over four decades.
I find it interesting that when the Pearl Harbor Extension becomes I-95, traveling northbound onto the mainline turnpike, I-95 through traffic has to merge onto the turnpike which continues as I-95 north seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/WVzCSdHGZnQ2 This shows the merge onto the trucks buses and cars roadway. I actually don't like how when you're driving on I-95 and your lane suddenly ends. They could've had the left lane of the mainline turnpike merge into the middle lane and had the I-95 (exit 6) traffic continue with their own lane for the inner roadway and for the outer roadway start out with 2 lanes when the turnpike divides prior to exit 6 and have the lane extended all the way for I-95 through traffic. I can't think of any other place along the entire I-95 where this happens.
I find it interesting that when the Pearl Harbor Extension becomes I-95, traveling northbound onto the mainline turnpike, I-95 through traffic has to merge onto the turnpike which continues as I-95 north seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/WVzCSdHGZnQ2 This shows the merge onto the trucks buses and cars roadway. I actually don't like how when you're driving on I-95 and your lane suddenly ends. They could've had the left lane of the mainline turnpike merge into the middle lane and had the I-95 (exit 6) traffic continue with their own lane for the inner roadway and for the outer roadway start out with 2 lanes when the turnpike divides prior to exit 6 and have the lane extended all the way for I-95 through traffic. I can't think of any other place along the entire I-95 where this happens.
I think that the lane configuration at the East and West Splits in Newark is what should have been used here. Where the three car and the three truck lanes split into the two lane connectors to the spurs. The center lane divides into the the right lane of the eastern spur in the car lanes as well as the left lane of the western spur, while the left lane is for the east and the right lane for the west. Then both two lane roadways merge with their counterparts of the truck lanes to become three again.I find it interesting that when the Pearl Harbor Extension becomes I-95, traveling northbound onto the mainline turnpike, I-95 through traffic has to merge onto the turnpike which continues as I-95 north seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/WVzCSdHGZnQ2 This shows the merge onto the trucks buses and cars roadway. I actually don't like how when you're driving on I-95 and your lane suddenly ends. They could've had the left lane of the mainline turnpike merge into the middle lane and had the I-95 (exit 6) traffic continue with their own lane for the inner roadway and for the outer roadway start out with 2 lanes when the turnpike divides prior to exit 6 and have the lane extended all the way for I-95 through traffic. I can't think of any other place along the entire I-95 where this happens.
The reasoning behind this was to prevent the Turnpike mainline from being reduced to 2 lanes, especially when either the inner provider roadway is closed.
This stuff was debated well over a decade ago, prior to the dual-dual lengthening. And that included it being known 95 was going to be using Interchange 6.
I drove that recently (December 2018)So you're from the future?
and there is no lane drop for (what will be signed as) I-95 northbound traffic from the eastbound Pearl Harbor Memorial Turnpike Extension (I have heard it called the Pennsylvania Extension informally) onto the mainline New Jersey Turnpike north of Exit 6. Unfortunately, the Google car has not been by there recently (or at all) but the lack of a lane drop ahead of the divide ("car" lanes left and "truck/bus" lanes right) is pretty obvious from the satellite images on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/place/40%C2%B005'50.8%22N+74%C2%B043'53.1%22W/@40.09745,-74.7325163,239m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d40.0974481!4d-74.7314215).Unless something changed since the satellite map you linked to was taken, the two lanes of I-95 enter the Turnpike from the right. First those two lanes merge into one. Then the remaining lane ends.
However, I was informed that the desire to maintain 3 through lanes on the Turnpike, in case they need to close the inner or outer roadway, was paramount, hence the 3=3+3 scenario that they have.
In what scenario does anyone envision extending the dual-dual south of exit 6?However, I was informed that the desire to maintain 3 through lanes on the Turnpike, in case they need to close the inner or outer roadway, was paramount, hence the 3=3+3 scenario that they have.
It also makes it easier to widen the dual-dual roadway south should there ever be the need.
The dual-dual is not moving farther south anytime soon, but it'll probably be 4 lanes each way instead of 3 within our lifetimes.In what scenario does anyone envision extending the dual-dual south of exit 6?However, I was informed that the desire to maintain 3 through lanes on the Turnpike, in case they need to close the inner or outer roadway, was paramount, hence the 3=3+3 scenario that they have.
It also makes it easier to widen the dual-dual roadway south should there ever be the need.
It's basically impossible to not go into fictional territory here. (So move this if you like). One scenario would be the expansion of I-295 in Delaware AND the Delaware Memorial bridge. But that's quite unlikely. Without expanding the bridge there's no need for the southern turnpike to exceed 8 lanes.
Another scenario would be another direct connection to Philadelphia like connecting the Turnpike to NJ 90. But even that probably is not be enough to warrant a southern dual-dual expansion. That would only likely require an expansion from 6 to 8 lanes between exit 6 and 4.
I think the accommodating of a dual-dual southern expansion is pretty much totally unneeded. I would find it more likely to expand the PA Turnpike connection to 8 lanes after the second Delaware River bridge is built.
Don't forget that it isn't that far south of the end of dual-dual that the Turnpike goes down to two lanes at Exit 34 (old Exit 4).For now. All new bridges are being built with an extra lane of width south of 4.
Don't forget that you t isn't that far south of the end of dual-dual that the Turnpike goes down to two lanes at Exit 34 (old Exit 4).
Don't forget that you t isn't that far south of the end of dual-dual that the Turnpike goes down to two lanes at Exit 34 (old Exit 4).
Don't forget that you t isn't that far south of the end of dual-dual that the Turnpike goes down to two lanes at Exit 34 (old Exit 4).
Huh? Are there plans to renumber the exits on the turnpike?
It's Exit 4. Don't confuse or get people all in a tizzy that they'll be changing the exit numbers anytime soon.
Don't forget that you t isn't that far south of the end of dual-dual that the Turnpike goes down to two lanes at Exit 34 (old Exit 4).
Huh? Are there plans to renumber the exits on the turnpike?
That's a little overstated. They have bigger fish to fry than that, is all.Don't forget that you t isn't that far south of the end of dual-dual that the Turnpike goes down to two lanes at Exit 34 (old Exit 4).
Huh? Are there plans to renumber the exits on the turnpike?
No. I think the Turnpike Authority will resist that until their last dying breath. That we have MUTCD-ish signage for the northern chunk of the roadway is move the earth impressive enough. I think just a bit of snark from someone wanting to see things changed.
Not that anyone was asking, but I was always of the opinion that the Turnpike should have split at the interchange instead of before it, similar to the "mixing bowls" in Newark and Teaneck. Split 3 lanes to a 2/2 configuration on the Pike, same on the Extension, then merge the 2/2 into 3 inner and 3 outer. 3+3 = 3+3, even if you get there with 2+2+2+2. However, I was informed that the desire to maintain 3 through lanes on the Turnpike, in case they need to close the inner or outer roadway, was paramount, hence the 3=3+3 scenario that they have. So given that necessity, it makes sense why they wouldn't do the merge you're proposing - because that would compromise the 3 through lanes.
I think this is a solution in search of a problem right now. Somehow the current setup has worked well all these years. If volume increases and weaving ever really becomes an issue, all they have to do is re-stripe the existing roadways.Not that anyone was asking, but I was always of the opinion that the Turnpike should have split at the interchange instead of before it, similar to the "mixing bowls" in Newark and Teaneck. Split 3 lanes to a 2/2 configuration on the Pike, same on the Extension, then merge the 2/2 into 3 inner and 3 outer. 3+3 = 3+3, even if you get there with 2+2+2+2. However, I was informed that the desire to maintain 3 through lanes on the Turnpike, in case they need to close the inner or outer roadway, was paramount, hence the 3=3+3 scenario that they have. So given that necessity, it makes sense why they wouldn't do the merge you're proposing - because that would compromise the 3 through lanes.
What you are saying makes perfect sense in that there should be room for traffic from the Pearl Harbor extension should flow seemlessly, especially given the fact that the northbound turnpike is going from 3 lanes to 3+3 lanes. Yet we understand the importance of providing for the contingency of closing one roadway for work.
I think one way that could have resolved this would be a design where the 3 lanes split into 3 + 3 as they currently do. Then, the 2 lanes from the Pearl Harbor Extension come in on the right (for each roadway). At this point, we have 5+5. The right lane merges in quickly to have 4+4 and then about 1 mile further north the left lane merges in to have 3+3. You provide the dedicated lane for I-95 traffic that you and others say is warranted and you also provide for a 3 lane Turnpike configuration.
The left lane of each roadway is really surplus except if one of the roadways is closed. I believe that the lane should be closed during normal operations. They can put in a red X lane similar to wahat they do on the Delaware Memorial Bridge (or on I-66 in VA near the Beltway).
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/10-Unbelievable-Complaints-of-Bad-Behavior-by-NJ-Toll-Collectors-474480103.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_NYBrand
Story posted by WNBC-TV (NBC) channel 4 of New York City about bad habits of New Jersey toll collectors.
@ JEFFANDNICOLE: True or not?
Being an old school driver, I still can't believe anyone, (especially a toll collector) actually drives around with no cash in their wallet.
There are some retail establishments that still only take cash.
Yes well all of this is very surprising to me. I use cash for purchases under $20 to $25 and credit card for higher amounts. I'm amazed that people will buy a $2.00 cup of coffee at Starbucks using an app or credit card instead of just paying cash. To me it's absurd, because it takes them longer to pay than it does me with cash. One time I was delayed several minutes when the woman ahead of me was trying to use an app or QR code or something and it wasn't working. Ridiculous!Every point matters. I use my credit card for everything I can to maximize its benefits.
Don't get me wrong though. I don't advocate using cash for paying tolls. I embraced E-Z Pass many years ago as the quickest, most efficient method. And I don't miss having to carry a shirt pocket full of bills for that purpose. Though I do sympathize with all those people who would be toll collectors who will now have one less job they can apply for in the coming AET era. Where are they going to work?
I'm amazed that people will buy a $2.00 cup of coffee at Starbucks using an app or credit card instead of just paying cash. To me it's absurd, because it takes them longer to pay than it does me with cash.
What amazes me is the fact that most people will protest the Rental Car daily usage fee of an AET Transponder, when that same person will spend hundreds on the latest smart or I Phone before their old one is gone.Because paying at cash booths had no fees. Why should someone have to pay extra fees just to pay a toll? Plus the rental car fees are clearly a cash grab - no way does it cost that much for them provide the service. Doesn't help that many states seem to have taken inspiration from the rental companies by charging people upfront or monthly fees to get a transponder.
I'm surprised to read all these complaints. In almost fifty years of driving I can't remember ever having had any problems with toll collectors anywhere. But then I was normally courteous to them and they were usually courteous to me.I remember I was taking the RFK bridge thought my window was down and I went to put my arm out the window and my hand hit the window and he saw it he both could not help but laugh it was too funny.. I would have been pissed if my money fell however lol
In recent years with E-Z Pass I've hardly had any contact with collectors anymore. Is it possible that the newest generation of collectors is less courteous than previous generations?
J&N, are there cameras at any or all NJTP toll booths that could help prove what did or didn't happen in these cases?
I agree the rental car companies are ridiculous for charging extra.
However, that people still will buy the new cell phones and spend money they do not need to spend just to feel like royalty are not doing it at the toll plaza.
Considering they give Disney $20 to park their car and over a thousand dollars to the Magic Kingdom just to say they went to Disney World should really be caring about a 5 to 10 buck daily fee. Really if you have money to burn at Disney and to get the latest Samsung Galaxy, you can afford to pay that and drive by the tolls to feel like royalty.
The fee for Sunpass transponder is crazy.. it should be a deposit. You can see the charges almost immediately online or on the app... The rental car companies are ripping you off.. just like with filling it with fuel after you turn it in. charging like $4/gallon when the price is 2.20/gallonWhat amazes me is the fact that most people will protest the Rental Car daily usage fee of an AET Transponder, when that same person will spend hundreds on the latest smart or I Phone before their old one is gone.Because paying at cash booths had no fees. Why should someone have to pay extra fees just to pay a toll? Plus the rental car fees are clearly a cash grab - no way does it cost that much for them provide the service. Doesn't help that many states seem to have taken inspiration from the rental companies by charging people upfront or monthly fees to get a transponder.
The fee to get your own SunPass is something like $20 for the hard case or $5 for the sticker. Not worth it unless you travel in Florida and use toll roads regularly. Heck, even if you do, I'd consider those fees to be illegitimate. Why should you have to pay a one-time fee when there were no fees of any kind, one-time or recurring, for cash tolls? It's highway robbery. Thankfully the Thruway E-ZPass is fee free, as it should be.But you can't get it from out of state. At least not by mail. Can you get it free in person if you fly to New York and need to travel?
Checking out some of the signage (via Google Maps) of the Turnpike extension WB at the US 130 exit. Most interesting is that there's a sign pointing towards I-295 at this exit. Is I-295 signed much anywhere else on the Turnpike (other than at the south end)?You're right about 295. Philadelphia makes sense here given the next two interchanges on 276.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0979631,-74.7815047,3a,75y,291.49h,90.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX9VODDRLBeIDtut9miKv-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's also interesting to note that "Philadelphia" is not covered up on the BGS like it is on most of the signs on the mainline (along with the I-95 shields).
Is I-295 signed much anywhere else on the Turnpike (other than at the south end)?Not on the Turnpike itself, but at the exits.
They'll tell you where it is...after you pay that toll.Similar is also true for the US 130 interchange (aka Exit 6A) that Roadwarriors79 posted; it's located beyond the connector toll plaza.
But US 130 is signed on the main line in the image posted above. And I don't think 295 is signed approaching the terminus either. This is the first assembly to mention I-295:They'll tell you where it is...after you pay that toll.Similar is also true for the US 130 interchange (aka Exit 6A) that Roadwarriors79 posted; it's located beyond the connector toll plaza.
Most interesting is that there's a sign pointing towards I-295 at this exit.That *is* interesting. I've never noticed it. More oddly, it's hardly the best place to switch to 295, as it'll cost you about 10 minutes. If anything, 295 should be signed going Eastbound on the extension, where it is plausibly a faster route. Of course, if they did that, NJTA would lose all the revenue from PA Turnpike traffic going south. Even the bridge is toll free in that direction now.
But US 130 is signed on the main line in the image posted above. And I don't think 295 is signed approaching the terminus either. This is the first assembly to mention I-295:They'll tell you where it is...after you pay that toll.Similar is also true for the US 130 interchange (aka Exit 6A) that Roadwarriors79 posted; it's located beyond the connector toll plaza.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6794833,-75.4895909,3a,37.5y,271.11h,104.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so7ZDEPTbLFI8uEi7qBa9OQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
It's already *on* 295. I don't know who erected it, given no black backgrounds it's either NJTA or DRBA, but the "Entering Twp of Pennsville" sign in the background is definitely NJDOT. Even further ahead is an "NJTP Mile 0" sign to confuse things further.
Now I'm wondering who controls that portion of Southbound roadway. Obviously the split Northbound happens at a different location place than the merge Southbound. The NJTP MM 0 painted on the US 40 bridge seems to have happened some time between 2007 and 2012. The NJTA MM 0.2 was replaced by NJDOT's I-295 MM 1.2 in 2016 (an MM 1.1 was also installed). The NJDOT "Entering Twp of Pennsville" sign has been there as far back as GSV has data. But the overheads are probably DRBA?
There's quite a bit of shared jurisdictional responsibility in that area. South/West of 49/130 to the bridge it's all DRPA, so that's easy. North/East of that area though it's a bit hard to tell, as there's DRPA signage, NJDOT signage (including the Big Blue Food signage), and NJ Turnpike style stripes. When I worked the snowplows down that way, NJDOT plowed the road there.
Are all the signing contracts done? A FB poster said this sign was still around. I thought I saw this was supposed to be removed.They're doing the Extension separately once the Skyway reopens, so it'll probably disappear then.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4291/35927142696_39abc04ffc_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WJKZQL)
Here's an Exit 5 (New Jersey Turnpike) oddity.
Is Exit 5 (signed Burlington and Mount Holly with no route numbers) the only one where the NJTA does not post a route number for the intersecting road?
Even though the intersecting road is CR541?
The Turnpike intersects (and signs) at least one other county road, CR540 on the southbound side south of the southern (Exit 1) mainline toll plaza.
And there are plenty of county routes signed along the Garden State Parkway.
Here's an Exit 5 (New Jersey Turnpike) oddity.
Is Exit 5 (signed Burlington and Mount Holly with no route numbers) the only one where the NJTA does not post a route number for the intersecting road?
Even though the intersecting road is CR541?
The Turnpike intersects (and signs) at least one other county road, CR540 on the southbound side south of the southern (Exit 1) mainline toll plaza.
And there are plenty of county routes signed along the Garden State Parkway.
Anymore, I believe so, with the exception of Exits 12 & 14B. However, it's by default as there's no route number associated with the streets.
Exit 8A: No route number until the Dual-Dual construction.
Exit 14A: Former signage did not have NJ 440 listed. With the new MUTCD signage it is now shown.
Even though the NJTA (NJ Turnpike) merged with the NJHA (GS Parkway) 15 years ago, the NJTA has allowed the Parkway to maintain most of its distinguishing features that separate it from the Turnpike. The striping is 'normal' (vs the Turnpike extra-long striping), and even though the new electronic display gantries were built to hold both VMSs and VSLSs, the GSP continues to use standard, static speed limit signage. This carries over to the exit signage, which has always conformed (for the most part) to MUTCD standards, and generally will list the intersecting route number, regardless of the classification of roadway.
What about Exit 5 and CR 541? Is it still unsigned?reread the quoted post.
Sorry, I thought it was someone who forgot the Exit 5 signs to make a simple point. The quotes are in purple so I did not catch it easily.What about Exit 5 and CR 541? Is it still unsigned?reread the quoted post.
NJTA's design documents when they flipped to MUTCD specified that only 500 series county routes be posted. Exit 12 had CR-602 signed after the toll plaza when they rebuild the interchange, but the recent sign replacements (why? the ones that were there weren't that old!) wiped that out. The GSP widening project wiped out what little 600 series route signing that was on the GSP.I'm the one who wrote it. I should remember! Whoops. I guess the next redesigns on the Turnpike will include it, but the policy up through the recent widening was to exclude.
Turnpike policy is to not include county routes. Parkway policy is to. That's it.
As far as NJ 81, I wouldn't be surprised if the next time signs are replaced, it makes an appearance, but that would take the next sign designer knowing it exists.
Turnpike policy is to not include county routes. Parkway policy is to. That's it.
600 routes were never really used as well as Bergen and Monmouth's single and double digit county routes on most nJ freeways. In fact rarely are they used from any state highway. I-295 did add them once the stretch where it is concurrent with US 130 back in the mid 80's which was a first and seemed odd at the time.
I do know that I-78's exit for the former CR 527 SPUR in Warren, was changed over to a 600 series shield when NJ cut back on the SPUR signed 500 series designation. Its the only one that was on I-78 and the one of few in North Jersey. I think I-287 in Bloomingdale uses them for signing the Paterson- Hamburg Turnpike but that is the only other instance I know of.
Under MUTCD anyway Exit 26 should then be like it used to back in the 70's which just read Lamington - North Branch or just use Rattlesnake- Lamington Road only.
Exit 36 should be Basking Ridge and Warrenville (yes NJDOT replaced it with Warren cause the township where it sits, but Warrenville is the major intersection where CR 527 is and fully developed), or King George Road.
NJDOT likes to use routes (or names) with control cities even in urban areas. NJ 18 at NJ 27 uses Highland Park- Princeton instead of Albany St- Raritan Avenue as urban signing should really be.
The NJTA still does it on the Parkway like for Exit 143C. TO NJ 124 Irvington instead of Madison Avenue- Springfield Avenue. Irvington should be on a supplemental as most states would do that. In fact before Exit 144 it should have a sign "Irvington Next 2 Exits" as 144 serves part of Irvington and is in Irvington proper at that point.
It was worse before as old signs had 144 signed as South Orange Avenue- Vailsurg Area- South Orange instead of just the street name of South Orange Avenue.
Not exactly. With the exception of what appears to be a grandfathered Double Trouble Road at southbound Exit 80, the Parkway only does 500 routes. No 600.
So when is the NJTA going to sign I-95 along more of the Turnpike? Are they waiting until August?The newer sign replacements have I-95 shields as far south as Exit 9 (US 1/NJ 18). South of there; it's still inconsistent, some of the ramp signs beyond the toll booths have them (Exits 8A & 8) while some of them don't (Exits 7A, 7 & 6).
So when is the NJTA going to sign I-95 along more of the Turnpike? Are they waiting until August?The newer sign replacements have I-95 shields as far south as Exit 9 (US 1/NJ 18). South of there; it's still inconsistent, some of the ramp signs beyond the toll booths have them (Exits 8A & 8) while some of them don't (Exits 7A, 7 & 6).
I've said such before & I'll state it again; IMHO there's no reason/excuse for NJTA to wait until August to sign I-95 along the Turnpike north of Exit 7A (I-195). Such could've been done as far back as the early 1990s when I-195 was extended to the then-just-northern piece of I-295.
I think the NJTA has a natural resistance to thinking of themselves as part of a larger highway system. They kind of of exist in their own little NJ Turnpike World or they did for many years anyway. Ya' know, first there is the premier New Jersey Turnpike, and then there's all the other roads. LOLI'm not sure what's so "LOL" about this. The NJTA invented many of the current singing and marking standards, along with CalTrans. Those organizations have always felt they had senior status because even the Feds are their junior.
Is Mothers' Day still the busiest day of the year on the Turnpike??Busiest day from April 2013 to April 2014 was April 17, 2014. Second highest was the next weekend, April 24. These are not Mothers' Day.
It always seemed the Sunday after Thanksgiving was one of the busiest days on the highway.Well, what's busiest? Peak hour, or 24 hours? I only looked at the total of 24 hours. Peak hour would be similar on any day with congestion, since that means you've hit roadway capacity. Are you only looking on the southern Turnpike, or the entire roadway? North, south, or both? I considered the total of all trips in both directions.
It always seemed the Sunday after Thanksgiving was one of the busiest days on the highway.Well, what's busiest? Peak hour, or 24 hours? I only looked at the total of 24 hours. Peak hour would be similar on any day with congestion, since that means you've hit roadway capacity. Are you only looking on the southern Turnpike, or the entire roadway? North, south, or both? I considered the total of all trips in both directions.
Whatever makes my answer right is the time period I was considering! Lol
Now, I know that what may 'seem' like a busy day may be not truly the busiest day. Motorists on the Sunday after Thanksgiving aren't regular travelers on the Turnpike. They may be driving slower. They may be hogging the left lane. They may slow down because they're confused and looking for their next exit, even though they're on a stretch of highway that for 14 miles doesn't have a single exit (Between 2 and 3). When they get to the toll plaza, they have no clue what they're doing or what they're paying, further increasing traffic congestion.
I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
It's a horrible day to drive. I've never driven it that day specifically, but it is often congestion in numerous places on that particular Sunday. Heck, even normal driving days there will be the occasional slowdown below 70 just because of normal traffic variations.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
It's a horrible day to drive. I've never driven it that day specifically, but it is often congestion in numerous places on that particular Sunday. Heck, even normal driving days there will be the occasional slowdown below 70 just because of normal traffic variations.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
How horrible? What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?
70 mph. :biggrin:How horrible? What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?It's a horrible day to drive. I've never driven it that day specifically, but it is often congestion in numerous places on that particular Sunday. Heck, even normal driving days there will be the occasional slowdown below 70 just because of normal traffic variations.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
No one keeps a statistic like that.It's a horrible day to drive. I've never driven it that day specifically, but it is often congestion in numerous places on that particular Sunday. Heck, even normal driving days there will be the occasional slowdown below 70 just because of normal traffic variations.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
How horrible? What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?
When I am on a long haul trip, e.g. Cherry Hill NJ to LaGrange IL, I do calculate my avarage speed. I definitely try to maintain a 60 mph average, including stops. It isn't easy although I may average over 70 mph for each individual driving stint.I more meant in terms of highway agencies and recoverable data. If you traveled it yourself, there's a nonzero chance.
Even during a one stint trip to the Hudson Valley I calculate my average speed frequently.
But then I am an engineer.
No one keeps a statistic like that.How horrible? What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?It's a horrible day to drive. I've never driven it that day specifically, but it is often congestion in numerous places on that particular Sunday. Heck, even normal driving days there will be the occasional slowdown below 70 just because of normal traffic variations.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
That's a statistic.
Well, I know there was one trip from home here in NJ to Pittsburgh that took 5 hours on the nose, but it was an uneventful Sunday afternoon. Driving at night, an accident, construction, getting gas, getting food, etc will all factor in to the overall speed. And very few people even keep the figures you're looking for, especially 6 months after the fact.
Stuff happens. Even two people driving on the same day can have drastically different times if an accident occurs between them.
Qguy already gave you a description about his travels. But you seem deadset that traffic isn't that bad in rural PA on one of the busiest travel weekends of the year because people don't write down their travel history and calculations.
I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Slowdowns? Yeah, you could say that. It was bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go along the entire I-70 concurrency. I crawled. It was actually worse than rush hour on the Schuylkill Expressway.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
I thought for sure there was an accident somewhere that I would come up to that was causing the congestion but no. Shear volume.
This was 1992 or thereabout.
Slowdowns? Yeah, you could say that. It was bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go along the entire I-70 concurrency. I crawled. It was actually worse than rush hour on the Schuylkill Expressway.I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.How congested was it? Any actual slowdowns below the speed limit?
Never. Again. Ever. :ded:
I thought for sure there was an accident somewhere that I would come up to that was causing the congestion but no. Shear volume.
This was 1992 or thereabout.
There could have been a congestion aftermath of an accident that had been cleared away by the time you got there (I have wondered in similar situations I have been in), but that is 86 miles of highway, so as you say the prime culprit would have been sheer volume.
Shear volume.
Shear volume.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg)
American Dream is still neither finished nor open. This month marks eleven years since the project was begun.
Florida is the same. We deal with sprawl over an outdated network constantly.American Dream is still neither finished nor open. This month marks eleven years since the project was begun.
Waking this post up from Page 47...
NJ.com reports on the work going on at the American Dream project, which used to be the Xanadu project, seen from the NJ Turnpike in the Meadowlands.
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2018/05/american_dream_megamall_opening_next_year.html
Much of the project should be completed by Spring of 2019, after first proposed in 2003 (the retail landscape has changed dramatically since then). An indoor waterpark probably won't open until Fall of 2019.
As for traffic, East Rutherford's Mayor James Cassella has said "he's not too concerned about traffic from the megamall clogging his streets -- even out-of-towners who use GPS to avoid slow downs. 'Being between New York City and Philadelphia, I think there are very few spots in New Jersey you could (drive to) without having a major traffic jam somewhere,' Cassella said.".
The statement is typical NJ: Drivers are gonna be stuck in congestion, and they're not going to build a road network that'll completely eliminate it.
Does the NJTA host traffic count data anywhere? I can't seem to find it from a simple Google search. NJDOT's traffic count data only shows NJDOT roads and so excludes the Turnpike, GSP, etc.
Shear volume.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg)
I have three questions:
1. Are the truck lane restrictions in the outer roadway ever enforced, particularly between Exits 11 and 14?
2. Are the HOV lane restrictions ever enforced?
3. Is "Keep Right Except To Pass" ever enforced anywhere on the Turnpike?
I meant for trucks usuing the outer roadway. It seems to be more of a problem between Exits 11 and 14 where there is that fourth, HOV, lane.
Regarding the HOV lane restrictions themselves, I assume that the exemptions for alternatively fueled cars and EVs make enforcement more difficult.
I have three questions:
1. Are the truck lane restrictions in the outer roadway ever enforced, particularly between Exits 11 and 14?
2. Are the HOV lane restrictions ever enforced?
3. Is "Keep Right Except To Pass" ever enforced anywhere on the Turnpike?
I haven't been on the NJ Tpke recently as I had to cut down on my roadgeeking adventures due to $.....I remember 3 button copy signs that survived the sign replacement project,You're only going to see the Rules and Regulations type signs in button copy on the Turnpike. Anything overhead is dead.
one was the I-280 "The Oranges" BGS just past the toll plaza of Exit 15W
at the same interchange past the toll plaza going towards the NJ Tpke was a "Speed Checked by Radar" sign
and lastly, there was a "you have left the NJ Tpke obey speed laws" at the US-46 northbound exit
Are those still around?
It seems like button copy in general is being replaced in NJ as a whole.
So I drove through the toll plaza at Exit 10, and they added the signs above each booth which can be changed from EZ-Pass only to cash/EZ-Pass (instead of having the EZ-Pass only signs over the booths which originally had it, back in the days when you HAD to use an EZ-Pass lane). This has happened at other places, especially places with booths that were recently rebuilt, such as Exit 12 and Exit 8. Recently, they changed the cash lanes signs. Instead of saying CASH/EZ-Pass (top in white on green, bottom in white on purple), it instead is a green sign with the M4-17 symbol from the MUTCD (to indicate an "attended" lane) and the words Full Service. I also noticed the approach signage to the Raritan tolls on the Parkway is using the wording "Full Service" as well. I feel like someone at the NJTA thinks people will know what that means even though many will likely NOT know what that means. The proper MUTCD way of signing those lanes is "Cash-Change-Receipts", so I feel like the previous signs made more sense.
So I drove through the toll plaza at Exit 10, and they added the signs above each booth which can be changed from EZ-Pass only to cash/EZ-Pass (instead of having the EZ-Pass only signs over the booths which originally had it, back in the days when you HAD to use an EZ-Pass lane). This has happened at other places, especially places with booths that were recently rebuilt, such as Exit 12 and Exit 8. Recently, they changed the cash lanes signs. Instead of saying CASH/EZ-Pass (top in white on green, bottom in white on purple), it instead is a green sign with the M4-17 symbol from the MUTCD (to indicate an "attended" lane) and the words Full Service. I also noticed the approach signage to the Raritan tolls on the Parkway is using the wording "Full Service" as well. I feel like someone at the NJTA thinks people will know what that means even though many will likely NOT know what that means. The proper MUTCD way of signing those lanes is "Cash-Change-Receipts", so I feel like the previous signs made more sense.
Finally had a chance to grab a picture of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PuOKbQe.jpg?1)
Exit 13 has the same signs. I'm assuming we'll start seeing them in more toll plazas as time goes on.
So I drove through the toll plaza at Exit 10, and they added the signs above each booth which can be changed from EZ-Pass only to cash/EZ-Pass (instead of having the EZ-Pass only signs over the booths which originally had it, back in the days when you HAD to use an EZ-Pass lane). This has happened at other places, especially places with booths that were recently rebuilt, such as Exit 12 and Exit 8. Recently, they changed the cash lanes signs. Instead of saying CASH/EZ-Pass (top in white on green, bottom in white on purple), it instead is a green sign with the M4-17 symbol from the MUTCD (to indicate an "attended" lane) and the words Full Service. I also noticed the approach signage to the Raritan tolls on the Parkway is using the wording "Full Service" as well. I feel like someone at the NJTA thinks people will know what that means even though many will likely NOT know what that means. The proper MUTCD way of signing those lanes is "Cash-Change-Receipts", so I feel like the previous signs made more sense.
Finally had a chance to grab a picture of this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PuOKbQe.jpg?1)
Exit 13 has the same signs. I'm assuming we'll start seeing them in more toll plazas as time goes on.
Exit 7 has then as well.
The sign in the photo is the Exit 10 plaza.
Does the NJTA have any plans to replace the variable message signage near the north end of the Turnpike? It looks like all the other signs are being replaced or have been replaced to be more MUTCD compliant.
Does the NJTA have any plans to replace the variable message signage near the north end of the Turnpike? It looks like all the other signs are being replaced or have been replaced to be more MUTCD compliant.
Does the NJTA have any plans to replace the variable message signage near the north end of the Turnpike? It looks like all the other signs are being replaced or have been replaced to be more MUTCD compliant.
Are these signs south of Exits 18E/W, or in the vicinity of I-80/95 north of 18E/W?
Is this still there? At the US-46 off-ramp split NB.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/44076270561_c29d82255d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)NJ Tpke You Have Left (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)
Is this still there? At the US-46 off-ramp split NB.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/44076270561_c29d82255d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)NJ Tpke You Have Left (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)
Is this still there? At the US-46 off-ramp split NB.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/44076270561_c29d82255d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)NJ Tpke You Have Left (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)
I believe most exits still have this signage.
Does the NJTA have any plans to replace the variable message signage near the north end of the Turnpike? It looks like all the other signs are being replaced or have been replaced to be more MUTCD compliant.
Are these signs south of Exits 18E/W, or in the vicinity of I-80/95 north of 18E/W?
Is this still there? At the US-46 off-ramp split NB.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/44076270561_c29d82255d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)NJ Tpke You Have Left (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)
I believe most exits still have this signage.
3, 4, 8, 10, and 17 don't appear to have one.
Is this still there? At the US-46 off-ramp split NB.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/44076270561_c29d82255d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)NJ Tpke You Have Left (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)
I believe most exits still have this signage.
Is this still there? At the US-46 off-ramp split NB.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/44076270561_c29d82255d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)NJ Tpke You Have Left (https://flic.kr/p/2a9SpDk)
I believe most exits still have this signage.
Correct I'm still new to NJ but the exit for where the Samsung HQ is I saw that sign I was going to take a picture but it's was in the middle of a curve but yes it's still standing.
Did anyone see this video?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6110313/Dramatic-moment-road-rage-attack-leads-tractor-trailer-flipping-New-Jersey-highway.html?ito=video_player_click#comments
1, 6, 16E/18E, 18W are freeway connections that continue on and do not have them as most of the roadways are under Turnpike Authority control beyond the toll plazas.
It was follow "(shield)" to Delaware Turnpike. Delaware had one on NB I-95 before the 295 split only with a NJT trailblazer saying Follow "NJ Turnpike Shield" to NJ Turnpike.(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/scbbt.jpg)
Also there were CBBT shields along the NJ Turnpike SB south of Exit 2 stating to use US 13 south beneath the shield in a triangle. Do not know if they are still around and who actually designed them either.
Also there were CBBT shields along the NJ Turnpike SB south of Exit 2 stating to use US 13 south beneath the shield in a triangle. Do not know if they are still around and who actually designed them either.
That is the one I just posted.Also there were CBBT shields along the NJ Turnpike SB south of Exit 2 stating to use US 13 south beneath the shield in a triangle. Do not know if they are still around and who actually designed them either.
I want to say there was a single CBBT on the Turnpike South. Hasn't been there for quite a number of years now.
That is the one I just posted.Also there were CBBT shields along the NJ Turnpike SB south of Exit 2 stating to use US 13 south beneath the shield in a triangle. Do not know if they are still around and who actually designed them either.
I want to say there was a single CBBT on the Turnpike South. Hasn't been there for quite a number of years now.
It may have been plural at some point. I only photographed the one with the triangle below, but I remember there being another one without the triangle. All gone now to my knowledge. There could have been others the farther back you go.That is the one I just posted.Also there were CBBT shields along the NJ Turnpike SB south of Exit 2 stating to use US 13 south beneath the shield in a triangle. Do not know if they are still around and who actually designed them either.
I want to say there was a single CBBT on the Turnpike South. Hasn't been there for quite a number of years now.
Correct. I was trying to hint it wasn't plural, as roadman65 indicated.
The existing structure will be demolished and a new one built in its place under agreements announced last year with service area contractors HMS Host and Sunoco. The work is being done at no cost to taxpayers or toll payers.
Plans call for the new Thomas Edison facility to include Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Pret, Starbucks, Auntie Anne’s, Z Mart, and a Sunoco convenience store.
The project to replace the first service area under the agreement the Turnpike Authority signed with HMS Host last year has begun.That service area always seems mobbed - unlike the newly replaced Grover Cleveland noted above across the highway. That's going to be a problem, and will probably put a much heavier load on the Parkway's nearby Cheesequake plaza which I usually prefer to stop at. While dated, these plazas (like the Monmouth rest area on the Parkway also being replaced) function just fine as-is. I always thought it odd at the Edison that they have the rest stop convenience store immediately adjacent to the gas station's convenience store just a couple of steps down along the hall (which was usually less crowded anyway as it was not obvious from the inside).
ADVISORY: Thomas Edison Service Area on the New Jersey Turnpike to close for construction (https://www.njta.com/newsroom/2017/2018-1/thomas-edison-service-area-to-close)QuoteThe existing structure will be demolished and a new one built in its place under agreements announced last year with service area contractors HMS Host and Sunoco. The work is being done at no cost to taxpayers or toll payers.QuotePlans call for the new Thomas Edison facility to include Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Pret, Starbucks, Auntie Anne’s, Z Mart, and a Sunoco convenience store.
Haven't seen any plans for the new area, but I'm assuming it will be similar to it's mate across the road, the Grover Cleveland Service Area.
Also interesting that they're tearing the whole structure down, rather than just gutting and renovating it. All of the service areas on the Turnpike were rebuilt in the late 90s/early 2000s, so I would assume the structure itself would still be in good shape. They had to tear down the Grover Cleveland one due to the damage it sustained from Hurricane Sandy, but Edison did OK.
So no Nathan’s in the new service areas? I always get those wedge French fries with the little red fork and all the toppings when I drive through New Jersey, I’m gonna miss that tradition.Likewise. This made me hungry :popcorn:
The project to replace the first service area under the agreement the Turnpike Authority signed with HMS Host last year has begun.
ADVISORY: Thomas Edison Service Area on the New Jersey Turnpike to close for construction (https://www.njta.com/newsroom/2017/2018-1/thomas-edison-service-area-to-close)QuoteThe existing structure will be demolished and a new one built in its place under agreements announced last year with service area contractors HMS Host and Sunoco. The work is being done at no cost to taxpayers or toll payers.QuotePlans call for the new Thomas Edison facility to include Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Pret, Starbucks, Auntie Anne’s, Z Mart, and a Sunoco convenience store.
Haven't seen any plans for the new area, but I'm assuming it will be similar to it's mate across the road, the Grover Cleveland Service Area.
Also interesting that they're tearing the whole structure down, rather than just gutting and renovating it. All of the service areas on the Turnpike were rebuilt in the late 90s/early 2000s, so I would assume the structure itself would still be in good shape. They had to tear down the Grover Cleveland one due to the damage it sustained from Hurricane Sandy, but Edison did OK.
Buried deep in the NJTA meeting minutes for last month: The Turnpike & Parkway will continue allowing motorists an additional 10% discount for 'green' vehicles that get at least 45 mpg. The agreement calls for an extension of the current program thru November, 2023. The program is tag specific, and they'll provide you with a green tag for the program. The trips must be taken off-peak, and the discount is taken on top of the existing off-peak rate.
I'm very sure that most people that are eligible for this have no idea the plan exists.
https://www.njta.com/media/4026/bm-min_2018-8-21.pdf; starts on PDF page 32. PDF Page 41 shows the total amount the NJTA "lost" as a result of the discount. For an entire year on both highways, it totaled just $57,708, averaging out to $158 per day on both roadways in total
The project to replace the first service area under the agreement the Turnpike Authority signed with HMS Host last year has begun.Are these going to to be one of the few Sunoco convenince stores that won't be owned by 7-Eleven?
ADVISORY: Thomas Edison Service Area on the New Jersey Turnpike to close for construction (https://www.njta.com/newsroom/2017/2018-1/thomas-edison-service-area-to-close)QuoteThe existing structure will be demolished and a new one built in its place under agreements announced last year with service area contractors HMS Host and Sunoco. The work is being done at no cost to taxpayers or toll payers.QuotePlans call for the new Thomas Edison facility to include Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Pret, Starbucks, Auntie Anne’s, Z Mart, and a Sunoco convenience store.
Haven't seen any plans for the new area, but I'm assuming it will be similar to it's mate across the road, the Grover Cleveland Service Area.
Buried deep in the NJTA meeting minutes for last month: The Turnpike & Parkway will continue allowing motorists an additional 10% discount for 'green' vehicles that get at least 45 mpg. The agreement calls for an extension of the current program thru November, 2023. The program is tag specific, and they'll provide you with a green tag for the program. The trips must be taken off-peak, and the discount is taken on top of the existing off-peak rate.
I'm very sure that most people that are eligible for this have no idea the plan exists.
https://www.njta.com/media/4026/bm-min_2018-8-21.pdf; starts on PDF page 32. PDF Page 41 shows the total amount the NJTA "lost" as a result of the discount. For an entire year on both highways, it totaled just $57,708, averaging out to $158 per day on both roadways in total
Buried deep in the NJTA meeting minutes for last month: The Turnpike & Parkway will continue allowing motorists an additional 10% discount for 'green' vehicles that get at least 45 mpg. The agreement calls for an extension of the current program thru November, 2023. The program is tag specific, and they'll provide you with a green tag for the program. The trips must be taken off-peak, and the discount is taken on top of the existing off-peak rate.
I'm very sure that most people that are eligible for this have no idea the plan exists.
https://www.njta.com/media/4026/bm-min_2018-8-21.pdf; starts on PDF page 32. PDF Page 41 shows the total amount the NJTA "lost" as a result of the discount. For an entire year on both highways, it totaled just $57,708, averaging out to $158 per day on both roadways in total
The kicker on this plan is the NJTA's definition of "peak". It is not only rush hours but also weekends. I think that very few people could benefit from the plan.
Also, the way NJ EZPass works, you can only sign up for one discount plan. Even if I was eligible for this plan I think that the DRPA senior rate plan would be more bneficial.
Finally, what is a "green tag"?
So I was driving back from checking out the new PA Turnpike/95 ramps yesterday, and I remembered something. Right around when the NJTA started the 6-9 dualization, when they had first moved the split north of 8A to accommodate construction, there were some new signs that went up that basically were the full color VMS's set on standard NJTA gantries with standard green panels surrounding them. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this supposed to be some sort of crossover option between the inner and outer roadways going northbound? So if they had to close one of the roadways for a crash, roadwork, etc., they could route traffic along better and not have to have the entire roadway closed from one end to the other? Does anyone know what happened to these plans?
So I was driving back from checking out the new PA Turnpike/95 ramps yesterday, and I remembered something. Right around when the NJTA started the 6-9 dualization, when they had first moved the split north of 8A to accommodate construction, there were some new signs that went up that basically were the full color VMS's set on standard NJTA gantries with standard green panels surrounding them. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this supposed to be some sort of crossover option between the inner and outer roadways going northbound? So if they had to close one of the roadways for a crash, roadwork, etc., they could route traffic along better and not have to have the entire roadway closed from one end to the other? Does anyone know what happened to these plans?
There was a temporary diverge in that area during construction, but there's never been a permanent crossover option midway.
Personally, there should be, especially considering the length of the dual-dual roadways now. The only legal way to do it is by going thru a service plaza; an option the Turnpike doesn't acknowledge for safety reasons.
So I was driving back from checking out the new PA Turnpike/95 ramps yesterday, and I remembered something. Right around when the NJTA started the 6-9 dualization, when they had first moved the split north of 8A to accommodate construction, there were some new signs that went up that basically were the full color VMS's set on standard NJTA gantries with standard green panels surrounding them. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this supposed to be some sort of crossover option between the inner and outer roadways going northbound? So if they had to close one of the roadways for a crash, roadwork, etc., they could route traffic along better and not have to have the entire roadway closed from one end to the other? Does anyone know what happened to these plans?
There was a temporary diverge in that area during construction, but there's never been a permanent crossover option midway.
Personally, there should be, especially considering the length of the dual-dual roadways now. The only legal way to do it is by going thru a service plaza; an option the Turnpike doesn't acknowledge for safety reasons.
I really thought I remember reading that they were planning a crossover option to make things more flexible for traffic control operations.
They were looking into it but nothing has been put into design at this time.So I was driving back from checking out the new PA Turnpike/95 ramps yesterday, and I remembered something. Right around when the NJTA started the 6-9 dualization, when they had first moved the split north of 8A to accommodate construction, there were some new signs that went up that basically were the full color VMS's set on standard NJTA gantries with standard green panels surrounding them. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't this supposed to be some sort of crossover option between the inner and outer roadways going northbound? So if they had to close one of the roadways for a crash, roadwork, etc., they could route traffic along better and not have to have the entire roadway closed from one end to the other? Does anyone know what happened to these plans?
There was a temporary diverge in that area during construction, but there's never been a permanent crossover option midway.
Personally, there should be, especially considering the length of the dual-dual roadways now. The only legal way to do it is by going thru a service plaza; an option the Turnpike doesn't acknowledge for safety reasons.
I really thought I remember reading that they were planning a crossover option to make things more flexible for traffic control operations.
Does anyone plan on taking pictures of turnpike signs north of exit 6 indicating the I-95 shields revealed, since the PA Turnpike interchange project completion?
Does anyone plan on taking pictures of turnpike signs north of exit 6 indicating the I-95 shields revealed, since the PA Turnpike interchange project completion?
I drove through there Sunday night and did not see any.
I do not think that the NJTA is that enthusiastic about embracing their I-95 identity as is the PTC. Has anything even been announced about renumbering of exits on their portion of I-95?
I'm surprised NJTA doesn't want those crossovers. You'd think they'd want that flexibility in traffic movement. NJDOT has them in some places with dual roadways. I know of one on I-80 just east of the Garden State Parkway.I would say it's more a matter of priority. Crossovers cost a lot of money however you build them. Bridges need to be replaced in the next few years. Big ones.
Does anyone plan on taking pictures of turnpike signs north of exit 6 indicating the I-95 shields revealed, since the PA Turnpike interchange project completion?See pages 75 & 77 of this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.1900) for pics of the southbound outer/truck lane corridor.
I'm surprised NJTA doesn't want those crossovers. You'd think they'd want that flexibility in traffic movement. NJDOT has them in some places with dual roadways. I know of one on I-80 just east of the Garden State Parkway.I would say it's more a matter of priority. Crossovers cost a lot of money however you build them. Bridges need to be replaced in the next few years. Big ones.
I'm surprised NJTA doesn't want those crossovers. You'd think they'd want that flexibility in traffic movement. NJDOT has them in some places with dual roadways. I know of one on I-80 just east of the Garden State Parkway.I would say it's more a matter of priority. Crossovers cost a lot of money however you build them. Bridges need to be replaced in the next few years. Big ones.
Which is why I'm surprised that they didn't try to get one built in as part of the expansion project when they had the money for it.
I'm surprised NJTA doesn't want those crossovers. You'd think they'd want that flexibility in traffic movement. NJDOT has them in some places with dual roadways. I know of one on I-80 just east of the Garden State Parkway.I would say it's more a matter of priority. Crossovers cost a lot of money however you build them. Bridges need to be replaced in the next few years. Big ones.
Which is why I'm surprised that they didn't try to get one built in as part of the expansion project when they had the money for it.
Although, money went elsewhere to complete other projects, as well as additional work in the 6-9 area that wasn't originally planned for the project. They took out the PA Turnpike extension to the NJ Turnpike Inner Roadway ramp at Interchange 6 to save some money as well.
A "cheap" option would've been to do a crossover without mandatory right lane access (in other words, the outer roadway's access point would be from/to the left lane). This option may have been considered if the crossover would only be utilized for emergencies (ie: closures due to accidents/incidents/construction which require a many-hour roadway closure). A crossover fully to/from the right lane would be much more costly, but could be used for all traffic at any time.
I'm surprised NJTA doesn't want those crossovers. You'd think they'd want that flexibility in traffic movement. NJDOT has them in some places with dual roadways. I know of one on I-80 just east of the Garden State Parkway.I would say it's more a matter of priority. Crossovers cost a lot of money however you build them. Bridges need to be replaced in the next few years. Big ones.
Which is why I'm surprised that they didn't try to get one built in as part of the expansion project when they had the money for it.
Although, money went elsewhere to complete other projects, as well as additional work in the 6-9 area that wasn't originally planned for the project. They took out the PA Turnpike extension to the NJ Turnpike Inner Roadway ramp at Interchange 6 to save some money as well.
A "cheap" option would've been to do a crossover without mandatory right lane access (in other words, the outer roadway's access point would be from/to the left lane). This option may have been considered if the crossover would only be utilized for emergencies (ie: closures due to accidents/incidents/construction which require a many-hour roadway closure). A crossover fully to/from the right lane would be much more costly, but could be used for all traffic at any time.
Which ramp to the inner roadway? There are ramps to both roadways heading northbound. It made no sense to have one southbound as the dual roadways end just beyond the exit. Unless there was a strong push for further dualization further down the Turnpike (and I don't see how traffic numbers would come close to showing a need for it), it would have been a waste to have a second ramp to the southbound main roadway.
When toll rates were first established, I want to say that south of Exit 9 the rate was 1 cent per mile and north of 9 it was 3 cents per mile. Don't quote me on those exact rates, but whatever the rate was there was a higher price per mile up north vs. down south.Add to that: There is a minimum rate you will pay for using the Turnpike. It may be up to 90 cents now.
There is also an overall higher price going just one exit vs. going further than one exit.
Sometimes the rates don't make complete sense either, so there's that too.
A motorist getting off at Exit 10 would expect to pay different tolls depending upon whether they had gotten on the Turnpike at Exit 4, 7, or 7A. Likewise for getting off at Exit 11. However, one would expect that the difference between the tolls paid at these two exits for any two given entrance points would be the same. In other words, as the difference in the tolls between Exit 4 and Exit 10 and between Exit 4 and Exit 11 is 35¢, I would expect the difference in the tolls between Exit 7 and Exit 10 and between Exit 7 and Exit 11 to be 35¢ also not 45¢.My best answer is cumulative rounding errors over time as tolls increased.
Here is my question. Why is there this difference?
How come on the NJTP heading south, Philadelphia is not used as the control city?
I feel that should be the control city, not Trenton.
On the NJ Turnpike, at MP 51.1 which is in the middle of Interchange 6, "JCT North 95" signage has been added to the side of both the inner and outer roadways. At MP 52.0, only on the outer roadway (for now?), "North 95/NJ TPK" reminder signage has been added, which I don't believe has ever been used on the Turnpike before. They're large signs too for reminder signs...possibly 36" wide/tall.There is also a JCT/95 assembly at MP 45.0 NB, just north of Exit 5.
Has the NJTP ever had its shields used as reassurance markers before?
Concur. There has never been any NJTP shields posted as reassurance markers along the NJ Turnpike corridors (I'm including the I-78 branch as well) themselves.Has the NJTP ever had its shields used as reassurance markers before?
I never remember seeing any, unless they're someplace up north where I don't normally travel.
Even the NJTP shields on pull-throughs are a recent development. They were first introduced around the time of the widening project (except the ones on the free section where they are paired with I-95 shields. Not sure when those appeared. Maybe when NJTA took ownership of that stretch of I-95). Before that, "THRU TRAFFIC" would be on the "pull-through" (are those all gone now?)Concur. There has never been any NJTP shields posted as reassurance markers along the NJ Turnpike corridors (I'm including the I-78 branch as well) themselves.Has the NJTP ever had its shields used as reassurance markers before?
I never remember seeing any, unless they're someplace up north where I don't normally travel.
Before that, "THRU TRAFFIC" would be on the "pull-through" (are those all gone now?)For the older ones that last such sans any route/road shields: yes.
I see NB at Exit 13, there is no pull through destination. Either its greened out or left out on purpose due to Exit 13 also serving NYC (as New York would indeed be that control city).Sadly, that's not the only northbound pull-through sign with that treatment.
You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York. There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnels, unless you want to start using boroughs or even neighborhoods of Manhattan. I know things like that are done within cities, but I don't think I've ever seen a neighborhood as a control point outside the city the neighborhood is in.I see NB at Exit 13, there is no pull through destination. Either its greened out or left out on purpose due to Exit 13 also serving NYC (as New York would indeed be that control city).Sadly, that's not the only northbound pull-through sign with that treatment.
For some asinine reason, all of the newer MUTCD-style northbound pull-through signs as far south as Exit 9, do not list a control city/point/destination despite the related-ramp signage (at least up through Exit 11) listing either New York or New York City for the northbound Turnpike/I-95.
That said & IMHO, using NYC on northbound pull-through signage is appropriate up through Exit 12. From Exit 13 (per your listed example) and northward; the use of either G.W. Bridge, Connecticut or even New England would be appropriate. Using Fort Lee or New Haven, CT, while more MUTCD-compliant is a bit too obscure for this portion of the Turnpike.
We all know that I-95 goes through New York. However, the portion of NYC that it goes through is not exactly the major core of the city (central & lower Manhattan).You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York.I see NB at Exit 13, there is no pull through destination. Either its greened out or left out on purpose due to Exit 13 also serving NYC (as New York would indeed be that control city).Sadly, that's not the only northbound pull-through sign with that treatment.
For some asinine reason, all of the newer MUTCD-style northbound pull-through signs as far south as Exit 9, do not list a control city/point/destination despite the related-ramp signage (at least up through Exit 11) listing either New York or New York City for the northbound Turnpike/I-95.
That said & IMHO, using NYC on northbound pull-through signage is appropriate up through Exit 12. From Exit 13 (per your listed example) and northward; the use of either G.W. Bridge, Connecticut or even New England would be appropriate. Using Fort Lee or New Haven, CT, while more MUTCD-compliant is a bit too obscure for this portion of the Turnpike.
There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnelsLast time I checked, I-95 crosses into NYC from NJ via the George Washington Bridge. The other bridges & tunnels south of the GWB connect closer/at Manhattan's/NYC's core.
... unless you want to start using boroughs or even neighborhoods of Manhattan.Somehow a sign that reads 95 NORTH The Bronx, while accurate, wouldn't actually fly; especially since MUTCD now wants/prefers actual cities/towns to be used as listed control cities. In the past, there were signs that listed Cross-Bronx Expressway but those signs were in NY and such were used in the same manner that the NJTP shield is being used on I-95 signage today (the expressway name was placed next to the route shield).
I know things like that are done within cities, but I don't think I've ever seen a neighborhood as a control point outside the city the neighborhood is in.Chances are, those signs you saw are either older or local installs.
...I don't think I've ever seen a neighborhood as a control point outside the city the neighborhood is in.
In general I'd agree with the MUTCD. But in this case an exception should be made for huge cities. You would take a much different route from the turnpike if going to Brooklyn vs the Bronx. So signage should be able to differentiate that. NYC is just too big to be one destination. Using the borough names seems more than appropriate.... unless you want to start using boroughs or even neighborhoods of Manhattan.Somehow a sign that reads 95 NORTH The Bronx, while accurate, wouldn't actually fly; especially since MUTCD now wants/prefers actual cities/towns to be used as listed control cities. In the past, there were signs that listed Cross-Bronx Expressway but those signs were in NY and such were used in the same manner that the NJTP shield is being used on I-95 signage today (the expressway name was placed next to the route shield).
It's worth noting that some previous-generation signage (not counting the old-school THRU TRAFFIC pull-through signage) along the northern portion of the NJ Turnpike (mainly north of where it splits in two) typically used George Washington Bridge, sometimes along with New England listed underneath, for the northbound direction. Such IMHO was appropriate because it addressed both the local commuter as well as the long-distance traveler.In general I'd agree with the MUTCD. But in this case an exception should be made for huge cities. You would take a much different route from the turnpike if going to Brooklyn vs the Bronx. So signage should be able to differentiate that. NYC is just too big to be one destination. Using the borough names seems more than appropriate.... unless you want to start using boroughs or even neighborhoods of Manhattan.Somehow a sign that reads 95 NORTH The Bronx, while accurate, wouldn't actually fly; especially since MUTCD now wants/prefers actual cities/towns to be used as listed control cities. In the past, there were signs that listed Cross-Bronx Expressway but those signs were in NY and such were used in the same manner that the NJTP shield is being used on I-95 signage today (the expressway name was placed next to the route shield).
While you're right that I pass that sign or its equivalent often, and that I didn't know Williamstown was not incorporated, it's not really the type of thing I'm thinking of. I'm looking for something like "The Bronx" or "Harlem" or "Northeast Philadelphia", something known to be a part of a bigger city. Williamstown, while entirely inside Monroe it's one of New Jersey's unincorporated entities that may or may not cross municipality lines. I am aware of a number of those used as control points in NJ, although they are going away, especially on the Garden State Parkway....I don't think I've ever seen a neighborhood as a control point outside the city the neighborhood is in.
Believe it or not, but based on what I think your commuting patterns are, you pass under one nearly everyday. The sign has since been replaced, but I think it's still on there:
https://goo.gl/maps/roexVXw1hfM2
Williamstown is within Monroe.
Staten Island is a borough! Its used at Exit 13 and for decades on the Garden State Parkway at NB 127. So The Bronx could be used, but for some reason I think New Haven would work better here.We all know that I-95 goes through New York. However, the portion of NYC that it goes through is not exactly the major core of the city (central & lower Manhattan).You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York.I see NB at Exit 13, there is no pull through destination. Either its greened out or left out on purpose due to Exit 13 also serving NYC (as New York would indeed be that control city).Sadly, that's not the only northbound pull-through sign with that treatment.
For some asinine reason, all of the newer MUTCD-style northbound pull-through signs as far south as Exit 9, do not list a control city/point/destination despite the related-ramp signage (at least up through Exit 11) listing either New York or New York City for the northbound Turnpike/I-95.
That said & IMHO, using NYC on northbound pull-through signage is appropriate up through Exit 12. From Exit 13 (per your listed example) and northward; the use of either G.W. Bridge, Connecticut or even New England would be appropriate. Using Fort Lee or New Haven, CT, while more MUTCD-compliant is a bit too obscure for this portion of the Turnpike.There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnelsLast time I checked, I-95 crosses into NYC from NJ via the George Washington Bridge. The other bridges & tunnels south of the GWB connect closer/at Manhattan's/NYC's core.... unless you want to start using boroughs or even neighborhoods of Manhattan.Somehow a sign that reads 95 NORTH The Bronx, while accurate, wouldn't actually fly; especially since MUTCD now wants/prefers actual cities/towns to be used as listed control cities. In the past, there were signs that listed Cross-Bronx Expressway but those signs were in NY and such were used in the same manner that the NJTP shield is being used on I-95 signage today (the expressway name was placed next to the route shield).I know things like that are done within cities, but I don't think I've ever seen a neighborhood as a control point outside the city the neighborhood is in.Chances are, those signs you saw are either older or local installs.
ok, you got me. I forgot about Staten Island. But I-95 goes through Manhattan too. In fact, one of my most frequent destinations after crossing GWB is only a few blocks away from it.Staten Island is a borough! Its used at Exit 13 and for decades on the Garden State Parkway at NB 127. So The Bronx could be used, but for some reason I think New Haven would work better here.We all know that I-95 goes through New York. However, the portion of NYC that it goes through is not exactly the major core of the city (central & lower Manhattan).You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York.I see NB at Exit 13, there is no pull through destination. Either its greened out or left out on purpose due to Exit 13 also serving NYC (as New York would indeed be that control city).Sadly, that's not the only northbound pull-through sign with that treatment.
For some asinine reason, all of the newer MUTCD-style northbound pull-through signs as far south as Exit 9, do not list a control city/point/destination despite the related-ramp signage (at least up through Exit 11) listing either New York or New York City for the northbound Turnpike/I-95.
That said & IMHO, using NYC on northbound pull-through signage is appropriate up through Exit 12. From Exit 13 (per your listed example) and northward; the use of either G.W. Bridge, Connecticut or even New England would be appropriate. Using Fort Lee or New Haven, CT, while more MUTCD-compliant is a bit too obscure for this portion of the Turnpike.There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnelsLast time I checked, I-95 crosses into NYC from NJ via the George Washington Bridge. The other bridges & tunnels south of the GWB connect closer/at Manhattan's/NYC's core.... unless you want to start using boroughs or even neighborhoods of Manhattan.Somehow a sign that reads 95 NORTH The Bronx, while accurate, wouldn't actually fly; especially since MUTCD now wants/prefers actual cities/towns to be used as listed control cities. In the past, there were signs that listed Cross-Bronx Expressway but those signs were in NY and such were used in the same manner that the NJTP shield is being used on I-95 signage today (the expressway name was placed next to the route shield).I know things like that are done within cities, but I don't think I've ever seen a neighborhood as a control point outside the city the neighborhood is in.Chances are, those signs you saw are either older or local installs.
IMHO there should be an exit list sign approaching Exit 14 at least for Manhattan stating New York City Exits than list both 14C and 16E and use I-78 Holland Tunnel for the former and NJ 495 (yes the NJTA finally recognizes the route after several decades) Lincoln Tunnel. Doing that was similar to what NJDOT did on the Skyway where the TO New York sign is (was) east of the Passaic River controlling those into NY to use either tunnel.
Supplemental signs for "The Bronx" could be used to advise motorists to use I-95 north from there as well.
But I-95 goes through Manhattan too. In fact, one of my most frequent destinations after crossing GWB is only a few blocks away from it.I-95 goes through the upper end Manhattan (Hudson & Washington Heights area); not its focal core. If one's destination (like yours) is in that area, fine; but the majority of Manhattan-bound individuals are likely heading towards either the central or lower end.
Not sure I understand your question roadman65. If you're talking about an exit on I-80, it can't show New York as a destination if the I-80 pull-thru sign shows New York. Sec. 2E-13 of the Manual requires that: At any decision point, a given destination shall be indicated by way of only one route.No sign Exit 53 as Clifton and New York and leave the pull through as G. Washington Bridge is what should be done as the business core is best served via US 46 and NJ 3.
Although a generally good rule, there are some reasonable exceptions. Notably on Long Island where Northern State Parkway and parallel L.I. Expwy. are both signed for New York at Exit-29A where there is a crossover from the Parkway to the Expressway and there is no other reasonable destination to show for either route. Though if the rule were to be followed here, I would sign "New York" for the Parkway that you're already on, instead of exiting to the overcrowded L.I.E.
No sign Exit 53 as Clifton and New York and leave the pull through as G. Washington Bridge is what should be done as the business core is best served via US 46 and NJ 3.
Was on the NJTP today. Going southbound I saw no I-95 signs added to BGS's, or stand-alone markers, between exit 9 and 7A, Seems NJTA is still in no hurry to acknowledge I-95 between exits 6 and 9! Anyone have a clue when this will be done?
There used to be reassurance shields in the median for I-95 and TO I-95 (where the freeway was not the interstate proper south of Exit 10) before and after each interchange. Even in Secaucus where one of the gantries is for 16E and 18E had a North I-95 shield facing the NB Traffic even though the 18E panel listed I-95 above it, and going the other way the supports had a South I-95 shield for those entering from 16E.The old southbound gantries at Exit 10 had SOUTH 95 assurance signs erected on the gantries' left posts for many years. My guess is those particular assemblies were once TO 95 markers way back when.
For a while from 6 to 10 they had the TO banner removed from the TO I-95 shields as that was when the Somerset was officially scrapped and the FHWA moved the interstate onto the Turnpike between 10 and 6. Thus left with a non directional shield (sort of like NYSDOT does with state routes).
If "Staten Island" can be mentioned at exit 13, why not at exit 10 as well? There are supplemental signs for "Outerbridge Crossing" going NB on the Turnpike.Its cause its on a supplemental. The main controls are Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 13 uses Staten Island as a control city for I-278.
If "Staten Island" can be mentioned at exit 13, why not at exit 10 as well? There are supplemental signs for "Outerbridge Crossing" going NB on the Turnpike.Its cause its on a supplemental. The main controls are Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 13 uses Staten Island as a control city for I-278.
Yes, I see the inconsistency here. This is not the only place even NJDOT does it. Just compare US 1's signage with NJ 23 on I-287 and you will. At US 1 they use long distance controls of Newark & Trenton, while at NJ 23 its more local like Butler & Wayne. The NJ Turnpike also does it with other places like why Manhattan is not listed at 14C, 16E, and 18E just like you pointed out about 13 properly using the borough names.
However, it is signed at Exit 13 by NJTA! Staten Island is a control city there and signed as a normal incorporated entity by engineers for the Turnpike.If "Staten Island" can be mentioned at exit 13, why not at exit 10 as well? There are supplemental signs for "Outerbridge Crossing" going NB on the Turnpike.Its cause its on a supplemental. The main controls are Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 13 uses Staten Island as a control city for I-278.
Yes, I see the inconsistency here. This is not the only place even NJDOT does it. Just compare US 1's signage with NJ 23 on I-287 and you will. At US 1 they use long distance controls of Newark & Trenton, while at NJ 23 its more local like Butler & Wayne. The NJ Turnpike also does it with other places like why Manhattan is not listed at 14C, 16E, and 18E just like you pointed out about 13 properly using the borough names.
I honestly don't think it's the responsibility of New Jersey to use borough names instead of "New York City". That being said, supplemental signage is helpful.
I think it has something to do with I-278 not having any interchanges in New Jersey east of the Turnpike, so really Staten Island (or the name of the bridge) is the only option. NJ 440 has plenty of exits in NJ and Perth Amboy is a pretty big destination.However, it is signed at Exit 13 by NJTA! Staten Island is a control city there and signed as a normal incorporated entity by engineers for the Turnpike.If "Staten Island" can be mentioned at exit 13, why not at exit 10 as well? There are supplemental signs for "Outerbridge Crossing" going NB on the Turnpike.Its cause its on a supplemental. The main controls are Perth Amboy and Metuchen. Exit 13 uses Staten Island as a control city for I-278.
Yes, I see the inconsistency here. This is not the only place even NJDOT does it. Just compare US 1's signage with NJ 23 on I-287 and you will. At US 1 they use long distance controls of Newark & Trenton, while at NJ 23 its more local like Butler & Wayne. The NJ Turnpike also does it with other places like why Manhattan is not listed at 14C, 16E, and 18E just like you pointed out about 13 properly using the borough names.
I honestly don't think it's the responsibility of New Jersey to use borough names instead of "New York City". That being said, supplemental signage is helpful.
NJTA is just following guidelines set by the MUTCD and in the case of Exit 13, Staten Island is a city in its own right. Being Manhattan is way to ambiguous the same people are just leaving the crossing names instead of trying to redefine NYC. Staten Island by most area residents is considered its own city despite it being a big part of NYC! So I believe the signs there reflect that logic.
I had the pleasure of riding the New Jersey Turnpike yesterday for the first time ever, from Betsy Ross Br. to I-80. It was quite interesting seeing the express lane run for as long as it did. Very unique freeway setup that I knew existed, but is interesting to actually drive on.
Betsy Ross Bridge connects to NJ Route 90 in Pennsauken. It sounds like you headed towards NJ Route 73 and got onto the Turnpike at Exit 4 in Mount Laurel. Done that on Peter Pan and Greyhound a few times.
Without knowing where you were coming from and where you were going, you'd have to go way out of the way to encounter a free Delaware River crossing, and if you were to go to I-80 on the PA side, you'd be paying PA Turnpike tolls instead of NJ Turnpike ones. I don't see how you could have avoided that without taking non-freeway routes such as US 206 or 202.Betsy Ross Bridge connects to NJ Route 90 in Pennsauken. It sounds like you headed towards NJ Route 73 and got onto the Turnpike at Exit 4 in Mount Laurel. Done that on Peter Pan and Greyhound a few times.
For some reason we used a Garmin to get where we were going, and took all of the toll roads. We could have easily shunpiked on our route and saved serious cash.
There are no tolls eastbound across the Delaware River save for that privately owned crossing up at Dingman's Ferry.You're right, of course. Forget the bridge part.
Without knowing where you were coming from and where you were going, you'd have to go way out of the way to encounter a free Delaware River crossing, and if you were to go to I-80 on the PA side, you'd be paying PA Turnpike tolls instead of NJ Turnpike ones. I don't see how you could have avoided that without taking non-freeway routes such as US 206 or 202.Betsy Ross Bridge connects to NJ Route 90 in Pennsauken. It sounds like you headed towards NJ Route 73 and got onto the Turnpike at Exit 4 in Mount Laurel. Done that on Peter Pan and Greyhound a few times.
For some reason we used a Garmin to get where we were going, and took all of the toll roads. We could have easily shunpiked on our route and saved serious cash.
Without knowing where you were coming from and where you were going, you'd have to go way out of the way to encounter a free Delaware River crossing, and if you were to go to I-80 on the PA side, you'd be paying PA Turnpike tolls instead of NJ Turnpike ones. I don't see how you could have avoided that without taking non-freeway routes such as US 206 or 202.Betsy Ross Bridge connects to NJ Route 90 in Pennsauken. It sounds like you headed towards NJ Route 73 and got onto the Turnpike at Exit 4 in Mount Laurel. Done that on Peter Pan and Greyhound a few times.
For some reason we used a Garmin to get where we were going, and took all of the toll roads. We could have easily shunpiked on our route and saved serious cash.
We went from Philly to the Bear Mountain area.
Ah, well you *could* avoid all tolls by staying on the PA side until Scudders Falls Bridge and then follow surface streets between I-295 and I-287. That would cost you about 15 minutes.
NJ-31 and US-202 is a better choice. US-206 is brutal certain times of the day. Sometimes just taking US-1 is faster.I went I-287 to US 202 once but got onto it too early and got stuck on the two-lane portion. Smooth sailing from the four-lane portion to the Mt. Hope Bridge.
Damn. I wonder how long the backups are. Think about how many people have no clue about any of the alternate routes and other bridges further north (recognizing that depending on where you were when the closure happened, you may have been good and stuck due to the difficulty of turning around).Im about to leave from Wilmington De right now, Ill let you guys know how traffic is when I get home.
The fumes are of the chemical ethylene oxide.
All 295 exits in Delaware are closed, 95 NB has heavy traffic, but it is moving & is that gas combustible? Thats why they shut the bridge down? How long will it be closed for?
I posted my post as soon as you did yours beltway, that was very informative thank you. That would have definitely caused many issues, if traffic was still going, why would they let a factory produce this by a main bridge? even any bridge at all? They need to regulate plants by bridges, the last time the Del Mem was closed, was because of a fire @ the same plant, I believe.All 295 exits in Delaware are closed, 95 NB has heavy traffic, but it is moving & is that gas combustible? Thats why they shut the bridge down? How long will it be closed for?
Ethylene oxide is also toxic.
At room temperature it is a flammable, carcinogenic, mutagenic, irritating, and anesthetic gas.
Happens to be the day things went over 50. Wonder what caused the leak and when it happened.The fumes are of the chemical ethylene oxide.
Ethylene oxide is a colorless and flammable gas with a faintly sweet odor.
As a toxic gas that leaves no residue on items it contacts, ethylene oxide is a surface disinfectant that is widely used in hospitals and the medical equipment industry to replace steam in the sterilization of heat-sensitive tools and equipment, such as disposable plastic syringes. It is so flammable and extremely explosive that it is used as a main component of thermobaric weapons; therefore, it is commonly handled and shipped as a refrigerated liquid to control its hazardous nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene_oxide
….
Ethylene oxide liquifies at 50 degrees F.
Very bad timing on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.
I posted my post as soon as you did yours beltway, that was very informative thank you. That would have definitely caused many issues, if traffic was still going, why would they let a factory produce this by a main bridge? even any bridge at all? They need to regulate plants by bridges, the last time the Del Mem was closed, was because of a fire @ the same plant, I believe.
Its the white plant right when you go past the bridge, not the new one on the Delaware side. But on the New Jersey side. Correct me if im wrong.I posted my post as soon as you did yours beltway, that was very informative thank you. That would have definitely caused many issues, if traffic was still going, why would they let a factory produce this by a main bridge? even any bridge at all? They need to regulate plants by bridges, the last time the Del Mem was closed, was because of a fire @ the same plant, I believe.
I just looked at the aerial view on Google Maps. It is not clear where the DuPont plant is, there is an industrial area just south of the bridge in Delaware, and another just north of the bridge in New Jersey.
I would surmise that the industrial areas were already there before the bridge was built (opened 1951).
I would surmise that the industrial areas were already there before the bridge was built (opened 1951).Its the white plant right when you go past the bridge, not the new one on the Delaware side. But on the New Jersey side. Correct me if im wrong.
You’re link was broken for some reason belt, this oneI would surmise that the industrial areas were already there before the bridge was built (opened 1951).Its the white plant right when you go past the bridge, not the new one on the Delaware side. But on the New Jersey side. Correct me if im wrong.
This one? https://tinyurl.com/y7a95kdr
News sources say it's the Crado plant on the DE side.
EDIT: All reopened. Carry on.
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2018/11/26/chemical-leak-near-bridge-prompted-fears-burning-cars-people-inhaling-toxic-gas/2112985002/ (https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2018/11/26/chemical-leak-near-bridge-prompted-fears-burning-cars-people-inhaling-toxic-gas/2112985002/)News sources say it's the Crado plant on the DE side.
EDIT: All reopened. Carry on.
https://www.wdel.com/news/video-delaware-memorial-bridge-reopens-after-chemical-leak-creates-thanksgiving/article_0ae9e340-f102-11e8-a4c7-f32d17c72cd1.html
Apparently it was Croda, not Chambers. The Croda of no liberty.
ixnay
So is the plan to eventually operate dual-carriageways the full length of the Turnpike?
NJDOT has a fairly generic press release on their website, announcing increased available funding for upcoming projects. They include both NJDOT and NJTA projects: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/121918.shtm
The most glaring, postive finding in this press release was listed under NJTA projects: "Turnpike bridges at mileposts 30.75 (Camden County) and 33.94 (Burlington County) will be lengthened to prepare for the future widening of the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike." (30.75 is CR 561, which is also just east of Exit 32 of I-295. 33.94 may be CR 616, just south of NJ 73, although it doesn't match up perfectly with the SLDs.)
Now, it doesn't have any sort of timeframe, and bridges have been lengthened in the past, probably dating to around 1980 when a new overpass was constructed over the I-295 ramps for Woodcrest Station. But it's nice to see something in writing, as it shows that the NJTA is still committed to an eventual widening.
NJDOT has a fairly generic press release on their website, announcing increased available funding for upcoming projects. They include both NJDOT and NJTA projects: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2018/121918.shtmI think a bigger deal is being made of this in roadgeek circles than needs be. These are nearly 70 year old bridges. Now that it's time to replace them, may as well account for a potential future widening. Other bridges are being built with an extra lane width - look at Interchange 4 for example.
The most glaring, postive finding in this press release was listed under NJTA projects: "Turnpike bridges at mileposts 30.75 (Camden County) and 33.94 (Burlington County) will be lengthened to prepare for the future widening of the southern portion of the New Jersey Turnpike." (30.75 is CR 561, which is also just east of Exit 32 of I-295. 33.94 may be CR 616, just south of NJ 73, although it doesn't match up perfectly with the SLDs.)
Now, it doesn't have any sort of timeframe, and bridges have been lengthened in the past, probably dating to around 1980 when a new overpass was constructed over the I-295 ramps for Woodcrest Station. But it's nice to see something in writing, as it shows that the NJTA is still committed to an eventual widening.
Both the Parkway and the Turnpike will get 25 new variable message signs providing motorists with more real-time reports about accidents, inclement weather and other situations, so they can make travel choices.
One other thing I saw in that press release from NJDOT:QuoteBoth the Parkway and the Turnpike will get 25 new variable message signs providing motorists with more real-time reports about accidents, inclement weather and other situations, so they can make travel choices.
Now, the Parkway did not get new VMS's at any sort of regular interval when they were added in a few years ago (mainly in approaches to major exits and connecting roads), but the Turnpike got them every two miles, the same way that the old neon signs always were. Where else on the Turnpike do they feel they really need more VMS's in the future?
Is not the Turnpike where paired with US 40 posted for 50 mph? It was always 55 up to the old turnpike toll plaza and 50 from there into Delaware. So either it got changed or when the new Exit 1 got added they overlooked the needed signs.
We were stuck for about an hour last night on the GSP, northbound heading back from Atlantic City. The electrical wires on a bridge overpass for Lawrence Harbor Road, were down across the local lanes and along side the express lanes. All lanes of traffic were stopped. We literally sat there waiting for a utility worker to drag the line off the road (30 seconds to complete). What was crazy is that the express lanes were stopped first, by about ten minutes), even though the wires was on the local side......nothing was done to the express lanes to open them other than move the police cruiser. Also interesting is that they literally stopped us (I was the second car back from the front) right at the wires, not before. We had police, fire and utility workers walking in between our cars trying to figure out the situation. It was quite the experience. WCBS radio 880 AM was reporting on it as we sat in the car.
These shield assemblies have started appearing in the Port Reading/Carteret area leading to the interchange 12 entrance to the Turnpike:That blue round arrow sign reminds me a little bit of the EMERGENCY (or COASTAL) EVACUATION ROUTE signs that one sees.
(https://i.imgur.com/uksirbo.jpg)
(This particular one is on the Industrial Road in Carteret, near the lower Roosevelt Ave intersection)
Pretty sure these are NJTA created assemblies, since they use the circular arrow shield instead of the more standard square ones NJDOT favors. Still, I like this assembly overall. Nice to see the Turnpike Authority including 95 in its assemblies for the Turnpike these days. They're also doing it in areas around Exit 11. Hope it spreads.
Can anyone here remember how the distance portion of the previous generation of variable message signs functioned? I never saw this portion illuminated. Discussions about distances on Turnpike VMSes falling out of use and reasons perhaps explaining why that was so have already taken place on this forum, and that's not my point anyway.FWIW there's one more old VMS still standing on the PA side of the Turnpike Extension (the "new" I-95)
My question relates specifically to the way the sign was illuminated (in terms of patterns, not technology). It appears that on the bottom line, in the center, there are distance characters with extra lengths of neon tubing, and I was wondering how these characters appeared when illuminated. For the sake of discussion, let's divide the distance portion into (3) segments: "1", "1/", and "2|".
The leading "1" appears to have redundancy immediately adjacent to it. Although the sign's redundancy is clear for the alphabetic characters, the numeric characters are less so, based on personal evaluation. Were these "1" characters illuminated at the same time, or was the leftmost "1" illuminated only when the "1/2" was also illuminated: "1" or "1[space]1/2"?
The "1/" section is fairly straight forward as the horizontal connecting tube segment of the "a" portion was probably covered in a non-translucent coating to make the "1" and "/" appear as separate characters. The "b" portion of the character pair was joined at the base of the characters, which naturally hid the point of transition. This, though, is merely speculation based on observation.
The most curious segment is the "2|" segment, which appears that it could be a "2" or a "4" (use your imagination to remove the top portion of "2"), but there is no apparent break which might facilitate independent "2" or "4" characters, so this seems unlikely. It would appear that physically the "2" and the "|" must illuminate together. How did this segment appear when in use?
I've assembled the images below (all are sourced from other's Flickr accounts) to show the portions which are of interest to me:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7817/40142497583_205017994b_c.jpg)
Any information you may be able to share would be appreciated. I'm working on a digital illustration replica of the "REDUCE SPEED" sign.
FWIW there's one more old VMS still standing on the PA side of the Turnpike Extension (the "new" I-95)
https://goo.gl/maps/j3VTpexUzE82 (https://goo.gl/maps/j3VTpexUzE82)
Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.
Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.
So is is still in use?Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.
I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.
So is is still in use?Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.
I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.
The old system is completely turned off at this point. The VMS will sit there until the NJTA comes to take it.So is is still in use?Still, a nice relic which neither will PATP nor NJTA likely invest any resources in removing -- an argument of "Not our jurisdiction vs. Not our property".That being the case; one has to wonder if it will remain until the new parallel bridge gets built.
I don't think that's the real reason why it hasn't been removed though. I believe NJ is adding a new VMS over there to replace it, so it should be removed relatively soon.
Did you not see the pic? There's nothing usable on that sign!!
The old system is completely turned off at this point. The VMS will sit there until I, a few friends, a few large wrenches and a large rental truck come to take it.
Maybe it's not technically and financially reasonable to expect, but I'd like to see one or more of those old iconic NJTP message signs on display in NJTP service plazas, cycling through some of their messages.That would be quite meta.
That sign should go into the Smithsonian.It should get its name on a service area. Replace Clara Barton with Neon Variable Message Sign.
That sign should go into the Smithsonian.It should get its name on a service area. Replace Clara Barton with Neon Variable Message Sign.
Last I drove on I-280 I noticed ONE lone button copy sign that seemed to have been forgotten. It's the one that says I-280 West The Oranges just after the NJ Tpke toll plaza.
That still up?
If so that'll make the button copy count in single digits.
The ones that are left (not counting VMS)
SB:
1) Traffic Regulations (toll booth SB)
2) Private Road Employees Only (toll booth SB)
3) I-280 West The Oranges???
NB:
4) Discharging picking up passengers prohibited (at the Vince Lombardi Svc Plaza)
5) You are leaving the NJ Turnpike (US-46 off-ramp)
Exit 8A
6) Turnpike 1/4 mile signs both directions
Exit 4
7) NY and North Deleware and South
Last I drove on I-280 I noticed ONE lone button copy sign that seemed to have been forgotten. It's the one that says I-280 West The Oranges just after the NJ Tpke toll plaza.Tis. Exit 4 might have been replaced though. Can't confirm.
That still up?
Last I drove on I-280 I noticed ONE lone button copy sign that seemed to have been forgotten. It's the one that says I-280 West The Oranges just after the NJ Tpke toll plaza.
That still up?
If so that'll make the button copy count in single digits.
The ones that are left (not counting VMS)
SB:
1) Traffic Regulations (toll booth SB)
2) Private Road Employees Only (toll booth SB)
3) I-280 West The Oranges???
NB:
4) Discharging picking up passengers prohibited (at the Vince Lombardi Svc Plaza)
5) You are leaving the NJ Turnpike (US-46 off-ramp)
Exit 8A
6) Turnpike 1/4 mile signs both directions
Exit 4
7) NY and North Deleware and South
So the Thomas Edison Service Area has quietly reopened. At least the fuel part has. Couldn't tell if the building is also done. Signs currently only show the Sunoco as an available service, so the building itself may not be ready to go yet.
Does the Turnpike Authority plan to add any more mileage signs on the mainline or the extensions? There are two that I know of. One on the Newark Bay Extension (I-78) going WB, and one in the southernmost part going NB. GSV links below:No plans I've ever heard of. Those sound more like aberrations to me, but since they're new, maybe we'll see more...?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6976727,-74.076925,3a,75y,260.93h,87.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp_fYudIMwjibRe2sOTO3kA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6976727,-74.076925,3a,75y,260.93h,87.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp_fYudIMwjibRe2sOTO3kA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7044905,-75.3724997,3a,75y,96.35h,105.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTGO3MsrcZRz2Ci0zVoxJVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7044905,-75.3724997,3a,75y,96.35h,105.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTGO3MsrcZRz2Ci0zVoxJVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The GSP has mileage signs as well. Only a handful though, north of Exit 44, South of Exit 123, and north of Exit 168.
Overhead southbound south of Interchange 80.They're multiplying. Okay, sounds like we should expect more.
A sign photo I am glad I took on the NJ Turnpike.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/23025957951/in/album-72157632833956641/
As now the NJTA replaced this with the following per GSV.
https://goo.gl/maps/PHVuR5az9wnKk9aG9
Anyway short lived sign of the first as that one replaced the old NJDOT signs that were replaced shortly after the NJTA bought the road from NJDOT. Now with the latest MUTCD campaign, they changed them again.
Always good to shoot road signs because you never know what can happen.
The new signs mixed up the arrows. The ones for Exit 69 are pointing left when the road goes straight; should be straight-down arrows (like the old sign) and the ones for the I-95 route are pointing straight down when they should be angled right arrows (like the old sign). Don't the sign engineers look at the geometry of the actual road when they design the arrows?
The new signs mixed up the arrows. The ones for Exit 69 are pointing left when the road goes straight; should be straight-down arrows (like the old sign) and the ones for the I-95 route are pointing straight down when they should be angled right arrows (like the old sign). Don't the sign engineers look at the geometry of the actual road when they design the arrows?
That sign should go into the Smithsonian.If another one is around sure. But I think there should be one within the state. If it can't be on the Turnpike itself, at least in some museum. I was going to suggest something like the New Jersey Museum of Transportation (http://www.njmt.org/index.htm), but the only type of transportation they seem interested in is the railroad.
Yes...it needs to be widened again. It would be odd, in a way, for it to be widened north to Exit 4 (Mount Laurel), have the part that's as-is now in between and then hit the last widened section from Exit 6 (Mansfield) northward! :)
Now just imagine I-95 from about Kearny/Secaucus (either spur) north to Fort Lee as only two lanes on each side! WHOA! :-o
Yes...it needs to be widened again. It would be odd, in a way, for it to be widened north to Exit 4 (Mount Laurel), have the part that's as-is now in between and then hit the last widened section from Exit 6 (Mansfield) northward! :)
Now just imagine I-95 from about Kearny/Secaucus (either spur) north to Fort Lee as only two lanes on each side! WHOA! :-o
6 or 8 lanes? And most highways in New Jersey are 6 lanes by the way im just saying.
Nope, as I think they don't have any plans to widen the road at all.
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.
Pretty much every Friday in the summer!
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.
Pretty much every Friday in the summer!
Not sure how to prevent any bottleneck other than building a third span of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and even then you'd still get more problems into DE. Without a general system-wide expansion, it seems like there will be backups somewhere.
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Not that I'm checking every minute, but generally when there's backups on the NJ Turnpike there's going to be backups on I-95 in PA. Everytime I have looked, using 95 takes longer than taking the NJ Turnpike.
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Not that I'm checking every minute, but generally when there's backups on the NJ Turnpike there's going to be backups on I-95 in PA. Everytime I have looked, using 95 takes longer than taking the NJ Turnpike.
To Philly proper? I haven't seen that.
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Coming from North Jersey, the Del. Mem. Bridge wouldn't be crossed going to Philly.
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Coming from North Jersey, the Del. Mem. Bridge wouldn't be crossed going to Philly.
Didn't know what he was saying. Sometimes people need to be a little more specific because I thought people go home by going south and over the bridge.
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Coming from North Jersey, the Del. Mem. Bridge wouldn't be crossed going to Philly.
Didn't know what he was saying. Sometimes people need to be a little more specific because I thought people go home by going south and over the bridge.
It appears he was headed south from North Jersey towards Philly, and probably crossed over the Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin or Walt Whitman Bridges.
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Coming from North Jersey, the Del. Mem. Bridge wouldn't be crossed going to Philly.
Didn't know what he was saying. Sometimes people need to be a little more specific because I thought people go home by going south and over the bridge.
It appears he was headed south from North Jersey towards Philly, and probably crossed over the Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin or Walt Whitman Bridges.
I think i've been that way before when I took a detour around the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Not familiar with that section.
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Coming from North Jersey, the Del. Mem. Bridge wouldn't be crossed going to Philly.
Didn't know what he was saying. Sometimes people need to be a little more specific because I thought people go home by going south and over the bridge.
It appears he was headed south from North Jersey towards Philly, and probably crossed over the Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin or Walt Whitman Bridges.
I think i've been that way before when I took a detour around the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Not familiar with that section.
He said in the original post that he was going to Philly. The mention of the merge at Exit 4 indicated he was coming from somewhere northeast of Philly.
Google sent me that way because of traffic. I went that way home the next day and I used it back in January with no issueCan confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4. Drove in it today on my way to Philly.Didn't want to try the new I-95 interchange?
Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Coming from North Jersey, the Del. Mem. Bridge wouldn't be crossed going to Philly.
Didn't know what he was saying. Sometimes people need to be a little more specific because I thought people go home by going south and over the bridge.
It appears he was headed south from North Jersey towards Philly, and probably crossed over the Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin or Walt Whitman Bridges.
I think i've been that way before when I took a detour around the Delaware Memorial Bridge. Not familiar with that section.
He said in the original post that he was going to Philly. The mention of the merge at Exit 4 indicated he was coming from somewhere northeast of Philly.
There's over 100 pages, so I don't want to just waste my time going through all of them. But using I-95 to Philly is not a bad idea at all. I would want to go there and see what it's like!
^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
When the bridge was temporarily shut down a couple years ago due to cracking on the span was discovered; some of the news reporters indeed referred to that span as the Delaware River Bridge.^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"?
From the South, and from a view standpoint, PennDOT swung and missed bigtime when they placed 95 North on the bottom level of the Girard Point Bridge.One can probably thank the FAA for such. The reasoning behind that orientation was likely due to the approach path for then-Runway 9-27 (current 9R-27L) at nearby PHL. Had the upper-deck carried the northbound lanes; guess on my part, the potential for a pilot or co-pilot to be blinded by northbound headlights while coming in for a landing is higher.
When the bridge was temporarily shut down a couple years ago due to cracking on the span was discovered; some of the news reporters indeed referred to that span as the Delaware River Bridge.^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"?From the South, and from a view standpoint, PennDOT swung and missed bigtime when they placed 95 North on the bottom level of the Girard Point Bridge.One can probably thank the FAA for such. The reasoning behind that orientation was likely due to the approach path for then-Runway 9-27 (current 9R-27L) at nearby PHL. Had the upper-deck carried the northbound lanes; guess on my part, the potential for a pilot or co-pilot to be blinded by northbound headlights while coming in for a landing is higher.
^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"? Its so unspecific it could mean any of them. Delaware Memorial Bridge is very specific.
From the South, and from a view standpoint, PennDOT swung and missed bigtime when they placed 95 North on the bottom level of the Girard Point Bridge.One can probably thank the FAA for such. The reasoning behind that orientation was likely due to the approach path for then-Runway 9-27 (current 9R-27L) at nearby PHL. Had the upper-deck carried the northbound lanes; guess on my part, the potential for a pilot or co-pilot to be blinded by northbound headlights while coming in for a landing is higher.
All of these things are true - I-95 is the Delaware River Bridge (no honorific) and I-676 started life as such.^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"? Its so unspecific it could mean any of them. Delaware Memorial Bridge is very specific.
What is now the Benjamin Franklin Bridge was originally the Delaware River Bridge until IIRC 1956 when it was renamed to mark Franklin's 250th birthday.
ixnay
All of these things are true - I-95 is the Delaware River Bridge (no honorific) and I-676 started life as such.^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"? Its so unspecific it could mean any of them. Delaware Memorial Bridge is very specific.
What is now the Benjamin Franklin Bridge was originally the Delaware River Bridge until IIRC 1956 when it was renamed to mark Franklin's 250th birthday.
ixnay
The Delaware River Bridge is the official name for the now defunct Exit 30 as I remember it on the ticket back in the day.
I think its the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge, but I was from North Jersey so I did not know the lingo for that part of the state.
So, again, especially since the kid has made several references to traveling north-south along the east coast, I’m pretty sure that when he said “Delaware Memorial Bridge” , that’s exactly what he meant.He also mentioned going through Philly in said-posts in this thread more than once. Such was when which bridge he was actually referring to came into question. Most here know that, under most circumstances, one does not use the Delaware Memorial Bridge when one's heading to/from/through Philly.
So, again, especially since the kid has made several references to traveling north-south along the east coast, I’m pretty sure that when he said “Delaware Memorial Bridge” , that’s exactly what he meant.He also mentioned going through Philly in said-posts in this thread more than once. Such was when which bridge he was actually referring to came into question. Most here know that, under most circumstances, one does not use the Delaware Memorial Bridge when one's heading to/from/through Philly.
I also noticed, last Friday, that the last standing OG VMS on the Turnpike Extension is gone.The dude that's still on the PA side eastbound? That'd be sad.
All of these things are true - I-95 is the Delaware River Bridge (no honorific) and I-676 started life as such.^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"? Its so unspecific it could mean any of them. Delaware Memorial Bridge is very specific.
What is now the Benjamin Franklin Bridge was originally the Delaware River Bridge until IIRC 1956 when it was renamed to mark Franklin's 250th birthday.
ixnay
While yeah, they are all true, (and I was aware of them already), generally I know no one who actually refers to the Turnpije bridge as the “Delaware River Bridge” . It’s the Turnpike river bridge or Turnpike Delaware River Bridge. There’s too many bridges over the river to call any one of them “Delaware River Bridge” without a reference to the turnpike.
So, again, especially since the kid has made several references to traveling north-south along the east coast, I’m pretty sure that when he said “Delaware Memorial Bridge” , that’s exactly what he meant. He was just doing what he’s been doing elsewhere in the forum - inserting himself into discussions that he doesn’t necessarily have anything to add to.
All of these things are true - I-95 is the Delaware River Bridge (no honorific) and I-676 started life as such.^^Is it possible that mrhappy1261 was actually referring to the Delaware River Bridge (aka the Turnpike Connector Bridge (aka I-95)) as opposed to the Delaware Memorial Bridge?
I don't think so. Does anyone even call it "The Delaware River Bridge"? Its so unspecific it could mean any of them. Delaware Memorial Bridge is very specific.
What is now the Benjamin Franklin Bridge was originally the Delaware River Bridge until IIRC 1956 when it was renamed to mark Franklin's 250th birthday.
ixnay
While yeah, they are all true, (and I was aware of them already), generally I know no one who actually refers to the Turnpije bridge as the “Delaware River Bridge” . It’s the Turnpike river bridge or Turnpike Delaware River Bridge. There’s too many bridges over the river to call any one of them “Delaware River Bridge” without a reference to the turnpike.
So, again, especially since the kid has made several references to traveling north-south along the east coast, I’m pretty sure that when he said “Delaware Memorial Bridge” , that’s exactly what he meant. He was just doing what he’s been doing elsewhere in the forum - inserting himself into discussions that he doesn’t necessarily have anything to add to.
Given the confusion, I believe they should find a prominent historical person who hails from the general area and name the bridge after that person. Ben Franklin and Betsy Ross are taken, but I'm sure there are others.
I would shy away from anyone controversial, of course.
Louisa May Alcott, a prominent author, was born in Germantown. PA - so she could be one choice.
Besides...it seems like everyone from the past has a few skeletons in their closet.Exit 6 for Hookers and Blow Bridge?
I looked for it intently along the shoulder but there was nothing. They're doing construction on that end anyways so maybe it got knocked down.I also noticed, last Friday, that the last standing OG VMS on the Turnpike Extension is gone.The dude that's still on the PA side eastbound? That'd be sad.
-- After almost a year of the interchange in Pennsylvania being open, I would have figured that in August 2019 the remaining I-95 shields would have been installed on the mainline by now. But as of yesterday, no changes. I did see a standalone I-95/NJ Turnpike reassurance marker on the SB truck/bus lanes at mile marker 65. I don't know how long that has been there.It's been there since this past March/April. Such was first mentioned on Reply #2520 of this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.2500).
I looked for it intently along the shoulder but there was nothing. They're doing construction on that end anyways so maybe it got knocked down.I also noticed, last Friday, that the last standing OG VMS on the Turnpike Extension is gone.The dude that's still on the PA side eastbound? That'd be sad.
So over the weekend I got to drive on the Turnpike SB, from exit 14 to exit 6. Also on two of the extensions (I-78 WB and I-95 SB). A few observations from the drive.Today I saw a "JCT NORTH 95" on 700 NB below the I-95 NB flyover, so there's at least that, though nowt else. As far as I-78, after Newark the next control city for I-95 is New York, but that really doesn't make sense when anyone going to NYC would take I-78 EB instead. I would suggest adding Paterson for I-80, but there's no other control city besides NY for I-95 at that point (it's an Interstate so is subject to the official list).
-- The signs on WB I-78 approaching exit 14 just have "New York" as the control city for I-95/Turnpike NB. The signs look to be the same size as the blank pull-through signs on the mainline going NB.
-- After almost a year of the interchange in Pennsylvania being open, I would have figured that in August 2019 the remaining I-95 shields would have been installed on the mainline by now. But as of yesterday, no changes. I did see a standalone I-95/NJ Turnpike reassurance marker on the SB truck/bus lanes at mile marker 65. I don't know how long that has been there.
As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/ABjqRQH.jpg)
As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/ABjqRQH.jpg)
Very...um...basic and generic! Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!
As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/ABjqRQH.jpg)
Very...um...basic and generic! Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!
I also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
Is that the justification of the guidance to not mount on bridges? I noticed a few years ago VDOT did some sign replacements where they removed the bridge-mounted signs and placed an independent gantry instead. I found it a bit odd, but I guess that might explain it.
As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/ABjqRQH.jpg)
Very...um...basic and generic! Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!
i also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.
Also, couldn't it vary for outer vs inner roadways?All of these are correct per NJTA policy for guide signs. Makes me wonder where this sign came from.
As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.
(https://i.imgur.com/ABjqRQH.jpg)
Very...um...basic and generic! Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!
i also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.Also, couldn't it vary for outer vs inner roadways?All of these are correct per NJTA policy for guide signs. Makes me wonder where this sign came from.
That would make a lot of sense and would be why a new pole wasn't installed.All of these are correct per NJTA policy for guide signs. Makes me wonder where this sign came from.
I'm guessing whatever contractor is doing the NBHCE work. This is why it lists 14A as the destination there. Again, though, the Turnpike Authority has all of those fancy colorful VMS's that could do this just as well, and customize for each roadway.
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
That's a solar panel for power.
Cross-post from the I-95/PA Turnpike Interchange Thread:
Some of the pull-through signs along the I-95 portion of the NJ Turnpike between Exits 9 (not a typo, I will elaborate below) through 7 have recently been replaced with signs showing I-95 shields.
Observations as of this past Labor Day weekend (Aug. 30 & Sept. 2):
Northbound outer corridor: Despite prior signs leaving a space for future I-95 shields to be added, the NTPA replaced the entire panels (regardless of whether such read THRU TRAFFIC or New York) with ones that read in a 2-line layout
95 NJTP NORTH
New York City
Replacements were done at Exit 8, 8A & 9; even though the pull-through at Exit 9 already had an I-95 shield on it (sign layout was in a vertical/stacked format that had space for a control city although none was listed). I guess the NJTA is standardizing/rationalizing its pull-through sign format because such along that stretch varied based on when/which project such were erected.
Southbound inner corridor: as with the northbound panels, the entire panels were replaced rather retrofitted (the wider outline of the NJTP shield on the newer signs being the dead give-away). Replacements were done at Exit 8A, 8 & 7A. As expected, Trenton is used as a control city for the signs at 8A & 8 while the pull-through at Exit 7A (I-195) uses Camden. Exit 7A is now the northernmost location for where Camden is used on a southbound pull-through sign.
No changes for any of the Exit 7 pull-through signs as of yet & I have no info. regarding any revisions/retrofits to the ramp signs on the Turnpike side of the toll plazas.
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
That's a solar panel for power.
Given that it's likely a temporary setup, that is a lot easier than having to get electrical service run to that location to power the VMS element.
I always wondered why on the NJTP south there is hardly a mention of Philly.The likely reasons for such are:
Now its time to fix it.
Now its time to fix it.
Fix what?
You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95. What more is there to fix?
Philly should be listed on secondary signage saying "Philadelphia follow I-95 S." Control cities should be Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Wilmington.Now its time to fix it.
Fix what?
You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95. What more is there to fix?
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.
Elizabeth??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣Philly should be listed on secondary signage saying "Philadelphia follow I-95 S." Control cities should be Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Wilmington.Now its time to fix it.
Fix what?
You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95. What more is there to fix?
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.
The Turnpike goes to Wilmington and that's where a majority of traffic is headed past the split.
Now its time to fix it.
Fix what?
You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95. What more is there to fix?
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.
Honestly, the only control cities on 95 between Philly and NYC should be Philly and NYC. The only reason that isn’t the case is because of 95’s complex history through the region.
It no longer goes particularly close to Trenton, so it’s seat should be removed.Honestly, the only control cities on 95 between Philly and NYC should be Philly and NYC. The only reason that isn’t the case is because of 95’s complex history through the region.
I disagree. I assert that Trenton deserves a seat at the table. It is, after all, the capital city of New Jersey.
Elizabeth??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣Philly should be listed on secondary signage saying "Philadelphia follow I-95 S." Control cities should be Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Wilmington.Now its time to fix it.
Fix what?
You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95. What more is there to fix?
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.
The Turnpike goes to Wilmington and that's where a majority of traffic is headed past the split.
You're all still missing the point that every control city on I-95 is cleared by AASHTO. That would cover everything from Trenton on up. That said, Philadelphia ought to be featured once beyond Interchange 7A, since Camden is not on I-95, but so far AASHTO hasn't said anything.
You're all still missing the point that every control city on I-95 is cleared by AASHTO. That would cover everything from Trenton on up. That said, Philadelphia ought to be featured once beyond Interchange 7A, since Camden is not on I-95, but so far AASHTO hasn't said anything.
Well, in that case PennDOT was in violation when they changed their northbound control from Trenton to New York recently. I realize why, but again, I-95 bypasses Trenton now. AASHTO should remove it.
I-95 bypasses Trenton now.Actually I-95 has bypassed Trenton's city limits since the early 60s. Prior to then, the route was planned to use the current US 1 corridor into the City of Trenton. Such was nixed in favor of using the original Scudder Falls Bridge and arc highway (current I-295).
You're all still missing the point that every control city on I-95 is cleared by AASHTO. That would cover everything from Trenton on up. That said, Philadelphia ought to be featured once beyond Interchange 7A, since Camden is not on I-95, but so far AASHTO hasn't said anything.AASHTO's control city guide has not been updated since the gap was closed -- that addressed Trenton from the south and New York from the north. The Turnpike's control cities (I guess not required to be included in AASHTO's guide, since it was not considered an interstate?) covered everything in between. I don't know what involvement they have had in the changes that have occurred over the last few years.
BTW . . . old signing plans I saw long ago for the proposed Trenton-area interchange with the Somerset Freeway showed New Brunswick as the northbound control city. I don't think they exist any longer.That's interesting. I would've thought New York would've been used for the northbound I-95/Somerset Freeway ramp signs and the northbound US 1 ramp signage at the I-295 would list New Brunswick as it does today.
Lol you know this is my website, right?I-95 bypasses Trenton now.Actually I-95 has bypassed Trenton's city limits since the early 60s. Prior to then, the route was planned to use the current US 1 corridor into the City of Trenton. Such was nixed in favor of using the original Scudder Falls Bridge and arc highway (current I-295).
Lol you know this is my website, right?I-95 bypasses Trenton now.Actually I-95 has bypassed Trenton's city limits since the early 60s. Prior to then, the route was planned to use the current US 1 corridor into the City of Trenton. Such was nixed in favor of using the original Scudder Falls Bridge and arc highway (current I-295).
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Lol you know this is my website, right?I-95 bypasses Trenton now.Actually I-95 has bypassed Trenton's city limits since the early 60s. Prior to then, the route was planned to use the current US 1 corridor into the City of Trenton. Such was nixed in favor of using the original Scudder Falls Bridge and arc highway (current I-295).
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Time to revive and update the page now that the long, strange, saga of the I-95 gap is history.
So basically, the reason why on the NJTP south from NY that Philly was not used as the control city was due to the plans for the Somerset Freeway. Now that not only has that been cancelled, but the I-95 gap filled, can we expect to see from NY to Exit 6 'Philadelphia' used as the control city?Based on the latest signs, the NJTA is finally replacing pull-through & ramps signs north of Exit 6 that didn't already have I-95 shields on them. However, the only signs that list Philadelphia on them are the Exit 6 ramp signs as well as the PA-bound pull-through sign along the PA Connector/Extension (as well as the ramp signage beyond the US 130 (aka Exit 6A) toll plaza. I believe, but not 100% sure, the current plan is to add periodic mileage signs that will list Philadelphia in them along the stretch north of Exit 6 (obviously southbound lanes only).
-I-95 in NYC, when saying I-95 south, should have 'Philadelphia' not 'Trenton as the control city,' it's assine they have 'New Haven' as the northbound control city but something like Philly for the south.IIRC, Trenton isn't used as southbound I-95/NJ Turnpike control city until it reaches Exit 15W (I-280 just north of Newark). Newark is listed on through/ramp signage north of 15W; the reasons being that such is a major city in NJ that also has a large airport (EWR) in the area.
-After Exit 6, headed south, the NJTP should have 'Wilmington/Baltimore-Washington' as the control city since most of the traffic on the NJTP is for long distance mid atlantic.Current signage uses a Camden/Wilmington combo at Exit 6, Camden only for Exit 5 & Wilmington for Exit 4 and southward. Older signage used to use either Delaware of Delaware Memorial Bridge. IMHO, any inclusion of Baltimore should only be used for mileage signs. Listing it, as well as Washington, this far north on pull-through and/or ramp signs is flat out overkill.
Getting back to the NJ Turnpike now. Is Exit 1 technically the toll plaza near the southern end? I know there's an unnumbered exit after the plaza but before the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Pennsville. I know since me and a friend stayed in a hotel off of that exit once in 2009.Yes and yes. I've always wondered why that exit doesn't mention US 40 East when going southbound. Does nobody use the Turnpike South to US 40 East?
Getting back to the NJ Turnpike now. Is Exit 1 technically the toll plaza near the southern end? I know there's an unnumbered exit after the plaza but before the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Pennsville. I know since me and a friend stayed in a hotel off of that exit once in 2009.Yes and yes. I've always wondered why that exit doesn't mention US 40 East when going southbound. Does nobody use the Turnpike South to US 40 East?
Getting back to the NJ Turnpike now. Is Exit 1 technically the toll plaza near the southern end? I know there's an unnumbered exit after the plaza but before the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Pennsville. I know since me and a friend stayed in a hotel off of that exit once in 2009.
Getting back to the NJ Turnpike now. Is Exit 1 technically the toll plaza near the southern end? I know there's an unnumbered exit after the plaza but before the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Pennsville. I know since me and a friend stayed in a hotel off of that exit once in 2009.Yes and yes. I've always wondered why that exit doesn't mention US 40 East when going southbound. Does nobody use the Turnpike South to US 40 East?
I’d suspect it’s a very small number of people.
Exit 2 via US 322 most people would use to go east on US 40. Plus Exit 3 connects indirectly via NJ 168 and NJ 42 to the ACE if anyone is going all the way to the end of US 40 as well.Getting back to the NJ Turnpike now. Is Exit 1 technically the toll plaza near the southern end? I know there's an unnumbered exit after the plaza but before the Delaware Memorial Bridge in Pennsville. I know since me and a friend stayed in a hotel off of that exit once in 2009.Yes and yes. I've always wondered why that exit doesn't mention US 40 East when going southbound. Does nobody use the Turnpike South to US 40 East?
Id suspect its a very small number of people.
https://goo.gl/maps/qaPkw5iqVcZPgC2s5At this particular location, and given that a sizeable amount of I-78 westbound traffic is coming from the Lincoln Tunnel (i.e. away from NYC); the use of New York for I-95 northbound is not appropriate IMHO. I would've used the Geo. Washington Bridge as a control point as per some of the other newer I-95/NJTP signage from Newark northward... or even Fort Lee or New Haven (I know that using either The Bronx or even the old-school New England as primary listings are no longer MUTCD-kosher).
I am impressed! New York is the control city on I-78 W Bound for I-95 NB. I guess miracles do happen!
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD changeAre those particular signs that use such in New York or New Jersey?
The more I read his sentence, the more confusing it got. I'd normally take "within the city" to mean NYC, but "as well as Manhattan" is interesting, since Manhattan is in NYC (it's NYC's downtown, in fact!). "Post MUTCD change" is also interesting since that would appear to refer back to the NJ Turnpike, which naturally doesn't have any signs in NYC.Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD changeAre those particular signs that use such in New York or New Jersey?
I'm assuming those signs he's referring to are indeed in New York (State/City) along I-95 as opposed to New Jersey. I was asking as a means to verify/confirm.The more I read his sentence, the more confusing it got. I'd normally take "within the city" to mean NYC, but "as well as Manhattan" is interesting, since Manhattan is in NYC (it's NYC's downtown, in fact!). "Post MUTCD change" is also interesting since that would appear to refer back to the NJ Turnpike, which naturally doesn't have any signs in NYC.Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD changeAre those particular signs that use such in New York or New Jersey?
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD change. Before it was all bridges and tunnels or regions outside the city as well as NJ being treated as another region or city ignoring the Garden State had sizable cities.
I am disappointed that Clinton was removed for Newark for the I-78 pullthrough exit guide (Exit 14 is Through Traffic here ironically). Just Newark is now used. I would use both or even if they considered Allentown (which is PA's third largest city) would be better than Clinton, even though I had no issue with that one. Easton, on the other hand, is copied and reminents of when US 22 took motorists west from before the freeway was built past Exit 3 in Still Valley and I-78 had a segment end there until 1990. Easton was (and is) a good point at the time being that US 22 when right through the heart of that city being across the state line, but now I-78 whizzes by it before arriving at the much larger Allentown, so if so Allentown should be considered here.
City means NYC or collectively Manhattan. Growing up in NJ we used “the city” as common as “the Parkway” for the GSP when referring to the Big Apple.The more I read his sentence, the more confusing it got. I'd normally take "within the city" to mean NYC, but "as well as Manhattan" is interesting, since Manhattan is in NYC (it's NYC's downtown, in fact!). "Post MUTCD change" is also interesting since that would appear to refer back to the NJ Turnpike, which naturally doesn't have any signs in NYC.Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD changeAre those particular signs that use such in New York or New Jersey?
I can’t recall where but The Bronx as well as Manhattan are signed in the five boroughs. Staten Island is signed like a city at Exit 127 of the Parkway at the Driscoll Bridge.I'm assuming those signs he's referring to are indeed in New York (State/City) along I-95 as opposed to New Jersey. I was asking as a means to verify/confirm.The more I read his sentence, the more confusing it got. I'd normally take "within the city" to mean NYC, but "as well as Manhattan" is interesting, since Manhattan is in NYC (it's NYC's downtown, in fact!). "Post MUTCD change" is also interesting since that would appear to refer back to the NJ Turnpike, which naturally doesn't have any signs in NYC.Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD changeAre those particular signs that use such in New York or New Jersey?
That said, signing I-95/NJTP northbound for NY/NYC north of Exit 13 IMHO is ludicrous given that one is already approaching connecting roads/highways that reach the city, Manhattan in particular, quicker than if one remains on I-95/NJTP to the GW Bridge.
I can’t recall where but The Bronx as well as Manhattan are signed in the five boroughs. Staten Island is signed like a city at Exit 127 of the Parkway at the Driscoll Bridge.Staten Island is also signed for Exit 13 (I-278) off the I-95/NJTP. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6308026,-74.2121937,3a,75y,13.59h,79.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxtv01e5mcAJ3Rc201ZqBEQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I know Queens is for I-87 since the Triborough is been removed from that particular interchange.
And here's from I-95 SBOh and here the new name for the Triboro and they also remembered that Newark is a city of interest.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8304448,-73.8327071,3a,75y,229.09h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0g6B4q_mGQH131spK5A2MQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.
Anybody else notice, when driving south on the NJTP, around exit 9 I believe, maybe 11, there is now a sign indicating the miles to Camden and Philadelphia?
I always wondered why on the NJTP south there is hardly a mention of Philly.
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9I'm pretty sure it's gone as of last time I was in the inners.
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9I'm pretty sure it's gone as of last time I was in the inners.
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9I'm pretty sure it's gone as of last time I was in the inners.
It is defintely gone. You can see it is gone in the update gsv (https://goo.gl/maps/VEYk92epvQ58bnFW6).
I find it interesting that a Ford Dealer sign is being transported by a semi in the outer roadway in GSV.The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9I'm pretty sure it's gone as of last time I was in the inners.
It is defintely gone. You can see it is gone in the update gsv (https://goo.gl/maps/VEYk92epvQ58bnFW6).
Those signs were usually posted every 10 miles on the tenth mile. Going NB it would be interesting to see New York at 100 miles and then at 90 miles, followed by 80 etc, etc, etc.As a kid, I remember when the NB signs were there for New York, but it was one of those things I never paid much attention to... UNTIL I noticed a New York 90 Miles sign on one of the rare occasions that we were south of Exit 6. I remember thinking, wow that's far!
Now even though the 3 point signs are good for travelers it is kind of a sad thing that the old nostalgia is gone. That Trenton 30 miles was there as long as I could remember. It was a shame that it did not have another with it on the inner roadway for car traffic going SB.
I'm guessing this is gone now too? I remember it hanging on for quite awhile after the sign replacements came through.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4878/33078794878_6b835fe2e2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Sp4tgC)
I have never understood the reason for Rt. 495's existence there. Didn't NJ-3 originally extend all the way east to the Lincoln Tunnel back in the day, on what is now Rt. 495?
I have never understood the reason for Rt. 495's existence there. Didn't NJ-3 originally extend all the way east to the Lincoln Tunnel back in the day, on what is now Rt. 495?Actually, it originally came down Paterson Plank Road. What's now 495 was only numbered as 3 from 1953 to 1959, when it became I-495. The Interstate designation stayed into the 1970s until it was downgraded, by which point NJ 3 had ended at US 1/9 for over a dozen years, so the easiest solution was to keep every route where it was.
New Jersey should have just changed it back to the original NJ-3 to keep it simple. That 495 designation is no longer needed and it just adds confusion to the picture.Who is confused by this? If you really don't know the area, just stay on 3 EB freeway and it magically turns into 495 and you just go straight into the tunnel. Heading west, even if you don't know you're on 495, there are constant "TO NJTP/1/9/3" signs and you will find your way.
New Jersey should have just changed it back to the original NJ-3 to keep it simple. That 495 designation is no longer needed and it just adds confusion to the picture.People may not know that it is Route 495, but the tunnel is signed well and the freeways are easily connected to each other. If you follow Route 3 east you have a major exit ramp from the left that reads Lincoln Tunnel. Going to that will not be hard to miss.
OK so the sign that says 'Philadelphia 51 miles'
is right after exit 8A on milepost 81 I believe.
Finally!
Related questions:
1) Since the 95 gap was filled, and exit 4 no longer says 'Philadelphia', has traffic gone down on that road?
2) How come I-295 was never connected to I-95 (formerly I-276) in NJ mid state?
On maps, I've never seen the NJ portion of the PATP/NJTP connector signed as I-276, nor have I ever been on it (other than "riding" with roadwaywiz on YT). Was it ever signed as I-276 other than on the countdown signs for exit 6? I never noticed in roadwaywiz's video whether it was. If not, any theories why not besides the usual suspect(s)?It was never officially I-276. It was implied by the signs, though before the I-95 part was uncovered:
ixnay
That is somewhat confusing, as they are signing their connector as "I-276" and "Penn Turnpike."On maps, I've never seen the NJ portion of the PATP/NJTP connector signed as I-276, nor have I ever been on it (other than "riding" with roadwaywiz on YT). Was it ever signed as I-276 other than on the countdown signs for exit 6? I never noticed in roadwaywiz's video whether it was. If not, any theories why not besides the usual suspect(s)?It was never officially I-276. It was implied by the signs, though before the I-95 part was uncovered:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1120126,-74.7152741,3a,75y,234.51h,78.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRc4xxMMFw-l5G5GJlMTylA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 and the older signs had I-276 and US 130 shields as well.
That is somewhat confusing, as they are signing their connector as "I-276" and "Penn Turnpike."On maps, I've never seen the NJ portion of the PATP/NJTP connector signed as I-276, nor have I ever been on it (other than "riding" with roadwaywiz on YT). Was it ever signed as I-276 other than on the countdown signs for exit 6? I never noticed in roadwaywiz's video whether it was. If not, any theories why not besides the usual suspect(s)?It was never officially I-276. It was implied by the signs, though before the I-95 part was uncovered:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1120126,-74.7152741,3a,75y,234.51h,78.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRc4xxMMFw-l5G5GJlMTylA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 and the older signs had I-276 and US 130 shields as well.
They really can't call the part in N.J. as the "Penn Turnpike."
On maps, I've never seen the NJ portion of the PATP/NJTP connector signed as I-276.In the past, there have been one or two TO 276 trailblazer signs posted along the westbound Connector median. That's been about it.
With MA going to mile based exits...and citing a federal timeline, is that something the NJ turnpike is going to be doing? i know Steve Alps cannot really say much here.Since you called me out... There is no Federal timeline I'm aware of. I haven't heard of the FHWA threatening a single state to do any of this. It was supposed to be done by now, and states are complying because the MUTCD says to. At least outwardly. It's possible that someone at FHWA gave MA and NH a buzz and made them get in line. That could be what it'll take for anyone who still is sequential at this point.
With MA going to mile based exits...and citing a federal timeline, is that something the NJ turnpike is going to be doing? i know Steve Alps cannot really say much here.Since you called me out... There is no Federal timeline I'm aware of. I haven't heard of the FHWA threatening a single state to do any of this. It was supposed to be done by now, and states are complying because the MUTCD says to. At least outwardly. It's possible that someone at FHWA gave MA and NH a buzz and made them get in line. That could be what it'll take for anyone who still is sequential at this point.
Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding. Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.
The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.I don't know that it does or doesn't. Do you know of a project that uses Federal funds up there since the takeover?
Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding. Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.
I do not believe it does. It was originally supposed to become toll-free once the tolls paid for its construction, as per some 1950’s literature on it; however, because the tolls pay for its maintenance and policing, they remained. It simply does not need federal funding.
Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding. Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.
Makes me wonder if the NJ Turnpike uses any sort of federal funding. Might be kind of a weak threat if it doesn't and therefore, I though it would stay sequential.
I do not believe it does. It was originally supposed to become toll-free once the tolls paid for its construction, as per some 1950’s literature on it; however, because the tolls pay for its maintenance and policing, they remained. It simply does not need federal funding.
Have any links or pics of said literature? Lots of people claim that the tolls were to be eliminated; no one has ever cited proof.
So, I found this brochure from 1950 on mapmaker.rutgers.edu. I zoomed into the portion in the bottom right where it talks about its funding and how it will eventually be “turned over to the state” .So even upon opening they had plans for "early expansion" (6 laning) between Woodbridge and Camden.
Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"
A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"
Going by the photos, the road was already widened by then with 6 lanes from Woodbridge to the Lincoln Tunnel complete with the short dual-dual section near Elizabeth. There is a statement that 6 lanes were being extended down to Exit 3 and up to Exit 18. Also the Penn. Turnpike and Newark-Bay Extensions were under construction. The full length car toll was still $1.75.
Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:They could have worded that better.
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"
A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"
The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.While the current numbers for that stretch are indeed mile-marker-based; such aren't with respect to the current I-95 routing in NJ. I-95's numbers would be about 3 to 4 higher than the current numbers depending on interchange.
Later versions of the booklet, like the 1955 one (presumed since it had 1954 stats in it) I have scanned changed the statement:
Q:"What happens when the bonds are paid off?"
A:"The law provides that the Turnpike be turned over to the State for inclusion into the state highway system"
Going by the photos, the road was already widened by then with 6 lanes from Woodbridge to the Lincoln Tunnel complete with the short dual-dual section near Elizabeth. There is a statement that 6 lanes were being extended down to Exit 3 and up to Exit 18. Also the Penn. Turnpike and Newark-Bay Extensions were under construction. The full length car toll was still $1.75.
The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.While the current numbers for that stretch are indeed mile-marker-based; such aren't with respect to the current I-95 routing in NJ. I-95's numbers would be about 3 to 4 higher than the current numbers depending on interchange.
In the past, there's been a back-and-forth debate on these forums/message boards regarding whether such are with respect to I-80's mileage (even though there's no concurrency despite of what's been listed on past road maps) or with respect to the pre-1982 routing of I-95 that utilized a portion of I-287 as well as the never-built Somerset Freeway.
The northern section of I-95 they purchased from NJDOT receives federal funding. It already has mileage based exits albeit for the proposed mileage of I-95 if it was built to plans.While the current numbers for that stretch are indeed mile-marker-based; such aren't with respect to the current I-95 routing in NJ. I-95's numbers would be about 3 to 4 higher than the current numbers depending on interchange.
In the past, there's been a back-and-forth debate on these forums/message boards regarding whether such are with respect to I-80's mileage (even though there's no concurrency despite of what's been listed on past road maps) or with respect to the pre-1982 routing of I-95 that utilized a portion of I-287 as well as the never-built Somerset Freeway.
Yea after the final toll on the northbound NJTP, the exits have different #s like 72 and so fourth.
I always have been confused, does those correspond to
a. Mileage of I-95 in NJ
b. Mileage of I-80 in NJ
c. Just the sequential exits off I-80 in NJ
Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector. The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.
Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector. The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.
Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector. The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.
Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector. The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.
Yea...they really need to change the EXITS on I-95 north of Exit 18, and as well the mileposts.
Like the exit is 73 (I suppose corresponding to the Somerset Expressway NOT the NJTP, I-95, or I-80), but the mile markers still correspond to the NJTP.
Needs fixed, and also lets get rid of Trenton as the directional city and put in Philadelphia.
A few more mileage indicators for Philly, especially at Exit 6, would be helpful.
I find it so odd that the Molly Pitcher is actually halfway between NYC and Philly, never knew until they recently put up the 'Philly 51 miles' after exit 9 on mile 81.
IIRC, NJDOT has had the present I-95 alignment in their single-line diagram drawings since at least 1990. Mind you, we're not talking about a stretch of the NJ Turnpike per se that couldn't yet receive an I-95 designation due to the then-absence of the Bristol ramps. This stretch of highway in question has been designated & signed as I-95 since at least the 60s(?).Really? Changing exit numbers to comply with an undesignated, unsigned route should've been the priority?Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector. The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.
And they're off, what, 3 or 4 miles from the new reality?The GSP recently revised some of their interchange numbers for mile differences as low as 1.
Fun fact: the continuation of PA's mileage to Turnpike exit 6 and the Turnpike's mileage to exit 6 are within 2.5-3 miles of each other. Another fun fact: the MUTCD doesn't actually require starting mileage from 0 (which can be either abused (see: I-17) or used logically (see: I-276)). If you number the northern exits by the Turnpike mileage and the Turnpike Extension by extending PA's mileage, you can easily number both without compromising either set of numbers significantly, as the 2-3 exit number jump in I-95 would hardly be noticed.Neither I-17 nor I-276 cross state lines. While I do know that in certain circumstances/scenarios, 3-digit Interstates don't have to reset their exit numbering (I-495 in MD/VA for example) when crossing state lines; I don't believe that such is allowed for 1 and 2-digit Interstates.
Fun fact: the continuation of PA's mileage to Turnpike exit 6 and the Turnpike's mileage to exit 6 are within 2.5-3 miles of each other. Another fun fact: the MUTCD doesn't actually require starting mileage from 0 (which can be either abused (see: I-17) or used logically (see: I-276)).The mileposting and the exit numbering scheme of the I-495 Capital Beltway does not reset at the northern state border.
Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.
lets get rid of Trenton as the directional city and put in Philadelphia.I meant to chime on this earlier; such is not going to happen IMHO. Although Trenton is smaller in size than Philly; it is still NJ's capital city. So such will still appear on primary directional signage where applicable/appropriate.
A few more mileage indicators for Philly, especially at Exit 6, would be helpful.I agree with you there... and such at least started to take place per your below-comment.
I find it so odd that the Molly Pitcher is actually halfway between NYC and Philly, never knew until they recently put up the 'Philly 51 miles' after exit 9 on mile 81._______________________________________________
Hmm, let's see here...Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, page 296Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.Should, not shall.
And they're off, what, 3 or 4 miles from the new reality?The GSP recently revised some of their interchange numbers for mile differences as low as 1.
Port Authority to change their signage near the GWB, and honestly the PA hasn't shown any interest on fixing their signage on the Trans-Manhattan to go back to mileage based exits to match up with the Cross Bronx, so I don't expect these changes anytime in the near future.On the other hand the DRBA recently changed their Delaware Memorial Bridge mile markers to coincide with I-295's actual mileage in both Delaware and New Jersey, where it used to go from zero where the DRBA jurisdiction began and increase until NJDOT's began with Mile 1.0.
Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.And breaking up the mileage/exits of the NJ Turnpike wouldn't be? Most people think of the road as the Turnpike, not I-95. Mileage/exit numbering following interstates is a shall statement, so using I-95 numbers for the spur and Turnpike numbers for the mainline is not allowed.
Just where in my post did I mention that changing the mileposts along the NJ Turnpike north of Exit 6 was going to be a cakewalk?Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.And breaking up the mileage/exits of the NJ Turnpike wouldn't be?
Mileage/exit numbering following interstates is a shall statement, so using I-95 numbers for the spur and Turnpike numbers for the mainline is not allowed.To be clear, I was never inferring nor implying anything different. That said & at face value, your earlier statement regarding breaking up the mileage exit with respect to I-95 flies right in the face of the mileage/exit numbering shall follow Interstates MUTCD statement.
My guess is likely the NJTP, if they WERE to renumber exits based on mile markers, they would do so using the mileage from the Delaware River Bridge.I'm assuming you meant the Delaware Memorial Bridge. This is one case where wording matters because the PA/NJ Turnpike (I-95) bridge is called the Delaware River Bridge. Regarding your guess, see both MUTCD and my earlier statement about the NJTA waiting until such converts to full AET before changing any of its numbers.
I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.These are two circumstances where comparing the interchange number conversions of the OH Turnpike and even the PA Turnpike circa 2000-2001 to the NJ Turnpike's future exit number conversion is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Well, the NYS Thruway completely ignores the interstates it is concurrent with. I-87 resets to zero twice, while I-90 is mostly mile-markered backwards (east to west). Of course the Thruway doesn't use mile-based exits.As with the NJ Turnpike, it would probably be better to hold off converting the interchange numbers along the Thruway, I-87 & 90 until the entire NYS Thruway is fully converted to AET.
Having several sets of similar numbers would wreak havoc on the toll collection and maintenance records, whether under current ticket system or any future AET application.Should NJTA implement AET in the same manner that MassDOT did for the Mass Pike, AET gantries only along the mainline corridors only as opposed to within the interchanges like the current ticket-system; the level of havoc, if any, would be reduced. The new mainline AET gantries could be identified by what city/town they're situated in rather than the mile marker (in cases where mile markers might run the risk of duplication depending on segment).
I guess you're taking a strict view of the three mile jump as "breaking the sequence". One could put the jump at the state line if you want to get really detail-oriented, but I would think a change at existing exit 6 would be less noticeable. In any case, it's still better than what Indiana did with I-69, and IMO with far less justification. I'm really not sure what else one would do without making either the Turnpike or I-95 the sacrificial lamb, especially since I'm not really a fan of leaving exits 1-6 sequential while converting the rest. Those southern miles drag on because of the large gaps between the exits, and the sequential numbers don't help.Just where in my post did I mention that changing the mileposts along the NJ Turnpike north of Exit 6 was going to be a cakewalk?Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.And breaking up the mileage/exits of the NJ Turnpike wouldn't be?Mileage/exit numbering following interstates is a shall statement, so using I-95 numbers for the spur and Turnpike numbers for the mainline is not allowed.To be clear, I was never inferring nor implying anything different. That said & at face value, your earlier statement regarding breaking up the mileage exit with respect to I-95 flies right in the face of the mileage/exit numbering shall follow Interstates MUTCD statement.
I mentioned of a possible compromise solution in both a Fictional thread as well as the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange thread; keep the sequential exit numbers from exit 6 southward along the NJ Turnpike and convert both the PA Connector and the mainline NJ Turnpike from Exit 6 northward to mile marker based numbering. The PA Connector is roughly 6 miles so Exit 6 will remain unchanged aside from adding EXIT 6 tabs to the exit ramp signs from I-95 northbound/Connector eastbound to the southbound NJ Turnpike mainline. Exit 7 (US 206) would probably become Exit 9 in this scenario and all the interchanges northward would follow I-95's mileage. Such would reduce or eliminate any duplicating of exit numbers between the separate NJ Turnpike & I-95 portion of it. Whether or not MUTCD would go for keeping the lower Turnpike's exit numbers sequential is anybody's guess (I would assume no).
Nonetheless, whatever renumbering plan is ultimately in store for the NJ Turnpike; this is one case where it would be more prudent to hold off on any changes along the tolled portion (Exit 18 and southward) until such goes fully AET. At present, I don't believe there's a time-table for such.
I-76 is fairly similar to the NJ Turnpike scenario, as it starts at I-71 west of Akron, and joins the Ohio Turnpike later. Of couse, the 2009 MUTCD wasn't around way back when, and I don't know what exit numbering/milepost mandates were originally present.I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.These are two circumstances where comparing the interchange number conversions of the OH Turnpike and even the PA Turnpike circa 2000-2001 to the NJ Turnpike's future exit number conversion is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
1. When the OH Turnpike converted, E-ZPass was still in its early years of operations and AET, as we know it today, was non-existent. I.e., cash tolls via a ticketed-system or collected at every mainline toll plaza were still how the majority of the driving population paid tolls. Similar held true for the PA Turnpike at the time.
2. The westernmost point of the OH Turnpike, where the interchange numberings begin is already I-80 (& I-90). Similarly, the PA Turnpike at its western end is already I-76. While the PA Turnpike's mileage continues along the I-276 portion (such did during the sequential numbering era as well); it does now change along the I-95 stretch, a recent one-year-old development, which is outside the ticketed system an is realistically not considered a toll-facility anymore between the new interchange and the US 13 interchange despite it still being a PTC roadway.
While I-76 scenario with respect to the OH Turnpike could be interpreted as similar to the I-95/NJ Turnpike scenario; the main difference is that the OH Turnpike west of the I-76/80 handoff in North Jackson already has its mile-marker-based interchange numbering based off of a 2-digit Interstate... I-80 (& I-90). Such is more like the I-76/276/PA Turnpike scenario rather than I-95/NJ Turnpike.QuoteI-76 is fairly similar to the NJ Turnpike scenario, as it starts at I-71 west of Akron, and joins the Ohio Turnpike later. Of couse, the 2009 MUTCD wasn't around way back when, and I don't know what exit numbering/milepost mandates were originally present.I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.These are two circumstances where comparing the interchange number conversions of the OH Turnpike and even the PA Turnpike circa 2000-2001 to the NJ Turnpike's future exit number conversion is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
1. When the OH Turnpike converted, E-ZPass was still in its early years of operations and AET, as we know it today, was non-existent. I.e., cash tolls via a ticketed-system or collected at every mainline toll plaza were still how the majority of the driving population paid tolls. Similar held true for the PA Turnpike at the time.
2. The westernmost point of the OH Turnpike, where the interchange numberings begin is already I-80 (& I-90). Similarly, the PA Turnpike at its western end is already I-76. While the PA Turnpike's mileage continues along the I-276 portion (such did during the sequential numbering era as well); it does now change along the I-95 stretch, a recent one-year-old development, which is outside the ticketed system an is realistically not considered a toll-facility anymore between the new interchange and the US 13 interchange despite it still being a PTC roadway.
I'd like to see the New Jersey Turnpike switch to mileage-based exit numbers. Mile 0 would be at the interchange with Interstate 295 and continue northward from there. After present-day exit 18, the exits would be renumbered to be a continuation of the exit numbers of the New Jersey Turnpike (mileage-based, of course). The New Jersey Turnpike Newark Bay Extension's Exits would be renumbered to correspond with the mileage of Interstate 78 from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border. As for the Interstate 95 connection with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the two exits along that stretch would be numbered via the mileage from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border.With the above in mind; how does one handle the numbering of I-95 north of the ticketed system (Exit 18)? At present & as earlier discussed, such is still signed with respect to I-95's pre-1982 mileage... Exit 68 being for Challenger Rd. Such would probably be Exit 118 if one uses NJ Turnpike mileage. Such would probably be Exit 73 if one uses I-95's current mileage.
While I-76 scenario with respect to the OH Turnpike could be interpreted as similar to the I-95/NJ Turnpike scenario; the main difference is that the OH Turnpike west of the I-76/80 handoff in North Jackson already has its mile-marker-based interchange numbering based off of a 2-digit Interstate... I-80 (& I-90). Such is more like the I-76/276/PA Turnpike scenario rather than I-95/NJ Turnpike.I don't agree. I wouldn't even consider the I-95/NJ Turnpike situation and I-276/PA Turnpike situation to even be particularly similar, other than a Turnpike being involved. With respect to both I-95/NJ Turnpike and I-76/Ohio Turnpike, an interstate with its own mileage is joining a toll facility with its own, larger mileage and assumes the Turnpike's mileage from there on out. In the case of I-276, it doesn't exist outside of the PA Turnpike mainline. It's numbers start where I-76 splits off from the PA Turnpike, with no other set of numbers around.
So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?
Start the mileposting at I-80 and go southward!So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?The opposite of whatever is chosen.
They will be corrected at the same time as the rest of I-95 in NJ. Whenever that may be. Until then, there's no reason to change them now.Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector. The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.
Could the mileage run this way?The mileage is based on the Somerset Freeway mileage. This has been gone over in other threads. I'd like to not discuss it AGAIN here.
From the beginning of the NJ Turnpike after I-295 (near the D.M. Bridge) to the GW Bridge tolls?
As for the current I-95 mileage in north Jersey...I always thought it was a continuation from the I-80 mileage. It DOES nearly match, to be honest.
Of course there's the nagging issue of the Turnpike not being I-95 south of Exit 6 in Mansfield.
I fully expect that if the NJTA ever renumbered the turnpike exits to mileage, it would use the turnpike's mileage straight to the GWB.
That said, it would not be hard to renumber NJ Turnpike exits to use I-95's current mileage, similar to the way PTC has two overlapping number sets for the mainline and Northeast Extension...
1 -> (unnumbered)
2 -> 13
3 -> 26
4 -> 34
5 -> 44
6 -> (unnumbered)
(6A) -> 2
7 -> 8
7A -> 15
8 -> 22
8A -> 28
9 -> 38
10 -> 43
11 -> 45
12 -> 51
13 -> 54
13A -> 57
14 -> 59
(unnumbered) - same
15E -> 62
15W -> 63
15X -> 65
16E -> 67
16W -> 68
18E -> (unnumbered)
18W -> (unnumbered)
68 -> 72
69 -> 73
70 -> 74
71 -> 75
72 -> 76
73 -> 77
74 -> 78
The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).I fully expect that if the NJTA ever renumbered the turnpike exits to mileage, it would use the turnpike's mileage straight to the GWB.
That said, it would not be hard to renumber NJ Turnpike exits to use I-95's current mileage, similar to the way PTC has two overlapping number sets for the mainline and Northeast Extension...
1 -> (unnumbered)
2 -> 13
3 -> 26
4 -> 34
5 -> 44
6 -> (unnumbered)
(6A) -> 2
7 -> 8
7A -> 15
8 -> 22
8A -> 28
9 -> 38
10 -> 43
11 -> 45
12 -> 51
13 -> 54
13A -> 57
14 -> 59
(unnumbered) - same
15E -> 62
15W -> 63
15X -> 65
16E -> 67
16W -> 68
18E -> (unnumbered)
18W -> (unnumbered)
68 -> 72
69 -> 73
70 -> 74
71 -> 75
72 -> 76
73 -> 77
74 -> 78
While I didn't include them, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include W on the western spur exits and E on the eastern spur ones, for clarity.
Overlapping exit numbers could become an issue in the future if they add more exits, which would probably be at least somewhat more likely after cashless tolling happens.
Correct, whenever a new exit/interchange was added/built; such would simply be assigned a suffixed exit number. Examples: 7A, 8A & 15X.Overlapping exit numbers could become an issue in the future if they add more exits, which would probably be at least somewhat more likely after cashless tolling happens.
Never once has the NJTA said they can't add an exit because of existing exit numbers.
Could the mileage run this way?The mileage is based on the Somerset Freeway mileage. This has been gone over in other threads. I'd like to not discuss it AGAIN here.
From the beginning of the NJ Turnpike after I-295 (near the D.M. Bridge) to the GW Bridge tolls?
As for the current I-95 mileage in north Jersey...I always thought it was a continuation from the I-80 mileage. It DOES nearly match, to be honest.
Of course there's the nagging issue of the Turnpike not being I-95 south of Exit 6 in Mansfield.
I was just driving the NJTP yesterday, and saw something interesting.
They were actually just installing a new sign southbound at MM 29 which says:
Wilmington-xxxx miles (I forgot)
Baltimore-xxxx miles (I forgot)
Washington-140 miles
Thought it was pretty cool, why are they suddenly doing this (in addition to adding the mileage to Philly southbounch at MM81)?
Can you link it then, or just tell me when it says on I-95 exit 72...what is that in reference to...mile 72 on I-95 in NJ OR mile 72 on I-80?Huh? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8656107,-74.0205147,3a,75y,77.26h,90.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skPgnriHyCNlZaSjuqJYqvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) regarding your second question. At MM 67.7 along I-80 eastbound.
Also, why does 80 co-sign with 95 only to end somewhere on the GWB instead of ending at the junction of I-95?
Could the mileage run this way?The mileage is based on the Somerset Freeway mileage. This has been gone over in other threads. I'd like to not discuss it AGAIN here.
From the beginning of the NJ Turnpike after I-295 (near the D.M. Bridge) to the GW Bridge tolls?
As for the current I-95 mileage in north Jersey...I always thought it was a continuation from the I-80 mileage. It DOES nearly match, to be honest.
Of course there's the nagging issue of the Turnpike not being I-95 south of Exit 6 in Mansfield.
Can you link it then, or just tell me when it says on I-95 exit 72...what is that in reference to...mile 72 on I-95 in NJ OR mile 72 on I-80?
Also, why does 80 co-sign with 95 only to end somewhere on the GWB instead of ending at the junction of I-95?
I was just driving the NJTP yesterday, and saw something interesting.
They were actually just installing a new sign southbound at MM 29 which says:
Wilmington-xxxx miles (I forgot)
Baltimore-xxxx miles (I forgot)
Washington-140 miles
Thought it was pretty cool, why are they suddenly doing this (in addition to adding the mileage to Philly southbounch at MM81)?
Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
As the turnpike alignment would be the more important road, I would suggest signing the turnpike I-295 and changing existing I-295 north of the turnpike to I-695, but I suppose the number recognition and signing costs would make that the less attractive option.
Well, after ALL these years, glad to have this finally cleared up.Can you link it then, or just tell me when it says on I-95 exit 72...what is that in reference to...mile 72 on I-95 in NJ OR mile 72 on I-80?Huh? (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8656107,-74.0205147,3a,75y,77.26h,90.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skPgnriHyCNlZaSjuqJYqvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) regarding your second question. At MM 67.7 along I-80 eastbound.
Also, why does 80 co-sign with 95 only to end somewhere on the GWB instead of ending at the junction of I-95?
FWIW I-80 eastbound MM 68.0 at I-95 split (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8646825,-74.015512,3a,75y,153.6h,68.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skxVLHgZvjYyYmZBLYgo1TQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
I-80 eastbound's MM 68.2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8641849,-74.0115472,3a,75y,106.44h,81.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9wDXaWQlDeHa22FxtqEHsQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) is located along the ramp to I-95 northbound.
Beyond the interchange along I-95 northbound, NJTP northbound MM 119.2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8656682,-74.0066056,3a,75y,61.52h,83.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW2U9ncl-9CbpQc_LYWD4Hw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) approaching Exits 70 A/B
Lastly, along I-95 southbound approaching I-80 interchange/Exit 69 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8682895,-74.0041688,3a,75y,209.69h,78.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI0tVhNlnf-khe7mNKifDBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
The upshot: given that I-80 mileage ends prior to reaching its MM 69.0, it's a reasonable assumption that Exit 70 A/B and the subsequent interchanges to the GW Bridge were based on I-95's pre-1982 mileage.
Side bar: SignBridge, you beat me to the punch.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
That's a great idea, I like it.
Though to be honest, what I REALLY would like it doing what I-35 does in Dallas.
Have I-95 from the current juncture at I-295, continue as it is as I-95 to Philly
Have I-295 from the juncture at I-95 to exit 6 at the PATP be 'I-95 express'
I-295 would begin at the NJTP.
Well, after ALL these years, glad to have this finally cleared up.
See I recall hearing traffic reports of 80/95....and then seeing exit 72, I figured it was using I-80s MM since that's roughly the distance of I-80 in NJ.
Wow, that is really convoluted and confusing, they NEED to change it.
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
That's a great idea, I like it.
Though to be honest, what I REALLY would like it doing what I-35 does in Dallas.
Have I-95 from the current juncture at I-295, continue as it is as I-95 to Philly
Have I-295 from the juncture at I-95 to exit 6 at the PATP be 'I-95 express'
I-295 would begin at the NJTP.
"I-95 express could be signed "I-95E" (or "I-95X").
ixnay
It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
As the turnpike alignment would be the more important road, I would suggest signing the turnpike I-295 and changing existing I-295 north of the turnpike to I-695, but I suppose the number recognition and signing costs would make that the less attractive option.
Please...for the love of god, don't do this. We've just had to do a exit number and interstate number change already, 95 north of trenton being 295 now, with "old exit" signs, same with 95 in PA north of the turnpike.
Why would that stretch of NJT need a route number at all? It seems to me the Turnpike logo is sufficient. So why add another Interstate number to the already confusing mix of Interstate numbers in the Phila-Trenton area when it's not needed?
Why would that stretch of NJT need a route number at all? It seems to me the Turnpike logo is sufficient. So why add another Interstate number to the already confusing mix of Interstate numbers in the Phila-Trenton area when it's not needed?
Because the de-facto standard for freeways is (now) that they are all (or very nearly all) signed with a route number. If NJTA does not want I-895, then they could sign with NJ-700, which is probably even more confusing to the motoring public.
I dunno. I'm fine with the Turnpike Authority signing the eastern and western spurs with mileage based numbers based on their existing mileage and just appending E or W like they are now. It works fine. The two alignments are basically designed to be able to shunt traffic from one to the other if needed for major road work, accidents, etc. Why mess with that? People get too hung up on the semantics of the rules while sometimes we should just focus on the bigger picture of what makes it easier for the average driver to find their way to their destinations.
How often does one state use the highway logo of another state? Other than maybe using the state route symbol of another state? Both DE and PA use the NJ Turnpike logo a lot to point drivers in that direction. Most states would just spell out "NJ Turnpike" on their signage.
I agree with Beltway and Roadwarriors79. Most drivers will recognize NJ Turnpike (or its logo) as the road they're looking for. But if they see only a NJ 700 or I-895 shield, how will they know that is the NJ Turnpike?
So, to switch gears back to useful things for people who travel on this road, there are now reassurance markers just south of Exit 11 showing both the 95 and Turnpike shields. Turnpike Authority had just completed some Jersey Barrier and guardrail repair in that area and these signs look to be added as part of that. I would assume we'll slowly see more reassurance markers added in this fashion, as part of other smaller maintenance and reconstruction projects. As with a lot of newer reassurance markers that the TA has been putting up, they are on wooden posts and not steel ones. That's one of those Parkway things that has been quietly moving onto the Turnpike in recent years (a lot of the newer keep right except to pass signs erected in the past couple of years are on wooden posts as well).
So, to switch gears back to useful things for people who travel on this road, there are now reassurance markers just south of Exit 11 showing both the 95 and Turnpike shields. Turnpike Authority had just completed some Jersey Barrier and guardrail repair in that area and these signs look to be added as part of that. I would assume we'll slowly see more reassurance markers added in this fashion, as part of other smaller maintenance and reconstruction projects. As with a lot of newer reassurance markers that the TA has been putting up, they are on wooden posts and not steel ones. That's one of those Parkway things that has been quietly moving onto the Turnpike in recent years (a lot of the newer keep right except to pass signs erected in the past couple of years are on wooden posts as well).
There are also reassurance markers just past Exit 10 and Exit 11 going NB.
You mean like this one just north of 6?I meant to comment on such in the Turnpike/I-95 interchange thread but I'll do such here since you posted the above-pic. When I last drove along that stretch the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, it appeared that that particular assembly wasn't there anymore. I'm guessing that its absence was the result of such being struck by an errant vehicle. Either that or I missed seeing it that time due to checking the traffic prior to changing lanes; note: I was traveling in the outer lanes.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/2019-05-15_12_02_55_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_between_Exit_6_and_Exit_7_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2019-05-15_12_02_55_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_between_Exit_6_and_Exit_7_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Concur. NJTP is shielded like a normal route, referred to like a normal route, and therefore can be followed.It would help on the Delaware side of the bridge. I-695 would be the signed route to New York City, I-295 could be struck back to Exit 1 in NJ and be signed as the route to Camden & Trenton. Then coming in from Delaware, it would be clearer to have I-95 Wilmington, I-495 Philadelphia, I-695 New York City. Plus, no one on the lower NJTP would think they were still on I-95 any longer. Emergency services would appreciate the clarity.Now that the decades-long NJTP becoming I-95 is at last accomplished... clearly having an Interstate designation is no longer the issue it was back in the beginning years. So, just make the southern section I-695 and be done with it.Doesn't really solve anything.
Based on traffic flow for the past 40 years, it's quite clear which way to go if people want to get to New York from Delaware.
While you must think EMS, police, and fire fighters have a combined IQ of a rock and that every day brings a new team of responders that have never set foot in NJ to the area much less ever heard of the Turnpike, emergency responders that work incidents on the Turnpike are very familiar the Turnpike, much more so than those that occasionally travel the Turnpike, and know that road like the back of their hands. They are able to quickly interpret a caller's location and get the proper responders there.
Also, how come they are NOW adding signs indicatin miles to Philly (mile 81) and Wil/Bal/DC (mile 29)?To comply with current MUTCD standards regarding signing distant cities/points perhaps.
What brought this on and is there more to go?
Personally I'd like to see the directional city changed for I-95 from 'Trenton' to Philadelphia.Both of these points have been brought up more than once on the Turnpike/I-95 interchange thread. I'll restate here what I stated on that other thread.
Then at exit 6 I want to see the NJTP south having Wilmington/Bal/DC as the directional.
That said & now with the I-95 gap now closed, the best way to sign Philadelphia for the I-95 portion of the Turnpike north of Exit 6 is to place it on distance signage. Having Baltimore and/or DC on distance signs is sufficient as well; there's no need to place such on the main southbound ramp/through signs. IMHO, such would be overkill.
Heading South, the most often asked distances when motorists pull into the toll plaza at Interchange 1 was Washington DC (110 miles), Baltimore (70 miles), the Maryland Rest Stop, and I-95. The 3 I understand; I guess the Maryland Rest Stop was a very frequently used spot to take a break. Interestingly, the Chesapeake Rest Stop was rarely asked about. So having a sign between the last NJ Turnpike Service Area and Interchange 1 with at least Baltimore and Washington DC shown would be very useful.Agree with having a distance sign for Baltimore and Washington, DC along that stretch would be beneficial. Does anyone know if there's any plan to erect such?
I'll disagree in regards to 'Trenton' on I-95/NJTP south.Also, how come they are NOW adding signs indicatin miles to Philly (mile 81) and Wil/Bal/DC (mile 29)?To comply with current MUTCD standards regarding signing distant cities/points perhaps.
What brought this on and is there more to go?Personally I'd like to see the directional city changed for I-95 from 'Trenton' to Philadelphia.Both of these points have been brought up more than once on the Turnpike/I-95 interchange thread. I'll restate here what I stated on that other thread.
Then at exit 6 I want to see the NJTP south having Wilmington/Bal/DC as the directional.
Since Trenton is NJ's capital city and is on closer proximity for those coming from the north than Philadelphia having it on the ramp and through signs down through Exit 8 is legitimate.
For Exits 7A & 7, could one use Philadelphia instead of Camden? Such is somewhat more debatable. Could NJTA use a Camden/Philadelphia combo for those southbound signs? Sure, but for some reason, the NJTA mostly sticks to the MUTCD practice/guidance of only using single destinations for most of their ramp/through signs. One southbound exception is the Turnpike signage at Exit 6 listing both Camden & Wilmington (predecessor ground-mounted through sign listed Camden & Delaware). FWIW, since Camden is a NJ city situated near the Turnpike corridor, signing it along the Turnpike from Exit 7A through Exit 5 is justified. Realistically, one could sign use Camden on the Turnpike through Exit 4 since NJ 73 goes nowhere near Camden whereas NJ 168 (at Exit 3) does; but NJ 168/Black Horse Pike is a smaller road than NJ 73 so one can see why the signs are labeled as such to have Camden-bound traffic leave the Turnpike further away. Had there been a Turnpike interchange with NJ 42; such would be signed for Camden and the listing on the NJ 73 signs would be replaced. I know, another topic for the Fictional Boards.
That said & now with the I-95 gap now closed, the best way to sign Philadelphia for the I-95 portion of the Turnpike north of Exit 6 is to place it on distance signage. Having Baltimore and/or DC on distance signs is sufficient as well; there's no need to place such on the main southbound ramp/through signs. IMHO, such would be overkill.
Since Trenton is NJ's capital city and is on closer proximity for those coming from the north than Philadelphia having it on the ramp and through signs down through Exit 8 is legitimate.How many other state capitals are signed along the I-95 corridor? I can't think of any. Philadelphia is probably the more common destination from the NJ Turnpike than Trenton is. The only reason I can think of for keeping Trenton is that it has always been there and would confuse travelers if it went away.
Realistically, one could sign use Camden on the Turnpike through Exit 4 since NJ 73 goes nowhere near Camden whereas NJ 168 (at Exit 3) does; but NJ 168/Black Horse Pike is a smaller road than NJ 73 so one can see why the signs are labeled as such to have Camden-bound traffic leave the Turnpike further away. Had there been a Turnpike interchange with NJ 42; such would be signed for Camden and the listing on the NJ 73 signs would be replaced. I know, another topic for the Fictional Boards.It's not just the size of the road. Southbound traffic going to Camden is better served by NJ 73 to NJ 38 than by exiting to NJ 168 and going backwards. This would have been even more true for a hypothetical interchange with I-676.
How many other state capitals are signed along the I-95 corridor?Augusta, ME; Boston, MA; Providence, RI; the fore-mentioned Trenton, NJ; Washington, DC (nation's capital); and Richmond, VA.
FTFY. The Turnpike's crossing of the North-South Freeway (NJ 42 at this location) is well south of I-76/295/676.Realistically, one could sign use Camden on the Turnpike through Exit 4 since NJ 73 goes nowhere near Camden whereas NJ 168 (at Exit 3) does; but NJ 168/Black Horse Pike is a smaller road than NJ 73 so one can see why the signs are labeled as such to have Camden-bound traffic leave the Turnpike further away. Had there been a Turnpike interchange with NJ 42; such would be signed for Camden and the listing on the NJ 73 signs would be replaced. I know, another topic for the Fictional Boards.It's not just the size of the road. Southbound traffic going to Camden is better served by NJ 73 to NJ 38 than by exiting to NJ 168 and going backwards. This would have been even more true for a hypothetical interchange withI-676NJ 42.
The often-forgotten about issue with interchange city selections (and most complaints/ideas about the NJ Turnpike) is that road goes both south AND north. So while Camden may not seem like an appropriate destination for Exit 3 going south, it's much more appropriate for those going north. These factors have to be weighed not only for both directions, but for other potential control cities for other exits.IIRC the older signs that predate the oldest GSVs for Exit 3 used to list S. Camden at least for the southbound Exit 3 signs to differentiate such from the earlier Exit 4 signs. Not sure if a similar was done for the northbound Exit 3 signs.
And before you shout out that people should just use 295 North for Camden: While true, if they don't then they still need appropriate designations on the Turnpike itself.
So while SB traffic would benefit from a shorter ride exiting at Exit 4, NB benefits from Exit 3. Both are signed for Camden. Personally I would change Exit 3 to Philly, but the NJTA seems to want to use that exclusively for the 95 routing.
The often-forgotten about issue with interchange city selections (and most complaints/ideas about the NJ Turnpike) is that road goes both south AND north. So while Camden may not seem like an appropriate destination for Exit 3 going south, it's much more appropriate for those going north. These factors have to be weighed not only for both directions, but for other potential control cities for other exits.IIRC the older signs that predate the oldest GSVs for Exit 3 used to list S. Camden at least for the southbound Exit 3 signs to differentiate such from the earlier Exit 4 signs. Not sure if a similar was done for the northbound Exit 3 signs.
And before you shout out that people should just use 295 North for Camden: While true, if they don't then they still need appropriate designations on the Turnpike itself.
So while SB traffic would benefit from a shorter ride exiting at Exit 4, NB benefits from Exit 3. Both are signed for Camden. Personally I would change Exit 3 to Philly, but the NJTA seems to want to use that exclusively for the 95 routing.
Older Exit 4 signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9439896,-74.9370567,3a,75y,221.63h,77.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTp2j08u60thwSQsgcvzGBA!2e0!5s20071101T000000!7i3328!8i1664), pardon the grainy 2007 GSV, listed only Philadelphia & Camden on it. Mount Laurel dethroned Philly; which was moved to a supplemental panel mounted underneath the main sign sometime in the early 2010s when the I-95/PA Turnpike project was finally moving forward.
The Philadelphia listing for Exit 4 is likely dates back to when the Turnpike & this interchange first opened. It was selected due to NJ 73 northbound heading towards the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge. At the time, the only two bridges that linked Philly to NJ were that and the Ben Franklin Bridge (then the Delaware River Bridge).
That said & now with the I-95 gap now closed, the best way to sign Philadelphia for the I-95 portion of the Turnpike north of Exit 6 is to place it on distance signage. Having Baltimore and/or DC on distance signs is sufficient as well; there's no need to place such on the main southbound ramp/through signs. IMHO, such would be overkill.
Heading South, the most often asked distances when motorists pull into the toll plaza at Interchange 1 was Washington DC (110 miles), Baltimore (70 miles), the Maryland Rest Stop, and I-95. The 3 I understand; I guess the Maryland Rest Stop was a very frequently used spot to take a break. Interestingly, the Chesapeake Rest Stop was rarely asked about. So having a sign between the last NJ Turnpike Service Area and Interchange 1 with at least Baltimore and Washington DC shown would be very useful.
On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.This 2008 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8613547,-75.0658888,3a,75y,248.25h,93.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5CH7RyJZiQaqIMg8cPXWgQ!2e0!5s20080901T000000!7i3328!8i1664) still shows Woodbury on the southbound Exit 3 ramp signage. This 2012 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.861345,-75.0657939,3a,75y,248.25h,84.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sg_bB9UBR213iSA9SN03HKQ!2e0!5s20120501T000000!7i13312!8i6656) shows the current signs & legends.
Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo
Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Not really. US 40 is generally a slow, 50 mph 2 lane roadway, with even slower spots thru the towns along the way. Travelers going long distances generally do not prefer these types of roads. Despite being 15 miles longer, the NJ Turnpike to the AC Expressway is often 15 minutes faster. Even if a traveler coming from Delaware took 95 into PA, across the Walt Whitman Bridge, then down 42 to the ACX, it's another 5 miles longer, and STILL faster!
There's unlimited examples of taking the first choice for a destination isn't the best or fastest choice.
Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Not really. US 40 is generally a slow, 50 mph 2 lane roadway, with even slower spots thru the towns along the way. Travelers going long distances generally do not prefer these types of roads. Despite being 15 miles longer, the NJ Turnpike to the AC Expressway is often 15 minutes faster. Even if a traveler coming from Delaware took 95 into PA, across the Walt Whitman Bridge, then down 42 to the ACX, it's another 5 miles longer, and STILL faster!
There's unlimited examples of taking the first choice for a destination isn't the best or fastest choice.
In which case, a change of the control city for the US 40 exit would seem to be in order. Woodstown, perhaps, would make much more sense, especially since NJDOT likes it in places:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6814368,-75.4107704,3a,75y,170.32h,81.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HEDvGcbR7FqsbSmRpaFHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
In which case, a change of the control city for the US 40 exit would seem to be in order. Woodstown, perhaps, would make much more sense, especially since NJDOT likes it in places:Although a tad off-topic; US 40 got demoted (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6784934,-75.4764372,3a,75y,88.72h,80.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3GqX8gt21N1paLLSii5IGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on this sign just beyond the NJ Turnpike interchange.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6814368,-75.4107704,3a,75y,170.32h,81.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HEDvGcbR7FqsbSmRpaFHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
While there’s nothing wrong with it, it apparently makes as much sense as signing US1 for Trentonnand 95/NjTP for Camden on the southbound parkway. It could be improved. Though I can imagine it’s a ghost hanging around from the early Turnpike days when there was no ACX.Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Not really. US 40 is generally a slow, 50 mph 2 lane roadway, with even slower spots thru the towns along the way. Travelers going long distances generally do not prefer these types of roads. Despite being 15 miles longer, the NJ Turnpike to the AC Expressway is often 15 minutes faster. Even if a traveler coming from Delaware took 95 into PA, across the Walt Whitman Bridge, then down 42 to the ACX, it's another 5 miles longer, and STILL faster!
There's unlimited examples of taking the first choice for a destination isn't the best or fastest choice.
In which case, a change of the control city for the US 40 exit would seem to be in order. Woodstown, perhaps, would make much more sense, especially since NJDOT likes it in places:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6814368,-75.4107704,3a,75y,170.32h,81.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HEDvGcbR7FqsbSmRpaFHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Nothing wrong with it.
Again, hundreds of similar instances around the country. It's there to help guide people when needed. It's not a mandatory route.
While there’s nothing wrong with it, it apparently makes as much sense as signing US1 for Trentonnand 95/NjTP for Camden on the southbound parkway. It could be improved. Though I can imagine it’s a ghost hanging around from the early Turnpike days when there was no ACX.Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Not really. US 40 is generally a slow, 50 mph 2 lane roadway, with even slower spots thru the towns along the way. Travelers going long distances generally do not prefer these types of roads. Despite being 15 miles longer, the NJ Turnpike to the AC Expressway is often 15 minutes faster. Even if a traveler coming from Delaware took 95 into PA, across the Walt Whitman Bridge, then down 42 to the ACX, it's another 5 miles longer, and STILL faster!
There's unlimited examples of taking the first choice for a destination isn't the best or fastest choice.
In which case, a change of the control city for the US 40 exit would seem to be in order. Woodstown, perhaps, would make much more sense, especially since NJDOT likes it in places:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6814368,-75.4107704,3a,75y,170.32h,81.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HEDvGcbR7FqsbSmRpaFHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Nothing wrong with it.
Again, hundreds of similar instances around the country. It's there to help guide people when needed. It's not a mandatory route.
298? Is not that up in Syracuse lol? Mahway, is Rahway merged with Mahwah?While theres nothing wrong with it, it apparently makes as much sense as signing US1 for Trentonnand 95/NjTP for Camden on the southbound parkway. It could be improved. Though I can imagine its a ghost hanging around from the early Turnpike days when there was no ACX.Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Not really. US 40 is generally a slow, 50 mph 2 lane roadway, with even slower spots thru the towns along the way. Travelers going long distances generally do not prefer these types of roads. Despite being 15 miles longer, the NJ Turnpike to the AC Expressway is often 15 minutes faster. Even if a traveler coming from Delaware took 95 into PA, across the Walt Whitman Bridge, then down 42 to the ACX, it's another 5 miles longer, and STILL faster!
There's unlimited examples of taking the first choice for a destination isn't the best or fastest choice.
In which case, a change of the control city for the US 40 exit would seem to be in order. Woodstown, perhaps, would make much more sense, especially since NJDOT likes it in places:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6814368,-75.4107704,3a,75y,170.32h,81.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HEDvGcbR7FqsbSmRpaFHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Nothing wrong with it.
Again, hundreds of similar instances around the country. It's there to help guide people when needed. It's not a mandatory route.
The Turnpike Authority gets very set in its ways about control cities and doesn't like to deviate. That's why you still have Metuchen signed at Exit 10 even though 298 has extended well beyond it for decades now and NJDOT uses Morristown and Mahway as their control cities for 287NB.
298? Is not that up in Syracuse lol? Mahway, is Rahway merged with Mahwah?While theres nothing wrong with it, it apparently makes as much sense as signing US1 for Trentonnand 95/NjTP for Camden on the southbound parkway. It could be improved. Though I can imagine its a ghost hanging around from the early Turnpike days when there was no ACX.Wow, I'm actually shocked, especially since they had JUST passed an exit for Atlantic City (40). Weird.On Exit 3 they used to have Woodbury going southbound, but removed it when Atlantic City Expressway was added. IMO I thought that was not a good city to use as no direct way to it from there.
Also IMO I would sign it as Bellmawr and Camden both ways and have both Atlantic City and Philly on supplemental signs. Then for route numbers I would use NJ 168 to NJ 42 and ACE in shields. Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo so a second supplemental sign should be erected.
I tend to think there isn't much reason to sign either AC or the ACX at Exit 3... Camden is really the only good city I can think of, with the others all debatable in one way or another.
When I worked at Exit 3, people asking for directions to the AC Expressway was by far the most often asked question. Most of these people had entered at Interchange 1. So that destination is very important to have signed here.
Directions to Philly was second.
Not really. US 40 is generally a slow, 50 mph 2 lane roadway, with even slower spots thru the towns along the way. Travelers going long distances generally do not prefer these types of roads. Despite being 15 miles longer, the NJ Turnpike to the AC Expressway is often 15 minutes faster. Even if a traveler coming from Delaware took 95 into PA, across the Walt Whitman Bridge, then down 42 to the ACX, it's another 5 miles longer, and STILL faster!
There's unlimited examples of taking the first choice for a destination isn't the best or fastest choice.
In which case, a change of the control city for the US 40 exit would seem to be in order. Woodstown, perhaps, would make much more sense, especially since NJDOT likes it in places:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6814368,-75.4107704,3a,75y,170.32h,81.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8HEDvGcbR7FqsbSmRpaFHw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Nothing wrong with it.
Again, hundreds of similar instances around the country. It's there to help guide people when needed. It's not a mandatory route.
The Turnpike Authority gets very set in its ways about control cities and doesn't like to deviate. That's why you still have Metuchen signed at Exit 10 even though 298 has extended well beyond it for decades now and NJDOT uses Morristown and Mahway as their control cities for 287NB.
No the red flag has not caught on like the green stamp for the NJ Turnpike (the name used on the CB radio in the 80's) and the yellow and green Parkway icons.
There are also reassurance markers just past Exit 10 and Exit 11 going NB. Assuming that we'll soon see these beyond every entrance in the not too distant future.
There are also reassurance markers just past Exit 10 and Exit 11 going NB. Assuming that we'll soon see these beyond every entrance in the not too distant future.
They are at Exit 9 too. Didn't see any south of there down to Exit 1. The NJTP shields used look like kontractor specials though, like someone drew them in paint. Hopefully they get replaced with spec shields.
It would be great to see shields post interchange go up as only the I-95 and TO I-95 (south of Exit 10) were the only reassurance info you received. Pretty much many toll roads do not post reassurance for their roadways, but since I see it in Florida, it seems like a good idea.
Though I grew up near the Parkway and it seemed normal for a unnumbered road to not have them, for some reason now on the NJ Turnpike it seems okay to add them. I imagine being such an undertaking it will be done in phases as part of other projects rather than devote a whole entire project to just adding them alone.
Overall I definitely like the signing changes that have come to the turnpike over the last few years. In a way I'll miss their own special designs, but at the same time, its nice to see proper MUTCD (and Highway Gothic) in heavy use.It would be great to see shields post interchange go up as only the I-95 and TO I-95 (south of Exit 10) were the only reassurance info you received. Pretty much many toll roads do not post reassurance for their roadways, but since I see it in Florida, it seems like a good idea.
Though I grew up near the Parkway and it seemed normal for a unnumbered road to not have them, for some reason now on the NJ Turnpike it seems okay to add them. I imagine being such an undertaking it will be done in phases as part of other projects rather than devote a whole entire project to just adding them alone.
I like that they include the NJTP shield as well. They already use the shield alone south of Exit 6 on some pullthrus, and most people know the Turnpike as such already. It helps, rather than hinders, motorists I believe.
But it would seem that the term "Green Stamp" would have started with the NJ Turnpike, given the similarity of its logo to that of S&H Green Stamps. Younger people may not remember but in the past people would clip "green stamps" to save money at the supermarket.
SM-G960U
https://goo.gl/maps/JfdJ1LYyPio4R5zM6 What is up with double lights at the Exit 8A toll plaza?Never noticed that and could probably dig up an answer for you, but my initial thought is that it took two smaller bulbs to provide sufficiently uniform illumination of the entire plaza area vs. one larger bulb at each spot, and this helped minimize the number of light poles.
But it would seem that the term "Green Stamp" would have started with the NJ Turnpike, given the similarity of its logo to that of S&H Green Stamps. Younger people may not remember but in the past people would clip "green stamps" to save money at the supermarket.
SM-G960U
I find it interesting how the NJTP now references ”˜New York City’ instead of ”˜New York.’
Anybody know if more mileage signs have or are coming?
I find it interesting how the NJTP now references ”˜New York City’ instead of ”˜New York.’
Anybody know if more mileage signs have or are coming?
MassDOT uses NY City for the exit for I-84, but that may be a holdover from when MassPike was its own agency.
Also, NJDOT's usage is all over the place. Newer signs (for the most part) will spell out the full New York City, but other signs still use just New York. Sadly, north of 9, the Turnpike Authority seems hesitant to use anything, even though I still think it should use New York City thru 14, then put up some signs to say something to the effect of
New York City via
--------------------
Holland Tunnel - 14C
Lincoln Tunnel - 16E
Geo Washington Br - 18W
And have all pullthrus north of there specify the crossing, as that is more useful guidance than the city name at that point. Sadly all the pullthrus when they replaced signage from 9 northward neither include a destination city, nor space for one.
I know I-80 and I-78 list NYC as "New York City" so I suppose that's bringing the NJTA in line with NJDOT control city standards.
Brief aside but I do find it interesting how each component state of the Tri-State refers to the central metropole differently. NJ uses "New York City", NY uses "New York*", and CT uses, pretty inexplicably imo, "N.Y. City" (people generally call it New York, New York City, NYC or the City, but never NY City). It does make sense in NJ and CT to explicitly reference the City of New York to avoid confusion since they both have roads that lead to the State of New York but away from the City (I-287, NJ-17, GSP, PIP in NJ, I-84 in CT). Meanwhile within New York since you're already in the State of New York there's no confusion over what's being referenced.
(*it would seem Rockland County generally uses New York City but being a west-of-Hudson suburb it is functionally grouped with NJ in many cases. Not sure why NYSTA would sign it differently here though)
There are also reassurance markers just past Exit 10 and Exit 11 going NB. Assuming that we'll soon see these beyond every entrance in the not too distant future.During my recent trip to/from MA; I noticed some additional I-95 & NJTP reassurance markers posted south of Exit 10. A couple things I've noticed were:
I'm pretty sure whether a sign says "New York" or "New York City" in NY is mainly a function of whether it's a recent install or not. Newer signage says "New York City" in my experience while older signage simply says "New York".I find it interesting how the NJTP now references ”˜New York City’ instead of ”˜New York.’
Anybody know if more mileage signs have or are coming?
I know I-80 and I-78 list NYC as "New York City" so I suppose that's bringing the NJTA in line with NJDOT control city standards.
Brief aside but I do find it interesting how each component state of the Tri-State refers to the central metropole differently. NJ uses "New York City", NY uses "New York*", and CT uses, pretty inexplicably imo, "N.Y. City" (people generally call it New York, New York City, NYC or the City, but never NY City). It does make sense in NJ and CT to explicitly reference the City of New York to avoid confusion since they both have roads that lead to the State of New York but away from the City (I-287, NJ-17, GSP, PIP in NJ, I-84 in CT). Meanwhile within New York since you're already in the State of New York there's no confusion over what's being referenced.
(*it would seem Rockland County generally uses New York City but being a west-of-Hudson suburb it is functionally grouped with NJ in many cases. Not sure why NYSTA would sign it differently here though)
It was interesting on the NJTP to see yet another new sign, this time at MM 62 NB, it now says ”˜New York City-90 miles.’I hope you mean 60 miles since GWB is at MP 122 in the Turnpike system. The mileage signs kinda took me by surprise too so I couldn't tell you the plans. I don't like this one though, because you can get to New York City (Staten Island) much sooner than 60 miles, or even Manhattan via 78 (and look, staying on the Turnpike system).
What’s up with all these new signs, I think they’re great.
I recall there used to be a sign in Cherry Hill saying ”˜New York-90 miles’ but that’s long gone (anybody know the story on that)?
I find it interesting how the NJTP now references ”˜New York City’ instead of ”˜New York.’
Anybody know if more mileage signs have or are coming?
Maybe a better option for that location would be to display 3 mileage options to NYC via key routes.It was interesting on the NJTP to see yet another new sign, this time at MM 62 NB, it now says ”˜New York City-90 miles.’I hope you mean 60 miles since GWB is at MP 122 in the Turnpike system. The mileage signs kinda took me by surprise too so I couldn't tell you the plans. I don't like this one though, because you can get to New York City (Staten Island) much sooner than 60 miles, or even Manhattan via 78 (and look, staying on the Turnpike system).
What’s up with all these new signs, I think they’re great.
I recall there used to be a sign in Cherry Hill saying ”˜New York-90 miles’ but that’s long gone (anybody know the story on that)?
I find it interesting how the NJTP now references ”˜New York City’ instead of ”˜New York.’
Anybody know if more mileage signs have or are coming?
There are also reassurance markers just past Exit 10 and Exit 11 going NB. Assuming that we'll soon see these beyond every entrance in the not too distant future.During my recent trip to/from MA; I noticed some additional I-95 & NJTP reassurance markers posted south of Exit 10. A couple things I've noticed were:
1. Wooden posts are used en lieu of steel; the now-missing northbound reassurance assembly just north of Exit 6 was also on a wooden post but the southbound one at MM 65 that's been there for a few months uses a steel 'box' channel post.
and
2. Additional wooden diagonal bracing, what one used to see for temporary/construction signage, is also present on said-newer signs on wooden posts.
We'll see if that's the case the next time I use that stretch. The earliest of those wooden post installs w/the bracing was no later than the Wednesday before Thanksgiving... a little past the 28-day curing period.There are also reassurance markers just past Exit 10 and Exit 11 going NB. Assuming that we'll soon see these beyond every entrance in the not too distant future.During my recent trip to/from MA; I noticed some additional I-95 & NJTP reassurance markers posted south of Exit 10. A couple things I've noticed were:
1. Wooden posts are used en lieu of steel; the now-missing northbound reassurance assembly just north of Exit 6 was also on a wooden post but the southbound one at MM 65 that's been there for a few months uses a steel 'box' channel post.
and
2. Additional wooden diagonal bracing, what one used to see for temporary/construction signage, is also present on said-newer signs on wooden posts.
I was thinking that the bracing was while they waited for the concrete base pour to cure properly and then it will be removed.
It was interesting on the NJTP to see yet another new sign, this time at MM 62 NB, it now says ”˜New York City-90 miles.’I hope you mean 60 miles since GWB is at MP 122 in the Turnpike system. The mileage signs kinda took me by surprise too so I couldn't tell you the plans. I don't like this one though, because you can get to New York City (Staten Island) much sooner than 60 miles, or even Manhattan via 78 (and look, staying on the Turnpike system).
What’s up with all these new signs, I think they’re great.
I recall there used to
Saw a new mileage sign SB somwhere south of Exit 4. Cities listed were Wlmington, Baltimore, and Washington DC. At that sign, DC was 140 miles away.Well some on here will be dancing for joy as many on here think that Wilmington should not be a control city at all on the Turnpike south being it enters Delaware just south of it and Baltimore is more southward and where most vehicles head for leaving the Turnpike at Exit 1.
Saw a new mileage sign SB somwhere south of Exit 4. Cities listed were Wlmington, Baltimore, and Washington DC. At that sign, DC was 140 miles away.Well some on here will be dancing for joy as many on here think that Wilmington should not be a control city at all on the Turnpike south being it enters Delaware just south of it
https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html (https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html)
Similar to our discussion of the recent PA Turnpike accident, 40 miles of the truck lanes northbound was closed causing up 2 hours of delays this morning. With such long stretches of road closed, why can't the NJTA implement something like truck lanes for exits 6-10 only northbound and if you want to go further north, gotta take the car lanes?
I'd think that a few conveniently placed crossover locations between exits (since the stretches can be quite long especially below 9) would be useful, though perhaps not enough to justify the cost of them.FWIW, there are these median openings (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.31149,-74.490528,3a,75y,344.67h,68.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skkndXJ-ha0yRheu3iWvNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 1000-ft advance signage (hence the Z-1000 notations) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3087891,-74.4917238,3a,75y,17.23h,78.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0aaI75zqfnwAT2UnDFFdQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) along the dual-carriageway portion of the Turnpike; but obviously, such isn't intended for public use.
I'd think that a few conveniently placed crossover locations between exits (since the stretches can be quite long especially below 9) would be useful, though perhaps not enough to justify the cost of them.FWIW, there are these median openings (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.31149,-74.490528,3a,75y,344.67h,68.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skkndXJ-ha0yRheu3iWvNJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 1000-ft advance signage (hence the Z-1000 notations) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3087891,-74.4917238,3a,75y,17.23h,78.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0aaI75zqfnwAT2UnDFFdQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) along the dual-carriageway portion of the Turnpike; but obviously, such isn't intended for public use.
When the outer roadway is closed are there actual barriers or just the sign that says ROADWAY CLOSED DO NOT ENTER?
I remember travelling the Turnpike about 10 years ago and the inner roadway SB was signed as "ROAD CLOSED - DO NOT ENTER" and the outer lanes signed as "ALL TRAFFIC". Not sure why the inner lanes were closed, as they were marked as open at interchanges further south. There were no physical barriers used, just the signage.
When the outer roadway is closed are there actual barriers or just the sign that says ROADWAY CLOSED DO NOT ENTER?
At the interchanges, there are gates that close off the roadway.
Going north between exit 5 and 6, the one time I experienced a roadway closure they closed the right lane using cones (with minimal signage announcing the lane closure prior to the closure), briefly making it a 2 lane roadway, then widened it to 3 lanes at the split. A few NJ Turnpike trucks were in position in the area, although if someone absolutely insisted on wanting to go thru the cones and enter the closed roadway, they could. The signs for the open roadway had 3 down arrows; the closed roadway sign had 3 red x's. When I went thru the area at 7am on a weekday, the 2 lanes were perfectly adequate to handle the traffic at that time.
https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html (https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html)So, believe me, the NJTA has thought about this before. In a real pinch, you can of course shunt drivers off the next exit if the roadway is very closed, but then they lose revenue. There is one rest area (I think each way south of 8A) that facilitates a crossover without ever going through the parking lot, but it's not supposed to be used that way. None of these are intended to be implemented for traffic, only to get stuck drivers unstuck. The delays suck, but first of all, you've gotta travel through that bottleneck at some point (or go take US 130 if your destination is closer), and second of all, it is by far the operationally simplest solution to implement and monitor. Crossovers cost a lot of money to build as structures. You could, in theory, do a Local/Express style where an at-grade crossover merges into the adjacent lanes, and some distance down the road, another one merges back, rinse, repeat. But these may end up being closed except in emergencies, so why realign the roadway every mile or two for something traffic generally can't use? (I would imagine the NJTA does not want traffic switching roadways opportunely.)
Similar to our discussion of the recent PA Turnpike accident, 40 miles of the truck lanes northbound was closed causing up 2 hours of delays this morning. With such long stretches of road closed, why can't the NJTA implement something like truck lanes for exits 6-10 only northbound and if you want to go further north, gotta take the car lanes?
https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html (https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html)So, believe me, the NJTA has thought about this before. In a real pinch, you can of course shunt drivers off the next exit if the roadway is very closed, but then they lose revenue. There is one rest area (I think each way south of 8A) that facilitates a crossover without ever going through the parking lot, but it's not supposed to be used that way. None of these are intended to be implemented for traffic, only to get stuck drivers unstuck. The delays suck, but first of all, you've gotta travel through that bottleneck at some point (or go take US 130 if your destination is closer), and second of all, it is by far the operationally simplest solution to implement and monitor. Crossovers cost a lot of money to build as structures. You could, in theory, do a Local/Express style where an at-grade crossover merges into the adjacent lanes, and some distance down the road, another one merges back, rinse, repeat. But these may end up being closed except in emergencies, so why realign the roadway every mile or two for something traffic generally can't use? (I would imagine the NJTA does not want traffic switching roadways opportunely.)
Similar to our discussion of the recent PA Turnpike accident, 40 miles of the truck lanes northbound was closed causing up 2 hours of delays this morning. With such long stretches of road closed, why can't the NJTA implement something like truck lanes for exits 6-10 only northbound and if you want to go further north, gotta take the car lanes?
As I said, I know they've considered it. I doubt they would have put up sign bridges for something without firm plans for it, so those may have been temporary.https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html (https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2020/01/massive-delays-on-nj-turnpike-after-fiery-propane-truck-crash-forces-40-miles-of-lane-closures.html)So, believe me, the NJTA has thought about this before. In a real pinch, you can of course shunt drivers off the next exit if the roadway is very closed, but then they lose revenue. There is one rest area (I think each way south of 8A) that facilitates a crossover without ever going through the parking lot, but it's not supposed to be used that way. None of these are intended to be implemented for traffic, only to get stuck drivers unstuck. The delays suck, but first of all, you've gotta travel through that bottleneck at some point (or go take US 130 if your destination is closer), and second of all, it is by far the operationally simplest solution to implement and monitor. Crossovers cost a lot of money to build as structures. You could, in theory, do a Local/Express style where an at-grade crossover merges into the adjacent lanes, and some distance down the road, another one merges back, rinse, repeat. But these may end up being closed except in emergencies, so why realign the roadway every mile or two for something traffic generally can't use? (I would imagine the NJTA does not want traffic switching roadways opportunely.)
Similar to our discussion of the recent PA Turnpike accident, 40 miles of the truck lanes northbound was closed causing up 2 hours of delays this morning. With such long stretches of road closed, why can't the NJTA implement something like truck lanes for exits 6-10 only northbound and if you want to go further north, gotta take the car lanes?
Wasn't there a plan in the works when they were doing the 6-9 dualization to put some sort of cross over in place north of 8A? I remember they had sign bridges up and everything only for them to be later taken down.
Alps, those at-grade crossovers wouldn't have to be every mile or two. They could just put them in maybe every ten miles or so, and keep them open normally. They wouldn't lose any toll revenue. And I'm sure they would be safe enough given the NJTA's usual competent engineering. Though I guess one problem might be that they don't want traffic entering from the left side on a high speed roadway, which would happen when crossing from the car lanes to the truck lanes. I know that's why service areas were not built in the middle on the Turnpike, unlike on I-95 in Delaware and Maryland.There are several on 78 in both directions. NJDOT is not averse to at-grade crossovers but I don't find it surprising the NJTA is. Note that the Parkway also has them, but these were built in the NJHA days and also are cars-only.
I know I-80 has at least one such crossover from the local to express lanes just east of the Garden State Parkway interchange. Are there any like that on I-78?
Wasn't there a plan in the works when they were doing the 6-9 dualization to put some sort of cross over in place north of 8A? I remember they had sign bridges up and everything only for them to be later taken down.
There are several on 78 in both directions. NJDOT is not averse to at-grade crossovers but I don't find it surprising the NJTA is. Note that the Parkway also has them, but these were built in the NJHA days and also are cars-only.
I remember travelling the Turnpike about 10 years ago and the inner roadway SB was signed as "ROAD CLOSED - DO NOT ENTER" and the outer lanes signed as "ALL TRAFFIC". Not sure why the inner lanes were closed, as they were marked as open at interchanges further south. There were no physical barriers used, just the signage.The inner carriageway is closed late nite, I believe. Or at least it was coming back from Philly last summer.
Depends if they need to do work.I remember travelling the Turnpike about 10 years ago and the inner roadway SB was signed as "ROAD CLOSED - DO NOT ENTER" and the outer lanes signed as "ALL TRAFFIC". Not sure why the inner lanes were closed, as they were marked as open at interchanges further south. There were no physical barriers used, just the signage.The inner carriageway is closed late nite, I believe. Or at least it was coming back from Philly last summer.
I remember travelling the Turnpike about 10 years ago and the inner roadway SB was signed as "ROAD CLOSED - DO NOT ENTER" and the outer lanes signed as "ALL TRAFFIC". Not sure why the inner lanes were closed, as they were marked as open at interchanges further south. There were no physical barriers used, just the signage.The inner carriageway is closed late nite, I believe. Or at least it was coming back from Philly last summer.
I remember travelling the Turnpike about 10 years ago and the inner roadway SB was signed as "ROAD CLOSED - DO NOT ENTER" and the outer lanes signed as "ALL TRAFFIC". Not sure why the inner lanes were closed, as they were marked as open at interchanges further south. There were no physical barriers used, just the signage.The inner carriageway is closed late nite, I believe. Or at least it was coming back from Philly last summer.
I noticed with two of the new reassurance NJTP shields (at least SB past 13A and 10), they're of the "sucked on a lemon" variety (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255853,-74.4501049,3a,15y,323.53h,90.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syHP15aRO4_ySa0Mv4t7rMA!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i16384!8i8192). It's one thing for a contractor installing such a vile piece of metal back in 2005 but for its own authority to be installing them...I find it interesting that every shield does not follow the Standard Drawings, where it is fully dimensioned. https://www.njta.com/media/2074/sd-njta-sl12.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/2074/sd-njta-sl12.pdf)
I noticed with two of the new reassurance NJTP shields (at least SB past 13A and 10), they're of the "sucked on a lemon" variety (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255853,-74.4501049,3a,15y,323.53h,90.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syHP15aRO4_ySa0Mv4t7rMA!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i16384!8i8192). It's one thing for a contractor installing such a vile piece of metal back in 2005 but for its own authority to be installing them...I find it interesting that every shield does not follow the Standard Drawings, where it is fully dimensioned. https://www.njta.com/media/2074/sd-njta-sl12.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/2074/sd-njta-sl12.pdf)
I noticed over the years little by little the Turnpike signs are all used with arrows inside circles instead of the long rectangles that once were. I do not see anyplace else in the country with arrows inside circles like the NJTA uses now.
Not being critical but I find it quite cool to see them even though they do look strange.
Another neat old road-related photo from the annals of Reddit:
(https://i.redd.it/kt7mjosk8a941.jpg)
source (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/el64u9/albany_street_new_brunswick_circa_1974/)
So that was a weird circle like thing the predates the northern part of Rt 18 that was built in the late 50s looking at historic aerials. Very interesting.
Another neat old road-related photo from the annals of Reddit:
(https://i.redd.it/kt7mjosk8a941.jpg)
source (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/el64u9/albany_street_new_brunswick_circa_1974/)
So that was a weird circle like thing the predates the northern part of Rt 18 that was built in the late 50s looking at historic aerials. Very interesting.
The arrow that you see in this old New Brunswick photo below the NJ Turnpike shield.
I noticed with two of the new reassurance NJTP shields (at least SB past 13A and 10), they're of the "sucked on a lemon" variety (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255853,-74.4501049,3a,15y,323.53h,90.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syHP15aRO4_ySa0Mv4t7rMA!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i16384!8i8192). It's one thing for a contractor installing such a vile piece of metal back in 2005 but for its own authority to be installing them...
I noticed with two of the new reassurance NJTP shields (at least SB past 13A and 10), they're of the "sucked on a lemon" variety (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5255853,-74.4501049,3a,15y,323.53h,90.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1syHP15aRO4_ySa0Mv4t7rMA!2e0!5s20180901T000000!7i16384!8i8192). It's one thing for a contractor installing such a vile piece of metal back in 2005 but for its own authority to be installing them...
I had previously seen a few northbound ones of the same variety, north of 10 and north of 11. Did anyone get any pictures of them and the temporary wooden supports? I was up there earlier today for another reason (and to get pictures), and the installs look to have different Turnpike markers more like the standard appearance.
If approved, toll hikes would also help finance a proposal by State Senate President Steve Sweeney to provide dedicated funds for NJ Transit.Sounds like The NJ Turnpike Authority's taking a page from the neighboring PTC's Act 44 playbook. If such is the case; I'm hoping the voters shoot this initiative down. It's another robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
That proposal, that Sweeney announced Friday, would constitutionally dedicate $500 million annually for NJ Transit’s operating budget that would include $125 million from the Turnpike Authority and $75 million from a Clean Energy Fund to transit operations. It would also use a 1 percent tax on corporate income in New Jersey from an existing tax. That plan would require voter approval.
From your linked-article, towards the end:Quote from: NJ.comIf approved, toll hikes would also help finance a proposal by State Senate President Steve Sweeney to provide dedicated funds for NJ Transit.Sounds like The NJ Turnpike Authority's taking a page from the neighboring PTC's Act 44 playbook. If such is the case; I'm hoping the voters shoot this initiative down. It's another robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
That proposal, that Sweeney announced Friday, would constitutionally dedicate $500 million annually for NJ Transit’s operating budget that would include $125 million from the Turnpike Authority and $75 million from a Clean Energy Fund to transit operations. It would also use a 1 percent tax on corporate income in New Jersey from an existing tax. That plan would require voter approval.
If NJ.com's article is true & accurate; expect NJ 101.5 FM to raise a major stink over it once the station received wind of the story.
The article says voter approval, so there you have it. I haven't heard anything about a toll hike, but it's been quite awhile since the last one.From your linked-article, towards the end:Quote from: NJ.comIf approved, toll hikes would also help finance a proposal by State Senate President Steve Sweeney to provide dedicated funds for NJ Transit.Sounds like The NJ Turnpike Authority's taking a page from the neighboring PTC's Act 44 playbook. If such is the case; I'm hoping the voters shoot this initiative down. It's another robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
That proposal, that Sweeney announced Friday, would constitutionally dedicate $500 million annually for NJ Transit’s operating budget that would include $125 million from the Turnpike Authority and $75 million from a Clean Energy Fund to transit operations. It would also use a 1 percent tax on corporate income in New Jersey from an existing tax. That plan would require voter approval.
If NJ.com's article is true & accurate; expect NJ 101.5 FM to raise a major stink over it once the station received wind of the story.
Depends on the exact proposal, but often these aren't public forum questions. Voters will have to vote their elected politicians out of they are unhappy with the additional spending, which they often won't do.
I've mentioned numerous times the Turnpike is already contributing a few hundred million to the state's general budget, so this proposal could be a part of that, or an additional payment.
Looks like Express EZ Pass lanes are finally coming to Interchange 16E/18E.
Last month's board minutes: https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf (Page 9 of the PDF).
If I were to guess: They're adding Express EZ Pass lanes to both entry and exit of 18E only, which is in the center side of the plaza. The minutes also mention modifications to the XBL Bus lanes and ramp as part of this contract.
Looks like Express EZ Pass lanes are finally coming to Interchange 16E/18E.I would also think that they'd only be 18E. I must disclaim that I have no knowledge of the actual plans, but I can't imagine high-speed E-ZPass for NJ 495 given the low-speed curves and that it is often backed up to the plaza anyway. Not to mention the title is Interchange 18 E-ZPass and 16 Improvements.
Last month's board minutes: https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf) (Page 9 of the PDF).
If I were to guess: They're adding Express EZ Pass lanes to both entry and exit of 18E only, which is in the center side of the plaza. The minutes also mention modifications to the XBL Bus lanes and ramp as part of this contract.
Looks like Express EZ Pass lanes are finally coming to Interchange 16E/18E.I would also think that they'd only be 18E. I must disclaim that I have no knowledge of the actual plans, but I can't imagine high-speed E-ZPass for NJ 495 given the low-speed curves and that it is often backed up to the plaza anyway. Not to mention the title is Interchange 18 E-ZPass and 16 Improvements.
Last month's board minutes: https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf) (Page 9 of the PDF).
If I were to guess: They're adding Express EZ Pass lanes to both entry and exit of 18E only, which is in the center side of the plaza. The minutes also mention modifications to the XBL Bus lanes and ramp as part of this contract.
I'm pretty sure that back in the days of highway advisory radio (does that still exist? I mean before Google traffic and 511), they used it all the time.Looks like Express EZ Pass lanes are finally coming to Interchange 16E/18E.
Last month's board minutes: https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf (Page 9 of the PDF).
If I were to guess: They're adding Express EZ Pass lanes to both entry and exit of 18E only, which is in the center side of the plaza. The minutes also mention modifications to the XBL Bus lanes and ramp as part of this contract.
It stood out to me that they called it the Eastern Spur in this document. The Authority generally tries to discourage the "spur" nominclature and calls them the Easterly and Westerly alignments IIRC. The Spur thing I always thought was one of those traffic reporter shorthands that stuck.
I'm pretty sure that back in the days of highway advisory radio (does that still exist? I mean before Google traffic and 511), they used it all the time.Looks like Express EZ Pass lanes are finally coming to Interchange 16E/18E.
Last month's board minutes: https://www.njta.com/media/5109/minutes-board-meeting-01-28-2020-ain-001-through-037.pdf (Page 9 of the PDF).
If I were to guess: They're adding Express EZ Pass lanes to both entry and exit of 18E only, which is in the center side of the plaza. The minutes also mention modifications to the XBL Bus lanes and ramp as part of this contract.
It stood out to me that they called it the Eastern Spur in this document. The Authority generally tries to discourage the "spur" nominclature and calls them the Easterly and Westerly alignments IIRC. The Spur thing I always thought was one of those traffic reporter shorthands that stuck.
I'm pretty sure that back in the days of highway advisory radio (does that still exist? I mean before Google traffic and 511), they used it all the time.Yes … VDOT utilizes HAR as well as 511.
It's still used on the Thruway (and I think a few other places in NY too) as well.
You can get real-time traffic stats on ConnDOTs website.It's still used on the Thruway (and I think a few other places in NY too) as well.
HAR is widely used in CT (I see it all the time on I-84), but we don’t have 511.
Someone listened. The control city for the NJTP at GSP Exit 129 south has been changed from Camden to Philadelphia.Must've been a fairly recent change. Those signs still read Camden as of last December.
Did they change the post 11 plaza guide to match? According to GSV it has Trenton for the NB guide follow up.
Nope, still says Trenton there.As does the sign beyond the Turnpike toll plaza.
- A new exit 19W which will have flat rate tolls. Other than converting the Sports Complex exit from a part time only open when there's a football game to an actual full time exit (albeit I assume maintaining its NB on SB off configuration similar to 17 on the eastern spur), is there really any other candidate for a new exit up there before the northern mixing bowl?FYI, exit 19W (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i95&state=NJ&file=102_0898.JPG) is already a thing.
A huge miss for my area and South Jersey in general: No interchange between the Turnpike and NJ 42. That is probably by far the most requested wish-list item for the Turnpike in my neck of the woods. A widened turnpike will be fine, but when there's a 15 minute delay exiting at Interchange 3 because the exiting plaza is only 3 lanes wide and NJ 168 is only 1 lane in each direction, we won't be able to make use of those extra lanes on the Turnpike. Anyone coming up from Delaware and points South, and heading down from North Jersey and points North, will benefit from those additional lanes. But us locals will rarely benefit from those extra lanes.
- A new exit 19W which will have flat rate tolls. Other than converting the Sports Complex exit from a part time only open when there's a football game to an actual full time exit (albeit I assume maintaining its NB on SB off configuration similar to 17 on the eastern spur), is there really any other candidate for a new exit up there before the northern mixing bowl?
Haven't been thru there in a while. Did not realize that they already converted that exit into a full time thing. Makes sense with the extra traffic that American Dream is likely to bring to the area.
FYI, exit 19W (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i95&state=NJ&file=102_0898.JPG) is already a thing.
A huge miss for my area and South Jersey in general: No interchange between the Turnpike and NJ 42. That is probably by far the most requested wish-list item for the Turnpike in my neck of the woods. A widened turnpike will be fine, but when there's a 15 minute delay exiting at Interchange 3 because the exiting plaza is only 3 lanes wide and NJ 168 is only 1 lane in each direction, we won't be able to make use of those extra lanes on the Turnpike. Anyone coming up from Delaware and points South, and heading down from North Jersey and points North, will benefit from those additional lanes. But us locals will rarely benefit from those extra lanes.
It's going to take a miracle to get that. Major land takings, a lot of environmental things to work out. It might still happen one day, but the Authority sure doesn't seem to be in a hurry to make it so. And given that the southern half of the Turnpike is mostly a long haul road at that point and the backlog of work that's needed is pretty high (especially bridge work), it might be half past never that we see the mythical exit 2A for 42/76/direct connection to Philly that's been missing since the Turnpike was built.
It's going to take a miracle to get that. Major land takings, a lot of environmental things to work out.A great amount of bridgework could obviate filling in wetlands, but that could get very expensive, like $200 to $300 million to build the interchange.
It might still happen one day, but the Authority sure doesn't seem to be in a hurry to make it so. And given that the southern half of the Turnpike is mostly a long haul road at that point and the backlog of work that's needed is pretty high (especially bridge work), it might be half past never that we see the mythical exit 2A for 42/76/direct connection to Philly that's been missing since the Turnpike was built.I think they should at least commission an EIS/location study to evaluate a range of alternatives, to see how such an interchange might be built.
It's going to take a miracle to get that. Major land takings, a lot of environmental things to work out.A great amount of bridgework could obviate filling in wetlands, but that could get very expensive, like $200 to $300 million to build the interchange.
I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.A great amount of bridgework could obviate filling in wetlands, but that could get very expensive, like $200 to $300 million to build the interchange.Oh, it would easily be a $500mm to $1 bn interchange.
For comparison: 2 ramps between 295 and 42 over dry land, rebuilding one overpass and widening one bridge on 295 over a stream is gonna cost $180 million.
Which is why any back of napkin cost/benefit analysis will be way in the red. So there's no reason to take it any further.It's going to take a miracle to get that. Major land takings, a lot of environmental things to work out.A great amount of bridgework could obviate filling in wetlands, but that could get very expensive, like $200 to $300 million to build the interchange.
Oh, it would easily be a $500mm to $1 bn interchange.
For comparison: 2 ramps between 295 and 42 over dry land, rebuilding one overpass and widening one bridge on 295 over a stream is gonna cost $180 million.
I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.A great amount of bridgework could obviate filling in wetlands, but that could get very expensive, like $200 to $300 million to build the interchange.Oh, it would easily be a $500mm to $1 bn interchange.
For comparison: 2 ramps between 295 and 42 over dry land, rebuilding one overpass and widening one bridge on 295 over a stream is gonna cost $180 million.
First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
Northbound traffic has the option of using I-295. If there were a reasonable all-freeway connection from the southbound Turnpike to I-295 at any point north of NJ 42 then the need of a southbound connection to 42/76 would be greatly reduced as well.I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.A great amount of bridgework could obviate filling in wetlands, but that could get very expensive, like $200 to $300 million to build the interchange.Oh, it would easily be a $500mm to $1 bn interchange.
For comparison: 2 ramps between 295 and 42 over dry land, rebuilding one overpass and widening one bridge on 295 over a stream is gonna cost $180 million.
First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
If it is too expensive to build the entire interchange at once, why not prioritize the most important movements and build them?I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.No. Full interchange only.
First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
It doesn't need one. There is no interest in disturbing that many wetlands for this particular connection, so we're in the realm of fantasy at this point.If it is too expensive to build the entire interchange at once, why not prioritize the most important movements and build them?I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.No. Full interchange only.
First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
Again, this needs an NEPA EIS/location study to evaluate all feasible alternatives.
Like I said, bridge over the wetlands to avoid filling them; at least conduct an official study to evaluate the feasibility.If it is too expensive to build the entire interchange at once, why not prioritize the most important movements and build them? Again, this needs an NEPA EIS/location study to evaluate all feasible alternatives.It doesn't need one. There is no interest in disturbing that many wetlands for this particular connection, so we're in the realm of fantasy at this point.
Like I said, bridge over the wetlands to avoid filling them; at least conduct an official study to evaluate the feasibility.If it is too expensive to build the entire interchange at once, why not prioritize the most important movements and build them? Again, this needs an NEPA EIS/location study to evaluate all feasible alternatives.It doesn't need one. There is no interest in disturbing that many wetlands for this particular connection, so we're in the realm of fantasy at this point.
Now if they ever complete the interchange at I-295 and NJ-42, that could handle these movements.
I see that the I-295/I-76/Route 42 Direct Connection project will be completed in 2025.Now if they ever complete the interchange at I-295 and NJ-42, that could handle these movements.Hopefully by 2024/2025 that entire interchange, with full movements, will be finished.
I see that the I-295/I-76/Route 42 Direct Connection project will be completed in 2025.Now if they ever complete the interchange at I-295 and NJ-42, that could handle these movements.Hopefully by 2024/2025 that entire interchange, with full movements, will be finished.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/contracts.shtm
According to this article the Missing Moves Project was just awarded at $180 million.
https://www.42freeway.com/bellmawr-missing-moves-project-awarded-starts-spring-2020-180-million-project-to-connect-42n-to-295s-and-back-aerial-video/
. . . . . . . . . . .
It would still be much more effective to have a connection between the Turnpike and NJ-42 freeway, rather than have to slog thru all those miles of a local freeway with closely spaced interchanges.
[I've read all of what is snipped]It would still be much more effective to have a connection between the Turnpike and NJ-42 freeway, rather than have to slog thru all those miles of a local freeway with closely spaced interchanges.Yep, yep...I've already mentioned this on those specific threads! :-)
But going back to the interchange - I noticed that you highly recommended an EIS study...but yet already seem to know exactly what movements are the priority movements.
I disagree with those movements.
-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE.
Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.
What is the typical rush hours congestion, and what is the typical summer weekend congestion, and what is the typical holiday congestion?-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE. Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.What are the clear benefits?
From the NJ Turnpike North, it'll be all 65 mph driving. A NJ Turnpike North to 42 South ramp may provide access to 55 South if it can be designed that way, along with access to 42 South and the ACX. This will also be the movement with the least amount of revenue (and thus payback) potential.
From 295 North, it'll be all 65 mph driving. The 295 North to 42 South ramp provides traffic access to 55 South, 42 South and the ACX. Plus traffic from the Commodore Barry Bridge can easily jump on 130 North to 295 North before the ramp as well.
What is the typical rush hours congestion, and what is the typical summer weekend congestion, and what is the typical holiday congestion?-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE. Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.What are the clear benefits?
From the NJ Turnpike North, it'll be all 65 mph driving. A NJ Turnpike North to 42 South ramp may provide access to 55 South if it can be designed that way, along with access to 42 South and the ACX. This will also be the movement with the least amount of revenue (and thus payback) potential.
From 295 North, it'll be all 65 mph driving. The 295 North to 42 South ramp provides traffic access to 55 South, 42 South and the ACX. Plus traffic from the Commodore Barry Bridge can easily jump on 130 North to 295 North before the ramp as well.
15 intervening interchanges on that section of I-295, and one interchange on NJTP, a local access freeway and a long-distance express freeway. For a long distance traveler who does not have local knowledge of typical traffic conditions, the obvious choice would be NJTP, to avoid local congestion.
295: Rush hour: No congestion along most of 295 between the Del. Mem. Bridge and 26 (I-76). May be some congestion for a few miles northbound approaching Exit 26 especially if there's an incident on 76 or north of 76 on 295.So there is at least some congestion at times. With continued suburban development that will increase in the 20-year design horizon of the EIS/location study.
Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekendsThat doesn't spill over onto I-295? Just from reading posts over the years on various highway forums, both highways can get very congested on holiday weekends, as I-295 and I-195 provide an alternate freeway route to staying on the NJTP.
NJ Turnpike: Rush hour - No congestion between 1 & where 42 crosses over the Turnpike. Non-rush hour - No congestion except on holiday or summer weekends, then there can be very heavy congestion.
The additional exits on 295 is irrelevant. They are generally all low volume exits that aren't adding or talking away traffic at heavy rates. The highway volume entrance during rush hours appear to be at 130, and due to traffic narrowing down from 2 lanes to 1 on 130 itself prior to 295, along with 295 widening from 2 to 3 lanes there, it effectively meters traffic anyway. Traffic speed monitors on 295/130 just north of this interchange frequently record some of the highest highway speeds in NJ, with the 85th percentile speed sometimes above 80 mph (in a 65 zone)Again, in a EIS/location study they will be evaluating projected development and impacts on interchanges over a 20-year horizon.
It is quite often the case in the summer and holiday weekends that it takes longer on the Turnpike to go from the Del. Mem. Bridge to 168 due to Turnpike congestion.Of course the number of interchanges is relevant, I notice immediately on a map if a highway has closely spaced (as in ~2 miles on average) interchanges as opposed to a turnpike that has ~15 mile average interchange spacing. I-295 looks like a "local freeway" on a map.
A long distance traveler not from the region won't know how many exits are on 295 or that Turnpike so that's irrelevant as well. If anything, travelers that know most highways are mileage based exits may be surprised that NJ Tpk Exit 3 is about 26 miles north of entering the Turnpike. Travelers that enter the Turnpike going north at Exit 1 by accident (it happens due to some poor signage) aren't too happy to learn they have about 10 miles to go to the next exit to turn around!
295: Rush hour: No congestion along most of 295 between the Del. Mem. Bridge and 26 (I-76). May be some congestion for a few miles northbound approaching Exit 26 especially if there's an incident on 76 or north of 76 on 295.So there is at least some congestion at times. With continued suburban development that will increase in the 20-year design horizon of the EIS/location study.
Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekendsThat doesn't spill over onto I-295? Just from reading posts over the years on various highway forums, both highways can get very congested on holiday weekends, as I-295 and I-195 provide an alternate freeway route to staying on the NJTP.
NJ Turnpike: Rush hour - No congestion between 1 & where 42 crosses over the Turnpike. Non-rush hour - No congestion except on holiday or summer weekends, then there can be very heavy congestion.
The additional exits on 295 is irrelevant. They are generally all low volume exits that aren't adding or talking away traffic at heavy rates. The highway volume entrance during rush hours appear to be at 130, and due to traffic narrowing down from 2 lanes to 1 on 130 itself prior to 295, along with 295 widening from 2 to 3 lanes there, it effectively meters traffic anyway. Traffic speed monitors on 295/130 just north of this interchange frequently record some of the highest highway speeds in NJ, with the 85th percentile speed sometimes above 80 mph (in a 65 zone)Again, in a EIS/location study they will be evaluating projected development and impacts on interchanges over a 20-year horizon.It is quite often the case in the summer and holiday weekends that it takes longer on the Turnpike to go from the Del. Mem. Bridge to 168 due to Turnpike congestion.Of course the number of interchanges is relevant, I notice immediately on a map if a highway has closely spaced (as in ~2 miles on average) interchanges as opposed to a turnpike that has ~15 mile average interchange spacing. I-295 looks like a "local freeway" on a map.
A long distance traveler not from the region won't know how many exits are on 295 or that Turnpike so that's irrelevant as well. If anything, travelers that know most highways are mileage based exits may be surprised that NJ Tpk Exit 3 is about 26 miles north of entering the Turnpike. Travelers that enter the Turnpike going north at Exit 1 by accident (it happens due to some poor signage) aren't too happy to learn they have about 10 miles to go to the next exit to turn around!
No, it is only a sharing of ideas with whoever might want to contribute something.So there is at least some congestion at times. With continued suburban development that will increase in the 20-year design horizon of the EIS/location study.Slow down. You asked me what conditions are; I was honest with you. But clearly you're gonna exaggerate my claims here. You also keep bringing up proper engineering protocol such as "an EIS study is needed", but then you also say opinions as fact such as "continued suburban development will increase congestion". An EIS study will review potential growth in the study area. It will also review current volumes. If growth is expected, it would be weighed against current volumes and highway capacity.
Occasionally it does...between 195 and 76/42. Once below 42, it's free-sailing. Also remember that the NJTA clearly is planning to widen the Turnpike between Interchanges 1 - 4 to 3 lanes per direction, which should reduce or eliminate much of the Turnpike congestion, which should reduce or eliminate the spillover to 295. Lots at play here.It might be as simple as having clear advance signing that I-295 is the way to connect between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and NJ-42 and the ACE. After completion of the Missing Moves Project, that is, when to install that.
Nope, again I am merely a supporter of engineering studies that compile all the costs and benefits. That quadrant may or may not carry the largest volumes of the 4.Of course the number of interchanges is relevant, I notice immediately on a map if a highway has closely spaced (as in ~2 miles on average) interchanges as opposed to a turnpike that has ~15 mile average interchange spacing. I-295 looks like a "local freeway" on a map.Look...this ain't my first rodeo with you. You obviously have your mind made up that the most needed ramps are those that would benefit you the most.
You are also clearly ignoring what someone who lives in the area sees on a daily basis, and instead is relying on a few blurbs on internet forums or websites, and the few personal instances you've drive in the area.Like I said I welcome the comments of whoever is reading this thread. I am very familiar with my area but also have limited knowledge about some parts.
I also think you are way-over estimating what an EIS will review. I have the EIS for the 295/76/42 interchange sitting right next to my computer here (NJDOT surprised me with a mailing of it...quite a huge document). Other than a regional overview regional map which shows much of Gloucester County, Camden County, Burlington County, and the City of Philadelphia, the EIS only covered a very small portion of that area: I-295 from Interchanges 25 to 28, NJ 42's Interchange 14 to I-76's Interchange 1D, a portion of US 130 and NJ 168 near 295 and 76, and some county/municipal roadways with direct or instrumental ties to the highway network. Believe it or not it didn't expand much from that area - you're not going to find the expected housing/warehouse growth of Turnersville, Cherry Hill or Paulsboro in the report. It's here online if you want to view more: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/studyarea.shtm .They can cover pretty much whatever scope that they decide to cover.
Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876
Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s....
I drew this today using current Google Maps Satellite View. I will do more work to somewhat lessen the curve on two of the ramps I drew, but this overall scheme is similar to Alternate 1 on the report. A toll plaza could be included on the connector highway, and could be removed in the future with AET.Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.As proposed, the 42/55/Tpk interchange won't happen because of a shopping center and a large scale residential community located where those ramps would have gone. And knowing the political climate in the area I would be almost certain those projects were designed in such a way to prevent the Turnpike from building those ramps.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876
Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s....
50 is probably a no go in today climate.I drew this today using current Google Maps Satellite View. I will do more work to somewhat lessen the curve on two of the ramps I drew, but this overall scheme is similar to Alternate 1 on the report. A toll plaza could be included on the connector highway, and could be removed in the future with AET.Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.As proposed, the 42/55/Tpk interchange won't happen because of a shopping center and a large scale residential community located where those ramps would have gone. And knowing the political climate in the area I would be almost certain those projects were designed in such a way to prevent the Turnpike from building those ramps.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876
Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s....
The shopping center doesn't lose any buildings, home acquisitions would be 50 or less, and minimal wetlands impacts would occur, with bridge ramps used in two places east of NJ-42. It is buildable by modern urban freeway standards.
(http://www.capital-beltway.com/NJTP-42-55%20Interchange.jpg)
It's been 18 years since I lived in the area, but an interchange for the Turnpike just wasn't that critical of a need. In my travels back to visit my parents from New England, it's relatively simple enough to still get off/on at Exit 3.Sounds like the defense of the status quo at Breezewood. But then a quite a bit lower quality connection than that.
Furthermore, once the 42-295 interchange project finally finishes and makes it a much more functional interchange, local commuting should improve. There are far more important things for the NJTA to be considering way above this.It will be a big help to get the I-295/NJ-42 interchange completed, and the offset interchanges problem fixed by providing an Interstate-standard thru movement for I-295.
That's a no-go for a few reasons: The development along Rt. 55 is a 55+ Senior community. No one will allow several dozen homes to be wiped out. That is the very community that I believe was built specific to get in the Turnpike's way in the 1995 proposals. The community along the turnpike won't be wiped out either. Deptford is the town thru this entire area, and officials won't even consider such a proposal.Small impacts by urban freeway standards. I could adjust the alignment to miss all or nearly all of those houses.
Exit 2AExit 24
Exit 2AExit 24
FTFY :bigass:
Exit 2AExit 24
FTFY :bigass:
Is that really going to happen? I have heard no mention from credible sources that the NJTA (or NJDOT, if they have some say-so over such things) is going to renumber the Turnpike interchanges.
It was mentioned above, so pardon the redundancy, but any proposed Exit 2A on the Turnpike should be designed as a cashless interchange, so that a "double trumpet" or similar that would be required issuing tickets and with cash toll collection is eliminated.
Does that mean that a simplified interchange could be built? Are all movements between NJ-42/NJ-55/ACE and the Turnpike mainline needed?
I think that a Turnpike Exit 2A helps in terms of network redundancy, which is a good thing for everyone.
The current Breezewood-type non-connection via Turnpike Exit 3, NJ-168 and I-295 would seem to be something that residents of Bellmawr would want to be rid of.
Maybe they are used it it?
Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange.I thought you had said that the congestion was fairly minor on I-295. What exact parts back up like that?
It also baffles me how the some people will say the Turnpike/42 Intersection is like a Breezewood. Yet there's a true chance to talk about it with Turnpike officials, and suddenly the situation is ok with some people. If that's the case, then I'll point out this discussion in the future, and any reference to Turnpike/42 being a Breezewood shall cease.Probably better comparable to I-95 and the PA Turnpike crossing before the interchange project.
Mileage-based exits aren't currently being mentioned, although the net cost will be relatively minor in nature. Several million dollars to update/replace/modify every exit sign, along with temporary "Former Exit" signage. The Turnpike will probably convert only when they are absolutely forced to do so.
But the New Jersey Turnpike's exit numbers are IMO near iconic and many of them date to the opening of the road, and are fine just the way they are. My only gripe is that the U.S. 130 interchange on the NJTA's Penn Pike connector should get its own exit number (presumably 6A, following the pattern of 14 A-B-C).I have postulated before that some highways are even more prominent than the Interstate Highways. These were typically built prior to the 1956 federal highway act.
Congestion south of 42 is minor. Congestion north of 42/76 can be that length routinely.Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange.I thought you had said that the congestion was fairly minor on I-295. What exact parts back up like that?
So the question would be how much of that I-295 congestion would be relieved by the NJTP 6-lane widening south of Exit 4 NJ-73 Moorestown.Congestion south of 42 is minor. Congestion north of 42/76 can be that length routinely.Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange.I thought you had said that the congestion was fairly minor on I-295. What exact parts back up like that?
Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange.I thought you had said that the congestion was fairly minor on I-295. What exact parts back up like that?
So the question would be how much of that I-295 congestion would be relieved by the NJTP 6-lane widening south of Exit 4 NJ-73 Moorestown.Congestion south of 42 is minor. Congestion north of 42/76 can be that length routinely.Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange.I thought you had said that the congestion was fairly minor on I-295. What exact parts back up like that?
How much of the I-295 traffic on that segment would shift to the NJTP, would be the issue.
Sounds like a host of traffic problems in that corridor, a bit surprising for two parallel freeways with a total of 10 lanes, and 12 lanes north of Moorestown Exit 4.
The freeway and interchange upgrade and completed movements at I-295/NJ-42 will certainly help a lot and break the chokepoint, but from what was posted there are rush hours major congestion on I-295 from NJ-42 nearly to Mt. Holly.
Conducting an engineering study of traffic patterns in the whole I-295/NJTP corridor would be helpful, to see what widening projects and new interchange projects might alleviate the problems.
There is always the option of widening N Black Horse Pike.
Will this Murphy Curfew affect Turnpike operations?
UPDATED: 3:13 p.m.
PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) – New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announced Monday afternoon that an additional 80 residents have tested positive, bringing the state total to 178.
[...]
This came after Murphy announced earlier in the day that all public, private and parochial schools, pre-K through grade 12, and all colleges and universities will close on Wednesday, March 18, until health officials deem in-person classes to be safe.
[...]
Murphy announced Monday morning along with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, that all bars and restaurants in the state will close for dine-in service starting at 8 p.m. Monday. After that time, those businesses can offer only takeout and delivery services until further notice. The same restrictions apply to those two states.
[...]
Also starting Monday night, Murphy said, all non-essential and non-emergency travel in the state is "strongly discouraged" between the hours of 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. The governor emphasized this is not a curfew, just a strong suggestion.
Sounds like a host of traffic problems in that corridor, a bit surprising for two parallel freeways with a total of 10 lanes, and 12 lanes north of Moorestown Exit 4.
The freeway and interchange upgrade and completed movements at I-295/NJ-42 will certainly help a lot and break the chokepoint, but from what was posted there are rush hours major congestion on I-295 from NJ-42 nearly to Mt. Holly.
Conducting an engineering study of traffic patterns in the whole I-295/NJTP corridor would be helpful, to see what widening projects and new interchange projects might alleviate the problems.
i am not an engineer, but my observations from driving in the area for 20+ years:
- primary issue: the 295/76/42 interchange (as widely discussed). i'd be very surprised if most of the issue didn't go away upon project completion.
- secondary/tertiary issues: NJ 70 and NJ 73 SB are heavily congested during rush hour (which is why, as jeffandnicole pointed out, there is a worsening of traffic again north of exit 34 / NJ 70 on I-295 SB).
- minor issue: there's also some curves between exit 32 / CR 561 and exit 28 / NJ 168 that i suspect slow up traffic a little bit
So again I notice they are putting up more milage signs for long distance cities on the NJTP, which is great, but then why is it they still have on the NJTP SB 'Camden' as the directional city North of the PATP?
It should be Philadelphia, then after it should be Wilmington/Bal-WAS.
Also, the Turnpike Authority published the updated proposed toll schedules (https://www.njta.com/media/5177/proposed-toll-schedules-new-jersey-turnpike.pdf) set to take effect.
Camden is more fitting for I-295, not I-95/NJTP.So again I notice they are putting up more milage signs for long distance cities on the NJTP, which is great, but then why is it they still have on the NJTP SB 'Camden' as the directional city North of the PATP?
It should be Philadelphia, then after it should be Wilmington/Bal-WAS.
Camden is still a main city in NJ. It goes to Wilmington south of Exit 4 as it should.
NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf) with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway, including some rough estimates on costs. Money raised from this toll increase is supposed to help pay for this plan.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.
16 cents per mile for cars. :-(Also, the Turnpike Authority published the updated proposed toll schedules (https://www.njta.com/media/5177/proposed-toll-schedules-new-jersey-turnpike.pdf) set to take effect.Max $18.85 for cars; $67.85 for truckers.
Now, while it doesn't seem that bad, it's only 120-ish miles. Compare it to the PA Turnpike at 3 times the distance, and it's approximately the same price per mile!
There is a legal way.NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf) with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway, including some rough estimates on costs. Money raised from this toll increase is supposed to help pay for this plan.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.
More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP. Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4. More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.There is a legal way. Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.The entire Turnpike needs to be a minimum of 6-lanes, including the southern section. It can easily congest during peak travel periods and only 4-lanes.
Still legal though.That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP. Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4. More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.There is a legal way. Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
It wouldn't take much volume before it congested and became problematic and got made illegal.Still legal though.That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection. Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP. Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4. More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.There is a legal way. Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Which there would be no way to enforce unless you built two more rest areas.It wouldn't take much volume before it congested and became problematic and got made illegal.Still legal though.That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection. Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP. Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4. More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.There is a legal way. Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
There is a legal way.NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf) with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway, including some rough estimates on costs. Money raised from this toll increase is supposed to help pay for this plan.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.
More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.
Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.The entire Turnpike needs to be a minimum of 6-lanes, including the southern section. It can easily congest during peak travel periods and only 4-lanes.
My friend... they are not proposing projects that are not needed. (:NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf) with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway, including some rough estimates on costs. Money raised from this toll increase is supposed to help pay for this plan.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.
More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.
I drive it a lot, I really haven't seen it jammed, MAYBE during thanksgiving, and I think more effective would be making all exit ramps high speed interchanges.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP. Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4. More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.There is a legal way. Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
And it would be nice for the Turnpike to start widening the worst part of this stretch of highway before it becomes a daily, multi-hour problem. Holiday and summer weekends - every weekend - are the worst right now, per my observations.According to the PROPOSED 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
I wasn't promoting the idea, just questioning the comment that suggested cutting thru the service area, and citing how it should be done if such a movement were to be proposed.So why is this needed though? Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason. Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways. There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner. If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway. And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP. Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4. More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.There is a legal way. Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
So why is this needed though? Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason. Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways. There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner. If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway. And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages. Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason. Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.
As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages. Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason. Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.To add more details to what I said earlier, a service area may or may not have a dedicated circulator roadway system, and if it does they may not necessarily be well marked, and they may have one or more intersections along the way, with many connections to portions of the parking areas. There would be slow moving vehicles entering and leaving the parking areas.
So why is this needed though? Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason. Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways. There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner. If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway. And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages. Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason. Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.
You have the Z turns and then you have the DeLorean turns (ɔ c 1000). I love those signs.So why is this needed though? Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason. Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways. There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner. If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway. And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages. Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason. Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.
It definitely is needed, and there should be a few of them, it would cut down on 'Z' switches (and why is it called Z, the movement mimics a reverse Z).
So why is this needed though? Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason. Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways. There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner. If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway. And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages. Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason. Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.
Has anyone here actually switch roadways because there is an actual reason to do so?I'm pretty sure my father did at least a few times at a service area due to congestion ahead, back when we made the trip every Sunday in the mid to late 90s.
So why is this needed though? Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason. Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways. There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner. If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway. And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages. Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason. Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.
It definitely is needed, and there should be a few of them, it would cut down on 'Z' switches (and why is it called Z, the movement mimics a reverse Z).
As for expansion, I really don't think the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes to exit 4.
I think a far better use of limited funds would be:
-Make the exits high speed/high capacity with better and longer auxiliary lanes.
-If anything, yes widen but do so from exit 3-4; no reason from exit 2.
-The NJTP western spur needs widened to 6 lanes, that definitely is routinely jammed.
There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.He never said there was...
There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.He never said there was...
I can see extending the 6 lanes from Exit 4 to exit 3, but beyond that, improving the interchanges so they can handle high volumes, which means less weaving at the tolls (or how about all electronic tolls) would do the trick.Except the toll booths, which already have 2 high-speed E-ZPass lanes in each direction, and the two interchanges don’t cause the congestion.
I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.Queues are not what cause the backups... Every time I've driven it stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving 45 - 65 mph during peak weekends, I've never passed an exit with traffic dumped in the mainline then have it open back up once everybody moves out of the way and gets past it. The heavy thru traffic is the issue, and why it's being widened.
Spot treatment would be better.
NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf) with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway...That picture on Page 10 of the plan, looks like a "war room" control center. Is that in that building at interchange 9 that reads "New Jersey Turnpike Authority"?
Rail is a tricky beast, and maybe I'm only speaking to NJ in this, but if a rail alignment is intact and not legally abandoned, it remains preserved in case it will be reactivated someday. That's probably to do with all of your notes above.NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf) with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway...That picture on Page 10 of the plan, looks like a "war room" control center. Is that in that building at interchange 9 that reads "New Jersey Turnpike Authority"?
If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant? Though by the time they implement it, the plaza will have been up for 20 years, and it was worth it to build -- I remember waiting in 2-mile-long traffic jams at the old plaza. But the new toll plaza at interchange 8 (which includes an underground access tunnel) will only have been in for about 10 years.
One of the items on the list was to extend the 4th lane the mainline at interchange 13. It says that a railroad overpass would need to be rebuilt. But would it? I'm not sure that bridge has been used for a long time. For when the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge was rehabilitated recently, the railroad also built a connecting spur to the "Chemical Coast Line" (those tracks that run parallel to, and east of, the Turnpike), thus avoiding the bridge over the pike. Then again, when the Goethals bridge was rebuilt, the right-of-way leading to that overpass was clearly kept intact.
As an aside, when the Turnpike was recently widened between 8A and 6, a bridge just north of interchange 8 that went over tracks at a sharp angle was completely rebuilt. But these tracks come to an end just south of the pike, and, while spurs to existing industry exist, no one appears to have used them for a while. There's also an overpass just south of interchange 3, where the tracks were truncated just beyond, or perhaps underneath the pike itself! While that might serve as a locomotive turnaround space for the nearby industrial spur, that would likely be filled in/re-graded if and when that stretch is widened. There is also a vestigial rail underpass beneath the GSP in Clark, NJ, just north of exit 135 and including some of its ramps.
Rail is a tricky beast, and maybe I'm only speaking to NJ in this, but if a rail alignment is intact and not legally abandoned, it remains preserved in case it will be reactivated someday. That's probably to do with all of your notes above.
If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant?
I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.Queues are not what cause the backups... Every time I've driven it stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving 45 - 65 mph during peak weekends, I've never passed an exit with traffic dumped in the mainline then have it open back up once everybody moves out of the way and gets past it. The heavy thru traffic is the issue, and why it's being widened.
Spot treatment would be better.
Interchange improvements will likely be included in such projects.
If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant?
It's not unprecedented. They rebuilt the Pascack Valley toll plaza on the Parkway around the same time as Exit 1, with two way Express EZ-Pass. When one way tolling was implemented there, they just barricaded off the northbound side of the thing and took down the old booths for the manual side and that was that. They could conceivably leave the middle part of the Exit 1 plaza standing and just close off the rest of the booth lanes and call it a day without much of an issue, but knowing the Turnpike Authority, they'd probably elect to tear the whole thing down and do the more modern gantries you see at 18W.
The real pain in the ass one is going to be Exit 6 on the PHMTE since they built that as part of the overall booth structure instead of the tall structure like they did at Exit 1.
I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.Queues are not what cause the backups... Every time I've driven it stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving 45 - 65 mph during peak weekends, I've never passed an exit with traffic dumped in the mainline then have it open back up once everybody moves out of the way and gets past it. The heavy thru traffic is the issue, and why it's being widened.
Spot treatment would be better.
Interchange improvements will likely be included in such projects.
Again I really disagree.
I think a better use of funds would be:
1. Expand the capacity of all exits to accommodate the volume, to prevent back ups on the NJTP
2. Expand the western spur of the NJTP so it never is less than 6 lanes
3. Instead of expanding the NJTP to 6 lanes from exit 4 to exit 1
A. Widen NJTP from 6 to 8 lanes between exit 4 and exit 6
B. Widen NJTP from 4 to 6 lanes between exit 3 and exit 4
South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.
I think expanding the western spur of the NJTP is much a higher priority as should be tapering the NJTP from 12 lanes at exit 6 to 8 lanes to 6 lanes at exit 4.
South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.Yes, it's mainly long-distance traffic, but there's a LOT of it. This isn't your typical rush hour merges, it's simply too much volume on too few lanes. It's an integral part of the northeast corridor and has the traffic levels to show for it.
Just wondering...how often do you drive on the Turnpike?Clearly never during peak travel periods, or believes 45 - 55 mph, frequent braking, etc. are all normal and appropriate.
South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.Sure is rural and mainly long distance traffic - a quite heavy amount of it.
Could say that same thing about the recently 12-laned section between Bordentown and New Brunswick.South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.Sure is rural and mainly long distance traffic - a quite heavy amount of it.
The entire New Jersey Turnpike south of New Brunswick serves mainly long-distance traffic.Could say that same thing about the recently 12-laned section between Bordentown and New Brunswick.South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.Sure is rural and mainly long distance traffic - a quite heavy amount of it.
It is mostly rural.
I have made 28.5 drives from Northern Virginia to the Upper East Side in Manhattan since May 2017, not to mention countless other times on there in the northern section for more local business.If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant?
It's not unprecedented. They rebuilt the Pascack Valley toll plaza on the Parkway around the same time as Exit 1, with two way Express EZ-Pass. When one way tolling was implemented there, they just barricaded off the northbound side of the thing and took down the old booths for the manual side and that was that. They could conceivably leave the middle part of the Exit 1 plaza standing and just close off the rest of the booth lanes and call it a day without much of an issue, but knowing the Turnpike Authority, they'd probably elect to tear the whole thing down and do the more modern gantries you see at 18W.
The real pain in the ass one is going to be Exit 6 on the PHMTE since they built that as part of the overall booth structure instead of the tall structure like they did at Exit 1.
In theory, they could make use of that building for the State Police or something, or a small Southern Turnpike HQ.
The original design of the new Interchange 1 toll plaza didn't have any high-speed lines. It wasn't until nearly the final design when they finally incorporated them. Honestly, even at the time it was built it probably didn't need all the lanes, as EZ Pass was taking hold. But, the difference especially on a holiday weekend was remarkable. lepidopteran said above he remembers 2 mile jams. Yeah, that was an easy Sunday morning there. When the jams hit Exit 2...13 miles away...they finally would close the Turnpike at Interchange 4, force everything off there, and have them take 295 instead. (Some motorists, not having a clue, would drive down 295 until they saw the Turnpike sign at Exit 28 (NJ 168), then head back to the Turnpike...only to sit in traffic several miles later.) With the new plaza, it rarely jammed outside of the "plaza", which they term as where the roadway starts widening for the tolls. When it does jam further back, it's usually due to an issue further south on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
BTW, next time you go thru there, you can take a look at this: At nearly every plaza including Interchange 1, the main Supervisor's areas is located on the exit side of the Plaza, to monitor traffic. They never really cared about the entrance side. Exit 1's Supervisor's room is on the 2nd floor and is fairly spacious with the ability to view the cameras overlooking the plaza. https://goo.gl/maps/HYn5UmUt8ivzst659 There's a few other rooms in the area up there. Downstairs is some sort of maintenance area. On each side of the plaza is elevators and stairways for the employees to access the toll lanes, although unlike some toll booths, it is necessary to cross active lanes to get to particular booths.
BTW, there's nothing in the 'lighthouse'. It's just there. And looking at the building on GSV, damn that thing could use a good cleaning outside!I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.Queues are not what cause the backups... Every time I've driven it stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving 45 - 65 mph during peak weekends, I've never passed an exit with traffic dumped in the mainline then have it open back up once everybody moves out of the way and gets past it. The heavy thru traffic is the issue, and why it's being widened.
Spot treatment would be better.
Interchange improvements will likely be included in such projects.
Again I really disagree.
I think a better use of funds would be:
1. Expand the capacity of all exits to accommodate the volume, to prevent back ups on the NJTP
2. Expand the western spur of the NJTP so it never is less than 6 lanes
3. Instead of expanding the NJTP to 6 lanes from exit 4 to exit 1
A. Widen NJTP from 6 to 8 lanes between exit 4 and exit 6
B. Widen NJTP from 4 to 6 lanes between exit 3 and exit 4
South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.
I think expanding the western spur of the NJTP is much a higher priority as should be tapering the NJTP from 12 lanes at exit 6 to 8 lanes to 6 lanes at exit 4.
Just wondering...how often do you drive on the Turnpike?
Could say that same thing about the recently 12-laned section between Bordentown and New Brunswick.South of exit there is no need for it to be widened, it's pretty rural and mainly long distance traffic.Sure is rural and mainly long distance traffic - a quite heavy amount of it.
It is mostly rural.
Just curious, what is the AADT along the New Jersey Turnpike? I have not been able to find published volumes online. I'd imagine at least 50,000 or greater along the 4-lane segment.Yes I would like to know this as well what the AADT is, I've had trouble getting this for a lot of major highways.
The southern part of the NJTP in contrast, handles exclusively long distance traffic. By that point, PATP traffic has gone, suburban south jersey traffic is on I-295, and immediate Philly traffic is on I-95.You're point is still moot. It doesn't matter if it's "exclusively long distance" traffic. Take a look at the numbers. Take a look at peak travel period traffic volumes. Recurring delays, inconsistency with speeds, unreliability. All of the factors combined dictate it needs widening, and will be done so over the next decade.
Not to mention, its much more rural or less built up there.
FYI the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway have temporarily gone cashless during the COVID outbreak.Three posts up.
And again I argue the part what needs most fixed is:
-Between exit 3 and 4, yes 6 lanes
-Between exit 4 and 6, 8 lanes
-WB NJTP north of 16, needs 6 lanes.
I have made 28.5 drives from Northern Virginia to the Upper East Side in Manhattan since May 2017, not to mention countless other times on there in the northern section for more local business.
Not to mention, I have been on it since 1989 making trips from Northern VA to NYC, Connecticut, then college in Boston.
I've never been fucked up on the southern portion, never.
...
Yeh I can't hit cruise control on the southern portion but I still get at least 65 if not 70.
First, I have been on the NJTP soo so many times, and I never have had memorable congestion between exits 1-4. I may not be able to cruise at 80, but rarely am I below highway speeds.The southern part of the NJTP in contrast, handles exclusively long distance traffic. By that point, PATP traffic has gone, suburban south jersey traffic is on I-295, and immediate Philly traffic is on I-95.You're point is still moot. It doesn't matter if it's "exclusively long distance" traffic. Take a look at the numbers. Take a look at peak travel period traffic volumes. Recurring delays, inconsistency with speeds, unreliability. All of the factors combined dictate it needs widening, and will be done so over the next decade.
Not to mention, its much more rural or less built up there.
I-95 between Wilmington and Delaware is 6-lanes. I-95 between Richmond and DC is 6-lanes. I-95 between Savannah and Miami is 6-lanes. I-80 / I-90 Ohio Turnpike between Cleveland and Toledo is 6-lanes. I-78 between Newark and Easton is 6-lanes, built with that amount when completed in the 1960s. I-80 between Columbia and I-95 is 6-lanes. I-84 / I-90 between Hartford and Boston is 6-lanes. Many segments of the Pennsylvania Turnpike are beginning to be expanded to 6-lanes or are programmed in the near future. The majority of these segments pass through rural areas with mostly long-distance traffic. They would be a nightmare with only 4-lanes, and many areas need 8-lanes.
I-64 between Richmond and Williamsburg, I-81 throughout the entire state, I-95 between Richmond and Savannah, I-476 between Philadelphia and Scranton, and many other long-distance highways in the country connecting major metropolitan areas have traffic volumes during at least peak travel periods, recurring delay, inconsistency, unreliability, that warrant 6-lanes for hundreds of miles, all in rural areas.FYI the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway have temporarily gone cashless during the COVID outbreak.Three posts up.
That stretch of the NJTP is the BEST part of the interstate system IMO from Richmond to Maine. Just super smooth.And again I argue the part what needs most fixed is:
-Between exit 3 and 4, yes 6 lanes
-Between exit 4 and 6, 8 lanes
-WB NJTP north of 16, needs 6 lanes.
We know. You don't have to keep repeating your opinion on this.I have made 28.5 drives from Northern Virginia to the Upper East Side in Manhattan since May 2017, not to mention countless other times on there in the northern section for more local business.
Not to mention, I have been on it since 1989 making trips from Northern VA to NYC, Connecticut, then college in Boston.
I've never been fucked up on the southern portion, never.
...
Yeh I can't hit cruise control on the southern portion but I still get at least 65 if not 70.
I'll give you credit for knowing how many times you've driving a particular route. I certainly don't keep track like that. However, as I live very close to the Turnpike I drive over it nearly on a daily basis. I get the "birds eye" view so to say between Exits 2 and 3. And that view clearly shows there is significant volume issues, especially on busy weekends. But I see it on some weekdays, especially in the afternoon.
However, since mid-2017, that really isn't that many times, especially if you time your trips to avoid heavy travel periods. Remember, there's still people that take the Turnpike *every day*. And if you're only able to get to 70, that's an issue. It's one thing to say you go 70 because that's your preferred speed. But if you can only hit that due to traffic, that shows how close that section is to failing on your trips. Even if everything is flowing fine today, 5 or 10 years from now traffic volumes will probably continue to grow, and your speeds will continue to fall.
When the Turnpike was widened from Interchange 6 - 9, I recall at a public meeting (and have mentioned this in the past) that it was revealed from Interchanges 6 - 7A, traffic volumes looking out 25 years did not warrant 12 lanes in that area, but rather 10 lanes. However, the Turnpike learned from the 10 lane (2-3-3-2) 8A - 9 segment that it presents significant issues, especially when the inner roadway required closing. In theory, other than for an accident or other abnormal issue, the area from 6 - 7A should never congest as it was built wider than necessary.
The Turnpike for the mile or so south of Interchange 6 is laughingly wide for the volumes it should experience, but was a necessary evil for the Turnpike's preferred method of merging/diverging the inner and outer roadways.
First, I have been on the NJTP soo so many times, and I never have had memorable congestion between exits 1-4. I may not be able to cruise at 80, but rarely am I below highway speeds.How many peak weekends have you driven it?
1) NJTP south of the PATP handles long distance only traffic.:pan:
2) To that end, I-95 in MD between Baltimore and Wilmington is mainly 6 lanes north of exit 77.Don't disagree with any of your points, notably the Virginia segment which has to be one of the worst bottlenecks on the East Coast that has no relief in sight anytime soon, but those segments (except north of Fredericksburg) all are "exclusively long distance" traffic to the extent you claim the NJTP is and easily warrant 6, 8, or more lanes based on heavy traffic volumes, especially during peak travel periods, are often unreliable and provide inconsistent speeds.
-I am NOT advocating I-95 should be 4 lanes here (or in VA between DC and Richmond)!
No, to the contrary IMO....
A. MD...I-95 needs to be 8 lanes all the way to the DE state line
-And honestly, 12 lanes to exit 77, 10 lanes through Tidings Bridge, then 8 to DE
B. VA....I-95 REALLY needs to be 14 lanes from I-495 in VA to exit 158, then 12 lanes to exit 126, then 8 lanes to I-295
What? Why?How about all that traffic funneling from New York and points north down to Baltimore and points south? Heavy volumes, and all cram on the 4-lane NJTP making it frequent to have recurring delay, notably during peak travel periods.
Because when I-95 enters MD from DE, it essentially becomes 3 (if not 4) interstates merging into 1
-NJTP/I-295/I-95/I-495 Wilmington.....unlike South Jersey, there isn't a // interstate nearby
-Likewise in VA, I-95 handles local/regional/and long distance traffic.......IMO I-95 in MD and VA is more like the NJTP between exit 6-9....as opposed to the Southern NJTP"Exclusively long distance" traffic to the extent you claim south of Fredericksburg and north of Baltimore. Both segments need at minimum 8-lanes, despite only carrying "exclusively long distance" traffic, though I suppose 4-lanes would suffice due to only carrying "exclusively long distance" traffic.
I-95 between Wilmington and Delaware is 6-lanes. I-95 between Richmond and DC is 6-lanes. I-95 between Savannah and Miami is 6-lanes. I-80 / I-90 Ohio Turnpike between Cleveland and Toledo is 6-lanes. I-78 between Newark and Easton is 6-lanes, built with that amount when completed in the 1960s. I-80 between Columbia and I-95 is 6-lanes.All those are on single routing.
All those are on single routing.Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.
Southern NJTP is closely paralleled by I-295 and I-195 with freeway connectivity at each end.
So south of Exit 4 the two highways combined have 8 lanes south of Exit 2 and 10 lanes north of US-322.
OK, but comparing the 4-lane NJTP to 6-lane rural Interstates on single routing is inappropriate.All those are on single routing.Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.
Southern NJTP is closely paralleled by I-295 and I-195 with freeway connectivity at each end.
So south of Exit 4 the two highways combined have 8 lanes south of Exit 2 and 10 lanes north of US-322.
What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?I found ArcGIS maps with NJDOT volumes, but nothing for NJTP.
OK, but comparing the 4-lane NJTP to 6-lane rural Interstates on single routing is inappropriate.All those are on single routing.Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.
Southern NJTP is closely paralleled by I-295 and I-195 with freeway connectivity at each end.
So south of Exit 4 the two highways combined have 8 lanes south of Exit 2 and 10 lanes north of US-322.What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?I found ArcGIS maps with NJDOT volumes, but nothing for NJTP.
The best public source I've found thus far:All those are on single routing.Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.
Southern NJTP is closely paralleled by I-295 and I-195 with freeway connectivity at each end.
So south of Exit 4 the two highways combined have 8 lanes south of Exit 2 and 10 lanes north of US-322.
What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?
Strange!I've never been able to find NJTP traffic counts either, even after asking here.What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?I found ArcGIS maps with NJDOT volumes, but nothing for NJTP.
46,000 to 49,000 AADT between Exits 1 and 3 -- close to 6-lane warrantsWhat's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?The best public source I've found thus far:
https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10929/23355/f4912008d.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
page 16 has outdated AADTs but at least 2006 is getting in the ballpark. (Figure 1% growth per year as a rough guideline for NJ, and see what you think from there)
46,000 to 49,000 AADT between Exits 1 and 3 -- close to 6-lane warrantsConsidering the peak travel period volumes would be higher, along with the fact overall AADT levels are likely higher today in general, this stretch certainly warrants 6-lanes throughout.
Adding 15% (1.0% increase per year is about the typical average for rural Interstates) would yield 52,900 to 56,350.46,000 to 49,000 AADT between Exits 1 and 3 -- close to 6-lane warrantsConsidering the peak travel period volumes would be higher, along with the fact overall AADT levels are likely higher today in general, this stretch certainly warrants 6-lanes throughout.
Should eventually be expanded to 8-lanes, especially as volumes will continue to rise.NJTA doesn't seem to like 8-lane widening, my observations Exits 6 to 9 back in the 1970s was that would have been a good solution to the very busy 6-lane section. They waited almost 40 years to add parallel 6-lane roadways, which -are- needed today.
Exits 6 (I-95) to 7 - 119,000 - 13.1% truckGiven the proximity to major metros, I would suggest a 2% average growth per year.
Exits 7 to 7A - 132,300 - 14.1% truck
Exits 7A to 8 - 150,200 - 15.1% truck
Exits 8 to 8A - 155,600 - 14.7% truck
Exits 8A to 9 - 175,700 - 14.4% truck
The recent 12-lane expansion should be able to handle traffic volumes south of Exit 9 for years, if not decades, to come.
Given the proximity to major metros, I would suggest a 2% average growth per year.Comparing 2013 (https://www.njta.com/media/1648/fin_bnd_njta_2015e.pdf) volumes to 2017 (https://www.njta.com/media/4280/os-2019a.pdf)...
In 10 years that range will be 183,100 to 213,300 for the section on single routing, Exits 7A to 9. Pushing the limits of even 12 lanes.
The widening may have enabled a spike between 2013 and 2017.Indeed, and would make more sense as those numbers show a -significant- increase that maintained over many future years spikes the numbers beyond reason.
The widening may have enabled a spike between 2013 and 2017.Indeed, and would make more sense as those numbers show a -significant- increase that maintained over many future years spikes the numbers beyond reason.
Should eventually be expanded to 8-lanes, especially as volumes will continue to rise.NJTA doesn't seem to like 8-lane widening, my observations Exits 6 to 9 back in the 1970s was that would have been a good solution to the very busy 6-lane section. They waited almost 40 years to add parallel 6-lane roadways, which -are- needed today.
Any word on if the inner carriageways will be closed?
46,000 to 49,000 AADT between Exits 1 and 3 -- close to 6-lane warrantsWhat's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?The best public source I've found thus far:
https://dspace.njstatelib.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10929/23355/f4912008d.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
page 16 has outdated AADTs but at least 2006 is getting in the ballpark. (Figure 1% growth per year as a rough guideline for NJ, and see what you think from there)
58,000 AADT between Exits 3 and 4 -- meets 6-lane warrants
Like you said that was 2006.
1.01 to the 14th power is about a 14.9% increase.
1. How do you figure that meets the threshold for 6 lanes?Those are high volumes for a rural 4-lane freeway, notably one that carries increased volumes during peak travel periods. It warrants 6-lanes.
2017 Traffic Volumes1. How do you figure that meets the threshold for 6 lanes?Those are high volumes for a rural 4-lane freeway, notably one that carries increased volumes during peak travel periods. It warrants 6-lanes.
How often is traffic an issue between 4 and 6? It seems notably absent from the 10 year capital plan.While it would ideally eventually get 8-lane widening based on volumes, traffic is more tolerable and has less congestion issues in that area vs. south of Exit 4, where 6-lane widening is needed and programmed down to Exit 1.
Quote1. How do you figure that meets the threshold for 6 lanes?
2. Regardless, it still should be a lower priority behind widening from exit 4 to 6 to 8 lanes; and from 18W to 6 lanes.
How often is traffic an issue between 4 and 6? It seems notably absent from the 10 year capital plan.
The maximum speed limit in NJ is set by the Legislature at 65. I would bet that the Turnpike in thr south would raise it if it could.The legislation needs to be changed then to allow at least 70 mph on rural freeways. Additionally, if they wanted to strictly increase the Turnpike but no other road, language could be included to limit a 70 or 75 mph speed limit to solely the New Jersey Turnpike, and could go as far as to listing specific segments.
The maximum speed limit in NJ is set by the Legislature at 65. I would bet that the Turnpike in thr south would raise it if it could.The maximum speed limit in NJ for 2-lane highways is only 50 mph.
It seems rare, but some are posted at 55 mph.The maximum speed limit in NJ is set by the Legislature at 65. I would bet that the Turnpike in thr south would raise it if it could.The maximum speed limit in NJ for 2-lane highways is only 50 mph.
Or are there any that are higher?
What is the speed limit in NJ?https://nj.gov/faqs/drive/
New Jersey law sets top speed limits for any given road, street, highway, or freeway. The speed limit, unless otherwise posted, is 25 mph in school zones, business, or residential districts; 35 mph in certain low density business and residential districts; 50 mph on all other roadways; 55 mph on certain state highways (as posted) and all interstates; and 65 mph on certain state highways (as posted).
Like Maryland and Delaware.The maximum speed limit in NJ for 2-lane highways is only 50 mph. Or are there any that are higher?It seems rare, but some are posted at 55 mph.
NJ-72 -
NJ-70 -
Like Maryland and Delaware.And given the high quality design of many of the roadways, they could easily handle up to 65 mph or greater, though being an Eastern Seaboard state, would never happen. I'd be curious to see the 85th percentile speeds on many of those rural two-lane segments in undeveloped, wide-open areas.
Nearly all have a maximum of 50 mph except for a couple that are 55 mph.
And yes, the statutory maximum is 50 mph in the absence of anything else being posted.Like Maryland and Delaware.The maximum speed limit in NJ for 2-lane highways is only 50 mph. Or are there any that are higher?It seems rare, but some are posted at 55 mph.
NJ-72 -
NJ-70 -
Nearly all have a maximum of 50 mph except for a couple that are 55 mph.
And yes, the statutory maximum is 50 mph in the absence of anything else being posted.Like Maryland and Delaware. Nearly all have a maximum of 50 mph except for a couple that are 55 mph.The maximum speed limit in NJ for 2-lane highways is only 50 mph. Or are there any that are higher?It seems rare, but some are posted at 55 mph. NJ-72 - NJ-70 -
For New Jersey, 55 mph is the maximum allowed, though I believe the statutory maximum is also 50 mph.And yes, the statutory maximum is 50 mph in the absence of anything else being posted.Like Maryland and Delaware. Nearly all have a maximum of 50 mph except for a couple that are 55 mph.The maximum speed limit in NJ for 2-lane highways is only 50 mph. Or are there any that are higher?It seems rare, but some are posted at 55 mph. NJ-72 - NJ-70 -
What is the maximum for at-grade divided highways with 4 or more lanes?
39:4-98 Rates of speed.
39:4-98. Rates of speed. Subject to the provisions of R.S.39:4-96 and R.S.39:4-97 and except in those instances where a lower speed is specified in this chapter, it shall be prima facie lawful for the driver of a vehicle to drive it at a speed not exceeding the following:
a.Twenty-five miles per hour, when passing through a school zone during recess, when the presence of children is clearly visible from the roadway, or while children are going to or leaving school, during opening or closing hours;
b. (1) Twenty-five miles per hour in any business or residential district;
(2)Thirty-five miles per hour in any suburban business or residential district;
c.Fifty miles per hour in all other locations, except as otherwise provided in the "Sixty-Five MPH Speed Limit Implementation Act," pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1997, c.415 (C.39:4-98.3 et al.).
NJ, compared to other states, has a pretty basic but often misquoted or misunderstood law. And what's interesting...the quoted message sprjus4 took off the NJ website isn't even correct! NJ has 3 statutory speed limits: 25, 35 and 50. When 65 mph was adopted, that was added. However, interestingly enough, 55 mph was never written into law, and 55 still isn't mentioned in the law. When the NMSL took effect, the limit on the roadways was dropped to 55, but that was done as a matter of policy to avoid losing federal funds. It wasn't mandated by a law.
NJ law never refers to the size of the road, how many lanes the road has, or whether it's full access or limited access.
Nj.com had a story last year where they took some speed samples of our highways using a radar gun (they admit the sampling was unscientific). The clear answer was speed limits should often be 75 or 80 mph.
https://www.nj.com/data/2018/08/should_the_speed_limit_on_njs_highways_be_higher_we_used_a_radar_gun_to_find_the_answer.html
Of course, they allowed AAA to weigh in, and no surprise here, they say speed limits should be kept lower.
https://www.nj.com/data/2018/08/should_the_speed_limit_on_njs_highways_be_higher_we_used_a_radar_gun_to_find_the_answer.html
Here's an interesting article.
I-287, Route 55, New Jersey Turnpike, I-295, and the Atlantic City Expressway, with 55 mph or 65 mph speed limits, all have 85th percentile speeds at or above 77 mph, with the New Jersey Turnpike in Chesterfield having an 85th percentile speed of 82 mph, just north of I-95 enters where the Turnpike is 12 lanes, wide open.
80 mph speed limits in New Jersey? Suuuuurrree.Seems fairly reasonable on long stretches on the New Jersey Turnpike. The roadway can easily handle that speed in many areas, and the vast majority of drivers drive in excess of 75 mph already. The speed limit should reflect road design and 85th percentile speeds. 65 mph does not.
No it doesn't. The focus on the "85th percentile" was cooked up about 40 years ago by motorist advocacy groups many of whom wanted speed limits to ultimately be abolished.80 mph speed limits in New Jersey? Suuuuurrree.Seems fairly reasonable on long stretches on the New Jersey Turnpike. The roadway can easily handle that speed in many areas, and the vast majority of drivers drive in excess of 75 mph already. The speed limit should reflect road design and 85th percentile speeds. 65 mph does not.
You won't see 80 mph east of the Mississippi, and only 2 states have ever had anything over 70, that being 75.West Virginia is permitted to post up to 75 mph now, actually attempted 80 mph previously, and North Carolina nearly passed legislation authorizing 75 mph on rural freeways back in 2013, though never got all the way through. This is not to say it could not become a thing in the future.
Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?Quite frankly, if the merge from 3 lanes to 2 lanes southbound can be a bottleneck, imagine 4 lanes going into 2 lanes.
Guess we just disagree.Going by what they've listed, it looks like the last stretch of Newark Bay Extension east of Columbus Blvd. exit will still be original 2x2 highway.
I see the need to expand from 4 to 6 lanes from 3 to 4, but not south of 3.
Frankly, I like the NJTP being 4 lanes at the beginning, it's really nice to see one remaining segment of the original highway still there, and cool how the massive 14 lane NJTP riddles down to 4 lanes.
Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?
Guess we just disagree.
I see the need to expand from 4 to 6 lanes from 3 to 4, but not south of 3.
Frankly, I like the NJTP being 4 lanes at the beginning, it's really nice to see one remaining segment of the original highway still there, and cool how the massive 14 lane NJTP riddles down to 4 lanes.
Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?
Am I correct in assuming this Turnpike Entrance sign has a piece that flips up to read "Turnpike Closed?"
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/2018-05-18_12_34_11_View_west_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_32_%28Forsgate_Drive%29_at_the_interchange_with_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_in_Monroe_Township%2C_Middlesex_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/320px-thumbnail.jpg)
And is the "Closed" lettering green too? Or is it red?
Guess we just disagree.
I see the need to expand from 4 to 6 lanes from 3 to 4, but not south of 3.
Frankly, I like the NJTP being 4 lanes at the beginning, it's really nice to see one remaining segment of the original highway still there, and cool how the massive 14 lane NJTP riddles down to 4 lanes.
Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?
I drive the New Jersey Turnpike from Interchanges 1 to 6 somewhat frequently, and usually on weekends and holidays. Based on what I see then, it definitely needs to be at least six lanes all the way from the U.S. 40 ramps to Exit 4. Not clear to me that it needs to be widened from 4 to 6 right now.
As for the "look and feel" of the original Turnpike south of Exit 4, I really cannot discern that much difference between the sections between 1 and 4 and from 4 to the point where the "dual dual" Turnpike begins south of Exit 6.
But left lane misuse is a problem on the Turnpike south of 4, and there is a lot of lane changing that goes on in part because the road is only two lanes each way.
NO, I am saying a slow taper.Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?Quite frankly, if the merge from 3 lanes to 2 lanes southbound can be a bottleneck, imagine 4 lanes going into 2 lanes.
If the turnpike is going to be built to handle the capacity / demand, it would be 3x3 down to Exit 1.
I agree Exits 4 to 6 will eventually need 4x4, but after Exits 1 to 3 is expanded to 3x3 first.
That should be expanded.Guess we just disagree.Going by what they've listed, it looks like the last stretch of Newark Bay Extension east of Columbus Blvd. exit will still be original 2x2 highway.
I see the need to expand from 4 to 6 lanes from 3 to 4, but not south of 3.
Frankly, I like the NJTP being 4 lanes at the beginning, it's really nice to see one remaining segment of the original highway still there, and cool how the massive 14 lane NJTP riddles down to 4 lanes.
Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?
I drive it all the time, I never get stuck in delays.Guess we just disagree.
I see the need to expand from 4 to 6 lanes from 3 to 4, but not south of 3.
Frankly, I like the NJTP being 4 lanes at the beginning, it's really nice to see one remaining segment of the original highway still there, and cool how the massive 14 lane NJTP riddles down to 4 lanes.
Again as well, why not just make exit 4 to 6 8 lanes?
I drive the New Jersey Turnpike from Interchanges 1 to 6 somewhat frequently, and usually on weekends and holidays. Based on what I see then, it definitely needs to be at least six lanes all the way from the U.S. 40 ramps to Exit 4. Not clear to me that it needs to be widened from 4 to 6 right now.
As for the "look and feel" of the original Turnpike south of Exit 4, I really cannot discern that much difference between the sections between 1 and 4 and from 4 to the point where the "dual dual" Turnpike begins south of Exit 6.
But left lane misuse is a problem on the Turnpike south of 4, and there is a lot of lane changing that goes on in part because the road is only two lanes each way.
I drive it all the time, I never get stuck in delays.The highway isn’t reliable during peak times, leading to travel speeds anywhere from 45 mph - 70 mph, random stop-and-go occurrences, and is packed tightly. This may seem okay in your eyes, but that’s an issue that needs fixing.
I may have steady volume, and I may not be able to hit cruise control, I may not be able to go much faster than the low 70s, but that is hardly a pressing issue worth complaining about, that is still green, free flowing traffic.
Moreover, the southern portion of the NJTP south of exit 3 has a real pretty, almost parkway like feel to it with a nice canopy.There’s not much difference in design between the 4 and 6 lane segments.
It reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
Moreover, the southern portion of the NJTP south of exit 3 has a real pretty, almost parkway like feel to it with a nice canopy.It has a 25-foot median that is paved and has a concrete median barrier and has 12-foot paved right shoulders. https://tinyurl.com/tq498rn It is not a parkway design, but a full Interstate design, and the narrow median is an urban design.
It reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
Yes but the narrow median means the tree coverage is pretty good, like the merit.Moreover, the southern portion of the NJTP south of exit 3 has a real pretty, almost parkway like feel to it with a nice canopy.It has a 25-foot median that is paved and has a concrete median barrier and has 12-foot paved right shoulders. https://tinyurl.com/tq498rn It is not a parkway design, but a full Interstate design, and the narrow median is an urban design.
It reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
Same cross-section and looks basically the same as the 6-lane sections, just 6 lanes instead of 4.
Yes but the narrow median means the tree coverage is pretty good, like the merit.All of those features exist on the 6 lane section as well.
I see that there is a lot of "mature" tree growth within 20 to 25 feet of the roadway.It has a 25-foot median that is paved and has a concrete median barrier and has 12-foot paved right shoulders. https://tinyurl.com/tq498rn It is not a parkway design, but a full Interstate design, and the narrow median is an urban design.Yes but the narrow median means the tree coverage is pretty good, like the merit.
Same cross-section and looks basically the same as the 6-lane sections, just 6 lanes instead of 4.
I may have steady volume, and I may not be able to hit cruise control, I may not be able to go much faster than the low 70s, but that is hardly a pressing issue worth complaining about, that is still green, free flowing traffic.IMO Google Maps has the threshold a bit low for when to stop showing traffic as green. There have been many times where I've thought "they show this as green!? Should be yellow!". Same for the dividing line between yellow and red.
I wonder if he has an association in his head where 6 or more lanes automatically means urban. It's easy to start thinking that way if you live in a state with few or no rural freeways with more than two lanes each direction excluding climbing lanes.Well, I-95 between Fredericksburg - Ashland and Delaware - Baltimore is 6 lanes, and certainly aren't urban segments.
IMO Google Maps has the threshold a bit low for when to stop showing traffic as green. There have been many times where I've thought "they show this as green!? Should be yellow!". Same for the dividing line between yellow and red.Agreed. I've been in traffic that moves from 70 mph down to almost 0 mph, then picks back up, etc. (stop-go conditions, no incident, just heavy traffic on an overcapacity road), and Google shows all green.
I see that there is a lot of "mature" tree growth within 20 to 25 feet of the roadway.It has a 25-foot median that is paved and has a concrete median barrier and has 12-foot paved right shoulders. https://tinyurl.com/tq498rn It is not a parkway design, but a full Interstate design, and the narrow median is an urban design.Yes but the narrow median means the tree coverage is pretty good, like the merit.
Same cross-section and looks basically the same as the 6-lane sections, just 6 lanes instead of 4.
Trees that have been growing since … 1951 and are 70 to 100 feet tall today.
I will grant that a widening project would result in clear zones at least 30 feet wide, with a more "open" look as far as trees along side. Proper aesthetic treatments can provide an attractive roadside.
Quick history: Most of the Turnpike was originally built with a small paved left shoulder and a 20' or so grassy area in the middle with a guardrail. A few decades ago, they modernized this with an ultra-thick Jersey barrier and full width left shoulders. So it still meets interstate guidelines for a median; it's just not what one typically finds in a rural area.Yes, that it what the mainline turnpike looked like in the 1970s when I lived in the area, with 4-foot paved left shoulders and a somewhat raised grass median, with a double-faced W-beam guardrail for the median barrier.
BTW, the NJ-PA Turnpike extension's median to this day was what nearly the entire Turnpike was built with. https://goo.gl/maps/zSzT4qZD8gQ2hSEi7 It's unknown to me why the extension's median was never upgraded with the treatment the mainline received.
Quick history: Most of the Turnpike was originally built with a small paved left shoulder and a 20' or so grassy area in the middle with a guardrail. A few decades ago, they modernized this with an ultra-thick Jersey barrier and full width left shoulders. So it still meets interstate guidelines for a median; it's just not what one typically finds in a rural area.Yes, that it what the mainline turnpike looked like in the 1970s when I lived in the area, with 4-foot paved left shoulders and a somewhat raised grass median, with a double-faced W-beam guardrail for the median barrier.
BTW, the NJ-PA Turnpike extension's median to this day was what nearly the entire Turnpike was built with. https://goo.gl/maps/zSzT4qZD8gQ2hSEi7 It's unknown to me why the extension's median was never upgraded with the treatment the mainline received.
The newly-built dual-divided section north of New Brunswick had a paved median and paved outer separators, and had a double-faced W-beam guardrail for the median barrier.
That PA Extension may have been built with 6 lanes, as that is what it had when I first drove it in 1972. The Delaware River Bridge had 6 lanes with a painted separator.
Was the mainline's total median width no wider than the total median width today? The Pennsylvania Extension's median seems to be slightly wider overall (yellow line to yellow line) than the mainline's.The mainline median is 26 ft wide from line to line. It was originally a grassy median with guardrail, though was filled to provide left paved shoulders and a jersey barrier.
The extension's median has a 38 ft wide median from line to line, so it was probably not warranted to fill the entire thing, a median of that width can suffice with a grassy median and guardrail. With that much room, a fill could allow an additional lane and 6 foot left paved shoulder in each direction to be added.The paved left shoulders warrant being widened to 10 or 12 feet, given the 3-lane roadways. But the demand for such a project would not have been very high.
The 38 foot median may be too wide to pave the whole median, but too narrow for a proper grass median, but some other places in such case they did pave the whole thing.A 38 foot grassy median with a guardrail or cable guardrail is adequate is most scenarios, though as you mention sometimes agencies opt to fill it in.
That does have 5-foot paved left shoulders, and a W-beam guardrail median barrier.The 38 foot median may be too wide to pave the whole median, but too narrow for a proper grass median, but some other places in such case they did pave the whole thing.Anything about 26 foot or less should ideally be paved with jersey barrier, though in some instances that still hasn't happened, see below.
Median on I-95 near Emporia that is 28 foot grassy with guardrail. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6875282,-77.5575212,3a,49.2y,18.46h,86.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqj5S3T3ltVaoFfWerXtdg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1)
(https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8003208,-79.8701063,3a,37.7y,44.9h,86.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sowoUS4gMfvsCoqSvH2frRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1)
Median on I-64 near Clifton Forge that is 20 foot grassy with two sets of cable guardrail.[/url] This example only had the cable guardrail installed recently (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.800289,-79.8700773,3a,75y,46.62h,87.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf0b9CwMd-ZJWe25tTgDDDg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1), it used to be only 20 foot, 65 mph, no median protection. It now is posted at 70 mph and with at least two sets of cable guardrail.That was a recent project a few years ago, and a concrete median barrier was considered, but that high-tension cable guardrail is a recent design and is strong enough to deflect a large truck from crossing the median, and much less cost to install.
That does have 5-foot paved left shoulders, and a W-beam guardrail median barrier.The median size included the shoulders, from yellow line to yellow line. Approximately 18 foot of grass, 10 foot of paved shoulder. 26 foot total.
That was a recent project a few years ago, and a concrete median barrier was considered, but that high-tension cable guardrail is a recent design and is strong enough to deflect a large truck from crossing the median, and much less cost to install.Certain highway segments in Hampton Roads have gotten such cable guardrail treatment as well in the past 5 years.
D. HIGH-TENSION CABLE SYSTEMS
VDOT has installed approximately 50 miles of high-tension cable barrier on roadways in the Commonwealth. All high-tension cable guardrail systems are proprietary. All hightension cable guardrail systems must meet the MASH TL-3 or TL-4 crash test standards. The installed system must meet the VDOT’s specifications for the project’s application. Please contact Location & Design Division’s Standards/Special Design section for assistance on the use of HTC Barrier.
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/GRIT_Manual.pdf
where that segment is 4 lanes and is divided by a 46 foot grassy median, another project that would be completed by the city of Chesapeake. I recall a recent story where an innocent driver was killed in the southbound lanes approaching the Veterans Bridge by another driver in the northbound lanes crossing over the median, that had the city properly installed cable guardrail during the construction of that project only 3 years ago, would've been prevented.The "if it saves one life" fallacy.
where that segment is 4 lanes and is divided by a 46 foot grassy median, another project that would be completed by the city of Chesapeake. I recall a recent story where an innocent driver was killed in the southbound lanes approaching the Veterans Bridge by another driver in the northbound lanes crossing over the median, that had the city properly installed cable guardrail during the construction of that project only 3 years ago, would've been prevented.The "if it saves one life" fallacy.
I really question the benefits of installing a median barrier on a median wider than 40 feet. Clear zones of 30 feet are recognized to be wide enough that bridge piers that far back don't need to be protected by guardrail, because of the extremely low probability of an errant vehicle hitting them, and the fact the guardrail injects another fixed object into the equation, typically at least a 200 foot run of guardrail to protect the piers.
That 40 foot median has 40 feet of recovery room, and that is halved or less if a barrier is installed, so a vehicle that would have recovered without impact in 40 feet would have hit the guardrail, and while not a headon collision that depending on kinematics could still be a violent crash and harmful to the occupants. The very rare vehicle that crosses a 40-foot (or wider) median won't automatically hit any other vehicle.
A 30-foot median is another matter, because in order to make the slopes steep enough to provide drainage to the ditchline, that would be about 4:1 slopes which are steep enough to turn a vehicle over if it hits it at certain angles, so assuming 30 feet of safe recovery room cannot be assumed.
NJDOT, after a few cross-over median crashes that resulted in deaths, installed guardrails across nearly all medians where it's possible for a vehicle to cross over. Usually they offset the guardrail to one side, which still allows one direction to have most of the median for a recovery zone, and the other side to have enough room for at least 12' of paved/unpaved shoulder. Overall it seems to work out well.A graded median 150 feet wide is possible for a vehicle to cross over. Where do we draw the line?
As any example, for NCDOT, anything less than around 85 foot wide will usually have cable guardrail installed. On new freeway segments with median widths varying from 46 to 70 foot, they are standard installs. Unlike New Jersey, they are usually installed closer to the center rather than offset on one side, though is just as effective.NJDOT, after a few cross-over median crashes that resulted in deaths, installed guardrails across nearly all medians where it's possible for a vehicle to cross over. Usually they offset the guardrail to one side, which still allows one direction to have most of the median for a recovery zone, and the other side to have enough room for at least 12' of paved/unpaved shoulder. Overall it seems to work out well.A graded median 150 feet wide is possible for a vehicle to cross over. Where do we draw the line?
I wonder if he has an association in his head where 6 or more lanes automatically means urban. It's easy to start thinking that way if you live in a state with few or no rural freeways with more than two lanes each direction excluding climbing lanes.I may have steady volume, and I may not be able to hit cruise control, I may not be able to go much faster than the low 70s, but that is hardly a pressing issue worth complaining about, that is still green, free flowing traffic.IMO Google Maps has the threshold a bit low for when to stop showing traffic as green. There have been many times where I've thought "they show this as green!? Should be yellow!". Same for the dividing line between yellow and red.
Look I just haven't experience traffic slowdowns on the southern end.On some weekends, I wish I could cruise consistently at least at 60 mph, but it often times can be slower. This is on Exit 1 - 3.
Sure, I wish I could cruise at 80 mph, but really that is a luxury and hardly worth using the limited resources.
I just do not see the priority need to do this, and I am veteran NJTP full 118 mile driver.While I’ve not driven it on a daily basis, I’ve driven it quite a few times from the end to end. I’ve experienced these issues first hand. It must be enough of an issue if it’s a project set to begin in the next 10 years.
I don't agree with that, for the aforementioned reasons.A graded median 150 feet wide is possible for a vehicle to cross over. Where do we draw the line?As any example, for NCDOT, anything less than around 85 foot wide will usually have cable guardrail installed.
Eliminating any potential for a median crossover crash should be the goal for any freeway, regardless of median size.Don't agree. At a point much beyond 30 feet of recovery room, the probability of a crash becomes infinitesimal, and like I said the guardrail injects another fixed object that a vehicle can hit and is much closer to the roadway.
What is the point of a 35 mph speed limit?
Look I just haven't experience traffic slowdowns on the southern end.
I haven't used it enough to have personal experience, but the data certainly supports the likelihood of random rolling backups at peak periods, where daily volume may exceed 70,000.Look I just haven't experience traffic slowdowns on the southern end....and everyone else who's commenting on this has. we're not all lying.
Totally off-topic, but I just travelled the Turnpike today and saw they shut down the outer roadway (Cars/Trucks/Buses) northbound for emergency vehicles only. Wonder if that’s been that way for a while since the pandemic started.
Not that it made a huge difference - even at 9AM, it was pretty smooth sailing and light traffic.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xvy7Jysf/EE95-E341-ECF5-492-C-AC98-E08161-A20093.jpg)
Totally off-topic, but I just travelled the Turnpike today and saw they shut down the outer roadway (Cars/Trucks/Buses) northbound for emergency vehicles only. Wonder if that’s been that way for a while since the pandemic started.
NJDOT, after a few cross-over median crashes that resulted in deaths, installed guardrails across nearly all medians where it's possible for a vehicle to cross over. Usually they offset the guardrail to one side, which still allows one direction to have most of the median for a recovery zone, and the other side to have enough room for at least 12' of paved/unpaved shoulder. Overall it seems to work out well.A graded median 150 feet wide is possible for a vehicle to cross over. Where do we draw the line?
Totally off-topic, but I just travelled the Turnpike today and saw they shut down the outer roadway (Cars/Trucks/Buses) northbound for emergency vehicles only. Wonder if that’s been that way for a while since the pandemic started.
Not that it made a huge difference - even at 9AM, it was pretty smooth sailing and light traffic.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xvy7Jysf/EE95-E341-ECF5-492-C-AC98-E08161-A20093.jpg)
What is the point of a 35 mph speed limit?
No clue; probably just a default. It’s 65 the rest of the highway, and the emergency vehicles I have seen go by - in both directions on that one northbound roadway - are certainly not going 35.
Construction of the missing movements between the Garden State Parkway and Sea Isle Blvd (CR 625) to complete as a full interchange by providing new movements from Parkway northbound to Sea Isle Blvd eastbound and Sea Isle Blvd westbound to GSP southbound eliminating the need to travel several miles to the south and use Interchange 13.
It is hard to envision an errant vehicle crossing a 60+ foot wide median unless it was deliberately driven into the opposing lanes, and then it wouldn't be 'errant.' It would attempted autocide.A graded median 150 feet wide is possible for a vehicle to cross over. Where do we draw the line?A lot of this ultimately comes down to politics and public perception. Traditional guidelines called for certain width medians designed a certain way to create a recovery zone. But standards always evolve and change over time. While the recovery zone was created to minimize damage, the benefits of a guardrail to nearly eliminate the minor risk of a car crossing into the opposing direction is becoming a preferred standard in many jurisdictions, regardless of median width. This in turn may change the standard of the median to compensate for the guardrail being present anyway.
It is hard to envision an errant vehicle crossing a 60+ foot wide median unless it was deliberately driven into the opposing lanes, and then it wouldn't be 'errant.' It would attempted autocide.Hard to envision, but can happen. Why risk the potential of it happening, a head-on collision from happening, an innocent person being killed on impact, when a barrier would prevent it? VDOT recently installed cable barrier along I-664 which has a 64 foot median.
It's cost-benefit. Lives have costs. Guiderail has a cost. Do the math and decide.It is hard to envision an errant vehicle crossing a 60+ foot wide median unless it was deliberately driven into the opposing lanes, and then it wouldn't be 'errant.' It would attempted autocide.Hard to envision, but can happen. Why risk the potential of it happening, a head-on collision from happening, an innocent person being killed on impact, when a barrier would prevent it? VDOT recently installed cable barrier along I-664 which has a 64 foot median.
The US-17 Dominion Blvd example I posted only has a 46 foot median, and certainly warrants cable barrier, such that should've been installed back in 2016 when it was constructed.
As far as NCDOT's policy of installing cable guardrail on freeway medians up to 85 ft, it's certainly a good safety feature to have, and I fully support it. It may not be necessary in the 70s and up, but certainly 60 ft or less should have it. With the cable guardrail centered, with a standard median width of 46 ft, you have 23 ft of clear zone, and that number only increases the larger the median. That clear zone you mention is non-existent on freeways with jersey barrier or narrow medians with guardrail.
Why did it take VDOT so long to install cable barrier along I-64 where the median was only 20 ft with a 65 mph speed limit? I can't imagine the amount of head-on collisions that have occurred since that stretch was opened in the 1960s.
Again, the "if it saves one life" fallacy.It is hard to envision an errant vehicle crossing a 60+ foot wide median unless it was deliberately driven into the opposing lanes, and then it wouldn't be 'errant.' It would attempted autocide.Hard to envision, but can happen. Why risk the potential of it happening, a head-on collision from happening, an innocent person being killed on impact, when a barrier would prevent it? VDOT recently installed cable barrier along I-664 which has a 64 foot median.
It's cost-benefit. Lives have costs. Guiderail has a cost. Do the math and decide.I would like to see engineering studies that would analyze that. For a given median width, accident costs with and without a median barrier, and costs for the median barrier.
I think that's where the decision comes from to make a 60' median the standard (or possibly less in some states). P(crossover) x $(fatality) compared to $(guiderail+maintenance) per year.Again, the "if it saves one life" fallacy.It is hard to envision an errant vehicle crossing a 60+ foot wide median unless it was deliberately driven into the opposing lanes, and then it wouldn't be 'errant.' It would attempted autocide.Hard to envision, but can happen. Why risk the potential of it happening, a head-on collision from happening, an innocent person being killed on impact, when a barrier would prevent it? VDOT recently installed cable barrier along I-664 which has a 64 foot median.
What if someone who would have recovered safely in 64 feet, now hits a guardrail that is 15 feet from the roadway, and the car turns over, and 3 people get killed?
It would be extraordinarily rare for an errant vehicle to cross 64 feet from the roadway.
It would not be uncommon for a vehicle to hit a fixed object 15 feet from the roadway.It's cost-benefit. Lives have costs. Guiderail has a cost. Do the math and decide.I would like to see engineering studies that would analyze that. For a given median width, accident costs with and without a median barrier, and costs for the median barrier.
I have read lots of traffic engineering topical studies but have never seen this analyzed.
Their efficacy in mitigating crash severity is assessed by a crash modification factor (CMF), an estimate of the change in crashes expected after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. A CMF reflects the safety effect of a countermeasure, whether it is a decrease in crashes (CMF less than 1.0), increase in crashes (CMF more than 1.0), or no change in crashes (CMF of 1.0) (1). For example, in Table 1, CMF of median barrier for preventing cross-median fatal injury crashes is 0.34. This means, the expected number of fatal crashes after installation of median barrier will be reduced by approximately 66 percent.
Flexible barriers consist of low-tension and high- tension cable barrier (HTCB) systems. HTCBs have replaced the low-tension cable barriers in most states due to improved performance and maintenance benefits. Cable barriers are best suited for deployment at locations with wide median areas and allow drivers to make a safe stop without re-entering the traffic or entering the travel lane of oncoming traffic (i.e., wrong-way driving). Their larger deflections allow for softer impacts, resulting in fewer injuries, and the open design allows for wind, sand, and snow to pass through the system.
One major consideration about median barriers is the width of the median and knowing where and what type of barrier should be installed. The common median width for installing cable barriers is 40 feet to 75 feet. A few other factors to consider include the median slope, the amount of traffic, the crash history, and the cost. HTCBs are in wide use across the country and are seen as more effective than low-tension cable barriers. Figure 3 shows an installation of HTCB as a median barrier. HTCB can be placed on slopes as steep as 4:1 or flatter. It should be noticed that the HTCB can also be used as a roadside barrier.
Testing criteria specific to cable barriers was introduced for the first time in the MASH 2009 edition. These criteria include minimum fence lengths, minimum tension for testing, and placement of hardware in the vehicle impact zone. In MASH 2016, six new tests (Tests 13 through 18) are added to test the effectiveness of cable barriers at 6:1 and 4:1 slopes for different performance conditions, including:
- Ability of a cable barrier to contain and redirect light trucks and SUVs as well as prevent barrier override.
- Ability of a cable barrier to safely contain and redirect small passenger vehicles without resulting in excessive vehicular instabilities and/or rollover.
- Ability of a cable barrier to safely contain and redirect small passenger vehicles as well as prevent barrier underride, component penetration into the occupant compartment, and excessive deformations of the A-pillar, roof, or windshield.
- Ability of a cable barrier to safely contain and redirect small passenger vehicles after traveling across the center of a ditch and up the back slope.
- Ability of a cable barrier to contain and redirect mid-size passenger sedans by preventing vehicle penetration through vertically adjacent cables.
- Ability of a cable barrier to safely contain and redirect light trucks and SUVs after traveling across the center of a ditch and up the back slope.
SAFETY BENEFITS OF MEDIANDid you notice that the author, American Traffic Safety Services Association, is a private company and an advocacy group --
BARRIER AND ROADSIDE GUARDRAIL (https://www.atssa.com/Portals/0/Blog%20News/SafetyBenefitsGuardrail_2017Book_Final.pdf?ver=2019-01-07-143743-100)Quote. The common median width for installing cable barriers is 40 feet to 75 feet. A few other factors to consider include the median slope, the amount of traffic, the crash history, and the cost. HTCBs are in wide use across the country and are seen as more effective than low-tension cable barriers. Figure 3 shows an installation of HTCB as a median barrier. HTCB can be placed on slopes as steep as 4:1 or flatter. It should be noticed that the HTCB can also be used as a roadside barrier.
Anti-barriers
This is a stupid comment. I always have been in favor of guardrails, cable barriers and other protective measures.Anti-barriers [jeffandnicole edited my comments]Why are you so against guardrails, cable barriers and other protective measures?
Why do you counter with the remote possibility of "a car could topple over and kill 3 family members", while minimizing a vehicle getting thru a median and killing a family in a head-on crash?The "if it saves one life" fallacy. Need to determine the probabilities of each, and the cost and benefits associated.
As detailed by some here, and by preference in many states, it's becoming more preferred to have some sort of barrier where the benefits generally are going to outweigh the negatives. Site as many engineering stats as you want - barriers are preferred.No question about a 10-foot median on the PA Turnpike needing a median barrier.
Why do you counter with the remote possibility of "a car could topple over and kill 3 family members", while minimizing a vehicle getting thru a median and killing a family in a head-on crash?The "if it saves one life" fallacy. Need to determine the probabilities of each, and the cost and benefits associated.
As detailed by some here, and by preference in many states, it's becoming more preferred to have some sort of barrier where the benefits generally are going to outweigh the negatives. Site as many engineering stats as you want - barriers are preferred.No question about a 10-foot median on the PA Turnpike needing a median barrier.
The 25-foot median on the NJTP (this is an NJTP thread) with such high volume, again, no question about needing a median barrier. Median barrier is required.
For the universe of roads out there, we need a better justification argument than "it makes me feel good," before attacking transportation agencies for not installing High Tension Cable Barrier (HTCB) in questionable locations.
Well, that is a lack of engineering that I find objectional when and if that occurs on the highway system, given limited budgets.For the universe of roads out there, we need a better justification argument than "it makes me feel good," before attacking transportation agencies for not installing High Tension Cable Barrier (HTCB) in questionable locations.However, that's often the justification used for reducing speed limits when engineering studies don't require it, stop signs, traffic lights, roundabouts and other traffic control devices where less restrictive controls would satisfy traffic demands, bicycle lanes when there's projected to be little to no usage of them, etc.
Not saying it's right, but "it makes me feel good" is often the overriding reason for a fair amount of "stuff" in questionable locations.
. Need to determine the probabilities of each, and the cost and benefits associated.Except - and was quite predicted when posting - such studies regarding these would not be “good enough” as you don’t agree with the viewpoints.
For the universe of roads out there, we need a better justification argument than "it makes me feel good," before attacking transportation agencies for not installing High Tension Cable Barrier (HTCB) in questionable locations.Except the specific Arizona example was a high frequency crash location with an umpteenth amount of median crossover collisions in the past decade, and the transportation agency, using their own data which was not nearly as extensive as the records presented in court, and used that as a basis to claim it would only hurt people further.
The average cost I seem to find online for HTCB is about $250,000 per mile, and for the usual installation of two runs, that is $500,000 per mile; and that would be $5 million for 10 miles. Then there are maintenance costs afterward.
So there is a need for clear engineering justification for a particular location before such an expenditure is authorized.
The average cost I seem to find online for HTCB is about $250,000 per mile, and for the usual installation of two runs, that is $500,000 per mile; and that would be $5 million for 10 miles. Then there are maintenance costs afterward.Usually when cable guardrail is installed, it’s usually one line in the center median or positioned on one side of the roadway, not two.
And through various studies and reports, though are fallacy because they don’t oppose guardrails.The average cost I seem to find online for HTCB is about $250,000 per mile, and for the usual installation of two runs, that is $500,000 per mile; and that would be $5 million for 10 miles. Then there are maintenance costs afterward.
So there is a need for clear engineering justification for a particular location before such an expenditure is authorized.
Engineering justification is easy to receive in this case. As shown throughout the past few dozen posts, the money spent is worth the safety benefits implied to the motorists and elected or appointed officials.
And through various studies and reports, though are fallacy because they don’t oppose guardrails.The average cost I seem to find online for HTCB is about $250,000 per mile, and for the usual installation of two runs, that is $500,000 per mile; and that would be $5 million for 10 miles. Then there are maintenance costs afterward.
So there is a need for clear engineering justification for a particular location before such an expenditure is authorized.
Engineering justification is easy to receive in this case. As shown throughout the past few dozen posts, the money spent is worth the safety benefits implied to the motorists and elected or appointed officials.
I dismissed the one that you posted from an industry advocacy group.. Need to determine the probabilities of each, and the cost and benefits associated.Except - and was quite predicted when posting - such studies regarding these would not be “good enough” as you don’t agree with the viewpoints.
You ask for reports - and when you don’t agree with them - they are invalid.
On a 36-foot median of a highway that carries in excess of 30,000 AADT that seems logical enough. Another problem with a median that size is that the slopes need to be steep enough to establish drainage to the ditch in the center of the median, that it could flip a car over, so a guardrail can prevent that from happening, and that is not a cross-median incident but still a problem with a narrow grass median.The average cost I seem to find online for HTCB is about $250,000 per mile, and for the usual installation of two runs, that is $500,000 per mile; and that would be $5 million for 10 miles. Then there are maintenance costs afterward.Usually when cable guardrail is installed, it’s usually one line in the center median or positioned on one side of the roadway, not two.
The City of Chesapeake’s recent project for 3.5 miles cost $767,680, so around $219,337 per mile. For 10 miles, that’s $2,193,370. That’s a minor cost, and for the safety benefits it provides, including lives saved which apparently is fallacy and a head-on collision is preferred to save money, is well worth the investment to the states that do such programs.
If it’s incorported into a new freeway, it’s nothing compared to the cost of the highway itself. How about the amount in lawsuits, claims, that Arizona for example had to deal with, much higher than the cost of installing cable guardrail.It would depend on the size of the lawsuits, how much they cost to defend, and how much (if any) the cost of the judgements.
If a car flies across a 50 or 60, even 70 foot median, is it supposed to come a complete stop at 75 - 80 mph?Try calculating how far that vehicle will travel in the 70 foot median if it enters at a 10 degree angle and the driver makes an effort to mitigate that. I will work up some calculations, but that would probably be 600 feet or more.
Where is the summary data from an officially commissioned engineering report?
On a 70-foot median and 15,000 AADT, for example, show me the data, not emotional arguments.
You don't have an argument, other than emotional.On a 70-foot median and 15,000 AADT, for example, show me the data, not emotional arguments.It's not even worth trying to provide any data to you - you have a consistent habit of dismissing anything you may not agree with. For instance, you requested studies on cable guardrails, when provided, you dismissed them as being "advocacy" because you disagree with the viewpoint. Consider if you agreed with the conclusion of the study - you would have no problem utilizing it.
of how they have actually saved livesHow many lives have been saved?
Try calculating how far that vehicle will travel in the 70 foot median if it enters at a 10 degree angle and the driver makes an effort to mitigate that. I will work up some calculations, but that would probably be 600 feet or more.Assuming it enters at that angle. What if a vehicle quickly swerves to the left to avoid an object, and loses control coming in at a 45 degree or more angle? How about on a curve? Lots of possibilities.
You don't have an argument, other than emotional.Please. I've provided plenty of proof, and you dismiss it because it's "advocacy".
A few states install guardrail in medians that wide, and you attack the others that don't -- that puts the burden of proof on you.
How many lives have been saved?I could through, research the topic further outside of the reports I've already provided that have proven this, but I'm not even going to waste the time considering you'll just call it "advocacy", whether it was conducted by a DOT, private agency, or whomever.
A vehicle at 70 mph is not going to enter the median at a "45 degree or more angle." Simple physics and kinematics.Try calculating how far that vehicle will travel in the 70 foot median if it enters at a 10 degree angle and the driver makes an effort to mitigate that. I will work up some calculations, but that would probably be 600 feet or more.Assuming it enters at that angle. What if a vehicle quickly swerves to the left to avoid an object, and loses control coming in at a 45 degree or more angle? How about on a curve? Lots of possibilities.
Please. I've provided plenty of proof, and you dismiss it because it's "advocacy".You have not provided any proof.
I suppose the countless amount of times median guardrail has saved lives and prevented head-on collisions is only "emotional" and has no place being implemented.That is an emotional statement that is crafted to sell guardrail.
What if some guy tries to commit autocide? What if … what if ...Cable guardrail would prevent that, and at most only impact himself as opposed to killing somebody in the opposite lane of traffic.
You have not provided any proof.:-D :-D :-D
That is an emotional statement that is crafted to sell guardrail.Based on actual facts which are only "advocacy".
I can't believe that you wrote that.What if some guy tries to commit autocide? What if … what if ...Cable guardrail would prevent that, and at most only impact himself as opposed to killing somebody in the opposite lane of traffic.
https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdfWow...that's a lot to digest there. Lots of good projects if they every actually come to fruition. I'm especially interested in how they plan to handle 29/30 on the GSP at Somers Point. They spent a lot of money sprucing up the "gateway" to Ocean City that is 52 between the old Somers Point circle at 559 and Route 9 to now have to also potentially upgrade the 9/559 corridor to the same spot. Lots of wetlands headaches for many of the interchange projects on the southern GSP too...
Yes, a great list but what is the schedule for getting them built?https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdfWow...that's a lot to digest there. Lots of good projects if they every actually come to fruition. I'm especially interested in how they plan to handle 29/30 on the GSP at Somers Point. They spent a lot of money sprucing up the "gateway" to Ocean City that is 52 between the old Somers Point circle at 559 and Route 9 to now have to also potentially upgrade the 9/559 corridor to the same spot. Lots of wetlands headaches for many of the interchange projects on the southern GSP too...
Yes, a great list but what is the schedule for getting them built?https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdfWow...that's a lot to digest there. Lots of good projects if they every actually come to fruition. I'm especially interested in how they plan to handle 29/30 on the GSP at Somers Point. They spent a lot of money sprucing up the "gateway" to Ocean City that is 52 between the old Somers Point circle at 559 and Route 9 to now have to also potentially upgrade the 9/559 corridor to the same spot. Lots of wetlands headaches for many of the interchange projects on the southern GSP too...
All projects except one (HYBRID CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS) have STATUS -- To be programmed. That means unscheduled.
I just think the highest priorities should be:
-Widening Newark Ext and WB spur to 6 lanes
-Changeovers between the inner and outer lanes
-High volume exit/interchanges and aux ramps
-8lanes from 4 to 6
-6 lanes from 3 to 4
THEN THEN
-6 lanes 1-3
This has been noted as a NTJA wishlist, and some people suggested some of these projects may never occur, at least from this particular toll increase. Until the public meetings were held and the toll increased were approved, they couldn't schedule or prioritize much. And with the current unexpected change in our day to day lives, that will impact toll revenue for a while to come. If there's a permanent change in how people commute or work from home, some projects may eventually be dropped.So it is basically a long-range unconstrained plan.
The good thing is without specifying any dates, it will also keep down the gripping years from now from those that will claim the projects were delayed!
They released the list as a "wish list" to justify the proposed toll hikes...This has been noted as a NTJA wishlist, and some people suggested some of these projects may never occur, at least from this particular toll increase. Until the public meetings were held and the toll increased were approved, they couldn't schedule or prioritize much. And with the current unexpected change in our day to day lives, that will impact toll revenue for a while to come. If there's a permanent change in how people commute or work from home, some projects may eventually be dropped.So it is basically a long-range unconstrained plan.
The good thing is without specifying any dates, it will also keep down the gripping years from now from those that will claim the projects were delayed!
It was released in March 2020, presumably before the Bug Crisis came to everybody's attention.
It is nice to see a project list like that, but it would seem appropriate to list a construction year for at least what they see as the highest priorities.
Sort-of exactly. They are justifying that they have far more projects with short- to medium-term needs (in the next 20-30 years, let's say) than can be funded even with a toll hike, so the more they can get, the better off they'll be going forward. Some of these projects need to enter study or design phases now so that they can be constructed by the time they're needed - why wait until there's congestion?They released the list as a "wish list" to justify the proposed toll hikes...This has been noted as a NTJA wishlist, and some people suggested some of these projects may never occur, at least from this particular toll increase. Until the public meetings were held and the toll increased were approved, they couldn't schedule or prioritize much. And with the current unexpected change in our day to day lives, that will impact toll revenue for a while to come. If there's a permanent change in how people commute or work from home, some projects may eventually be dropped.So it is basically a long-range unconstrained plan.
The good thing is without specifying any dates, it will also keep down the gripping years from now from those that will claim the projects were delayed!
It was released in March 2020, presumably before the Bug Crisis came to everybody's attention.
It is nice to see a project list like that, but it would seem appropriate to list a construction year for at least what they see as the highest priorities.
Getting off-topic, but I was GMSV'ing the Pearl Harbor Extension and happened across this.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1099071,-74.8066833,3a,75y,126.47h,89.15t,3.17r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipMRaB1WdAfohcP6_nkUO8Dwtzv8TzhpWNYIFWs7!2e10!7i2508!8i1254?hl=en
Getting off-topic, but I was GMSV'ing the Pearl Harbor Extension and happened across this.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1099071,-74.8066833,3a,75y,126.47h,89.15t,3.17r/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAF1QipMRaB1WdAfohcP6_nkUO8Dwtzv8TzhpWNYIFWs7!2e10!7i2508!8i1254?hl=en
They are justifying that they have far more projects with short- to medium-term needs (in the next 20-30 years, let's say) than can be funded even with a toll hike, so the more they can get, the better off they'll be going forward. Some of these projects need to enter study or design phases now so that they can be constructed by the time they're needed - why wait until there's congestion?I just added up the costs of the projects in the 2020 CIP -- $24.1 billion.
They are justifying that they have far more projects with short- to medium-term needs (in the next 20-30 years, let's say) than can be funded even with a toll hike, so the more they can get, the better off they'll be going forward. Some of these projects need to enter study or design phases now so that they can be constructed by the time they're needed - why wait until there's congestion?I just added up the costs of the projects in the 2020 CIP -- $24.1 billion.
It would be helpful if they could at least include a 6-year TIP with projects programmed for P. E., R/W and Construction. If need be, select 3 or 4 levels of toll increases with a TIP for each.
By default/omission they are saying that the only project programmed is the $80 million Hybrid VMS project.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but if I was a resident of the state, I would want to see detailed scenarios for what would happen for several different levels of toll increases.I just added up the costs of the projects in the 2020 CIP -- $24.1 billion.The point of the public meetings were to comment on the proposed toll increased and the proposed projects. You're thinking way too much into what the purpose of the meetings were for.
It would be helpful if they could at least include a 6-year TIP with projects programmed for P. E., R/W and Construction. If need be, select 3 or 4 levels of toll increases with a TIP for each.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but if I was a resident of the state, I would want to see detailed scenarios for what would happen for several different levels of toll increases.I just added up the costs of the projects in the 2020 CIP -- $24.1 billion.The point of the public meetings were to comment on the proposed toll increased and the proposed projects. You're thinking way too much into what the purpose of the meetings were for.
It would be helpful if they could at least include a 6-year TIP with projects programmed for P. E., R/W and Construction. If need be, select 3 or 4 levels of toll increases with a TIP for each.
Has your state ever had public meetings with as much detail as you claim the NJTA should be providing? Have the citizens of your state ever demanded much more detail than what was being provided?I'm not demanding that they do anything. As someone who occasionally uses the highway, and someone who saw the CIP that was posted here, it would be interesting to know some kind of timetable for when some of those projects might be built.
I just think the highest priorities should be:
-Widening Newark Ext and WB spur to 6 lanes
-Changeovers between the inner and outer lanes
-High volume exit/interchanges and aux ramps
-8lanes from 4 to 6
-6 lanes from 3 to 4
THEN THEN
-6 lanes 1-3
Dude. There are 42 projects proposed. Stop focusing on 6 Turnpike projects, 2 of which aren't even proposed. There are even higher priced GSP projects you haven't touched on.
I'm focused on just the NJTP and don't you think my listed projects are bigger priorities over expanding to 6 lanes exits 1 to 4?
Crossovers, “high volume interchanges” , and 8 lanes between Exits 4-6 are lower priorities than widening to 6 lanes from Exit 1 - 4, not to mention not even projects on the list except the crossovers.I just think the highest priorities should be:
-Widening Newark Ext and WB spur to 6 lanes
-Changeovers between the inner and outer lanes
-High volume exit/interchanges and aux ramps
-8lanes from 4 to 6
-6 lanes from 3 to 4
THEN THEN
-6 lanes 1-3
Dude. There are 42 projects proposed. Stop focusing on 6 Turnpike projects, 2 of which aren't even proposed. There are even higher priced GSP projects you haven't touched on.
I'm focused on just the NJTP and don't you think my listed projects are bigger priorities over expanding to 6 lanes exits 1 to 4?
I just think the highest priorities should be:
-Widening Newark Ext and WB spur to 6 lanes
-Changeovers between the inner and outer lanes
-High volume exit/interchanges and aux ramps
-8lanes from 4 to 6
-6 lanes from 3 to 4
THEN THEN
-6 lanes 1-3
Dude. There are 42 projects proposed. Stop focusing on 6 Turnpike projects, 2 of which aren't even proposed. There are even higher priced GSP projects you haven't touched on.
I'm focused on just the NJTP and don't you think my listed projects are bigger priorities over expanding to 6 lanes exits 1 to 4?
Per the 2020 CIP, those projects total $1.1 billion.I'm focused on just the NJTP and don't you think my listed projects are bigger priorities over expanding to 6 lanes exits 1 to 4?You're just focused on *specific* projects on the NJ Tpk, and we've already told you that we feel the 1-4 widening should be a bigger priority than other projects.
Agreed, and given that traffic volumes will only rise in years forthcoming, it will certainly be a pressing need in a decade if not completed already, again, notably during peak travel periods.Per the 2020 CIP, those projects total $1.1 billion.I'm focused on just the NJTP and don't you think my listed projects are bigger priorities over expanding to 6 lanes exits 1 to 4?You're just focused on *specific* projects on the NJ Tpk, and we've already told you that we feel the 1-4 widening should be a bigger priority than other projects.
Given that the whole CIP totals $24.1 billion, those widening projects would seem worthy of high priority.
Agreed, and given that traffic volumes will only rise in years forthcoming, it will certainly be a pressing need in a decade if not completed already, again, notably during peak travel periods.Per the 2020 CIP, those projects total $1.1 billion.I'm focused on just the NJTP and don't you think my listed projects are bigger priorities over expanding to 6 lanes exits 1 to 4?You're just focused on *specific* projects on the NJ Tpk, and we've already told you that we feel the 1-4 widening should be a bigger priority than other projects.
Given that the whole CIP totals $24.1 billion, those widening projects would seem worthy of high priority.
Agreed, and given that traffic volumes will only rise in years forthcoming, it will certainly be a pressing need in a decade if not completed already, again, notably during peak travel periods.After the lower turnpike is widened to 6 lanes, that means that the combined corridor with I-295 will be 10 lanes minimum.
According to New Jersey's AADT map, I-295 has 25,818 AADT approaching the bridge, and 48,800 AADT on the Turnpike according to that previous 2017 report.Agreed, and given that traffic volumes will only rise in years forthcoming, it will certainly be a pressing need in a decade if not completed already, again, notably during peak travel periods.After the lower turnpike is widened to 6 lanes, that means that the combined corridor with I-295 will be 10 lanes minimum.
That will narrow down to 8 lanes to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridges … will traffic soon demand more capacity across the DMB?
Your NJ AADT figures are not accounting for US 40 and other local traffic (NJ 49, US 130, CR 540, CR 551). I'd trust DE.According to New Jersey's AADT map, I-295 has 25,818 AADT approaching the bridge, and 48,800 AADT on the Turnpike according to that previous 2017 report.Agreed, and given that traffic volumes will only rise in years forthcoming, it will certainly be a pressing need in a decade if not completed already, again, notably during peak travel periods.After the lower turnpike is widened to 6 lanes, that means that the combined corridor with I-295 will be 10 lanes minimum.
That will narrow down to 8 lanes to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridges … will traffic soon demand more capacity across the DMB?
Combined that is 74,618 AADT merging to cross the Delaware Memorial Bridge, though Delaware's AADT map shows 100,196 AADT on the bridge.
Whatever it may be, in the long-term, construction of a new 4 lane bridge (2 lanes each way) to create a 12 lane bridge may be a good option.
It could be simply split traffic, or managed in a way that I-295 traffic uses the new 4 lane bridge and Turnpike traffic uses the existing 8 lanes. Another option could be the new 4 lane bridge could be apart of an "thru" roadway for traffic going from the New Jersey Turnpike directly to I-95, and the existing 8 lanes for I-295 traffic and Turnpike traffic exiting at DE-9 / US-13, bound to Dover and points south.
Your NJ AADT figures are not accounting for US 40 and other local traffic (NJ 49, US 130, CR 540, CR 551). I'd trust DE.His NJ figures may well be fine, but as you say not accounting for the other highways that connect to the two local I-295 interchanges at Deepwater.
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:Yes.
100K on an 8-lane roadway doesn't concern me. The approaches on the NJ side are generally free-flowing, so I'm gonna say "no" to your question. However, Delaware has some serious work to be done on its side to provide enough capacity for the I-295 to I-95 movements.Your NJ AADT figures are not accounting for US 40 and other local traffic (NJ 49, US 130, CR 540, CR 551). I'd trust DE.His NJ figures may well be fine, but as you say not accounting for the other highways that connect to the two local I-295 interchanges at Deepwater.
So already 100 thousand AADT on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:
How about in 20 or 30 years?100K on an 8-lane roadway doesn't concern me. The approaches on the NJ side are generally free-flowing, so I'm gonna say "no" to your question. However, Delaware has some serious work to be done on its side to provide enough capacity for the I-295 to I-95 movements.Your NJ AADT figures are not accounting for US 40 and other local traffic (NJ 49, US 130, CR 540, CR 551). I'd trust DE.His NJ figures may well be fine, but as you say not accounting for the other highways that connect to the two local I-295 interchanges at Deepwater.
So already 100 thousand AADT on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:
How about in 20 or 30 years?100K on an 8-lane roadway doesn't concern me. The approaches on the NJ side are generally free-flowing, so I'm gonna say "no" to your question. However, Delaware has some serious work to be done on its side to provide enough capacity for the I-295 to I-95 movements.Your NJ AADT figures are not accounting for US 40 and other local traffic (NJ 49, US 130, CR 540, CR 551). I'd trust DE.His NJ figures may well be fine, but as you say not accounting for the other highways that connect to the two local I-295 interchanges at Deepwater.
So already 100 thousand AADT on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:
125K? Still OK.How about in 20 or 30 years?100K on an 8-lane roadway doesn't concern me. The approaches on the NJ side are generally free-flowing, so I'm gonna say "no" to your question. However, Delaware has some serious work to be done on its side to provide enough capacity for the I-295 to I-95 movements.Your NJ AADT figures are not accounting for US 40 and other local traffic (NJ 49, US 130, CR 540, CR 551). I'd trust DE.His NJ figures may well be fine, but as you say not accounting for the other highways that connect to the two local I-295 interchanges at Deepwater.
So already 100 thousand AADT on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:
Tongue-in-cheek.Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:Yes.
Would be still a beneficial connection to the Garden State Pkwy from the south.Tongue-in-cheek.Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:Yes.
It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.
Tongue-in-cheek.Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:Yes.
It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.
Would be still a beneficial connection to the Garden State Pkwy from the south.Tongue-in-cheek. It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge? :clap:Yes.
NJTA says the widenings will reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. But that is a lot like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt. Many studies and real-life experience show that widening only provides temporary (average of 4 years) relief from congestion. Longer term, it leads to “induced demand.” To paraphrase the Field of Dreams, if you build it, the cars will come rings true — e.g. 15 lanes on the Parkway and still drivers have no relief from rush hour and summer traffic.Well, I guess that recently built 12 lane section is a bottleneck. Sadly, the actual reality is that it works, quite well actually, and will in 20 years. The remaining 4 lane segments on the Turnpike need 6 lane widening, and many segments of the Parkway need widening as well.
We do not oppose toll increases, but NJTA must redo its plan with a priority placed on “best value” investments, mass transit and “fix it first” strategies. Superior projects to highway expansion include the Gateway Tunnel, expanding the Hudson Bergen Light Rail, and investments in NJ Transit. These projects, already drastically underfunded, now due to the pandemic also face the twin perils of reduced ridership and a strained General Fund.Since when does the NJTA fund outside projects on facilities it doesn’t operate?
That was a good laugh.QuoteSince when does the NJTA fund outside projects on facilities it doesn’t operate?
I believe they do dedicate a small bit of their toll revenue as payments to NJDOT for various things, but it's negligible in the overall picture.
Today on NJ.com: Turnpike Authority’s $24B plan provides few jobs, pollutes the air and cripples mass transit (https://www.nj.com/opinion/2020/04/turnpike-authoritys-24b-plan-provides-few-jobs-pollutes-the-air-and-cripples-mass-transit-opinion.html)
Talk about trying to grab for a brass ring and falling flat on your faces. Did these people do even a mild modicum of research to see that the NJTA doesn't do mass transit projects? Also, has there ever been an official study to show if PA's mass transit agencies are way better off with all the money they get from Acts 44 and 89?
I couldn't read through this without rolling my eyes.
and the NJ.com article, which read more like an opinion article, should have never been passed off as fact.It says "Opinion" in the title and is in the "Opinion" section.
and the NJ.com article, which read more like an opinion article, should have never been passed off as fact.It says "Opinion" in the title and is in the "Opinion" section.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) hasn’t gotten the message. In the midst of the pandemic and without any meaningful public input, it has proposed a $24 billion capital plan that will dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, which, as shown in a recent front page article in The Star-Ledger, has led to a higher risk of New Jersey residents dying of COVID-19.
The Harvard study examined air pollution levels in 3,080 counties around the United States between 2000 and 2016, and compared the air pollution data to COVID-19 death counts in each of those counties. The study focused on fine particle pollution (known as PM2.5), which is one of multiple air pollutants that are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers concluded that a small increase in a county’s long-term exposure to the particle pollution led to a large increase that county’s COVID-19 death rate.
Oh, because anything concluded by a study is a "fact".and the NJ.com article, which read more like an opinion article, should have never been passed off as fact.It says "Opinion" in the title and is in the "Opinion" section.
I was referencing the linked study within the opinion article. That's how I got the information not contained within the opinion piece:QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) hasn’t gotten the message. In the midst of the pandemic and without any meaningful public input, it has proposed a $24 billion capital plan that will dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, which, as shown in a recent front page article in The Star-Ledger, has led to a higher risk of New Jersey residents dying of COVID-19.
The linked article is: https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/njs-coronavirus-death-toll-is-likely-higher-thanks-to-decades-of-dirty-air.html . This was not labeled as Opinion.QuoteThe Harvard study examined air pollution levels in 3,080 counties around the United States between 2000 and 2016, and compared the air pollution data to COVID-19 death counts in each of those counties. The study focused on fine particle pollution (known as PM2.5), which is one of multiple air pollutants that are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers concluded that a small increase in a county’s long-term exposure to the particle pollution led to a large increase that county’s COVID-19 death rate.
Oh, because anything concluded by a study is a "fact".and the NJ.com article, which read more like an opinion article, should have never been passed off as fact.It says "Opinion" in the title and is in the "Opinion" section.
I was referencing the linked study within the opinion article. That's how I got the information not contained within the opinion piece:QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) hasn’t gotten the message. In the midst of the pandemic and without any meaningful public input, it has proposed a $24 billion capital plan that will dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, which, as shown in a recent front page article in The Star-Ledger, has led to a higher risk of New Jersey residents dying of COVID-19.
The linked article is: https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/njs-coronavirus-death-toll-is-likely-higher-thanks-to-decades-of-dirty-air.html . This was not labeled as Opinion.QuoteThe Harvard study examined air pollution levels in 3,080 counties around the United States between 2000 and 2016, and compared the air pollution data to COVID-19 death counts in each of those counties. The study focused on fine particle pollution (known as PM2.5), which is one of multiple air pollutants that are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers concluded that a small increase in a county’s long-term exposure to the particle pollution led to a large increase that county’s COVID-19 death rate.
I was making a sarcastic comment from which some view any study to be a "fact", such as those publishing a news article calling it such. I agree with what you're saying, it shouldn't be deemed as fact.Oh, because anything concluded by a study is a "fact".and the NJ.com article, which read more like an opinion article, should have never been passed off as fact.It says "Opinion" in the title and is in the "Opinion" section.
I was referencing the linked study within the opinion article. That's how I got the information not contained within the opinion piece:QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) hasn’t gotten the message. In the midst of the pandemic and without any meaningful public input, it has proposed a $24 billion capital plan that will dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, which, as shown in a recent front page article in The Star-Ledger, has led to a higher risk of New Jersey residents dying of COVID-19.
The linked article is: https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/njs-coronavirus-death-toll-is-likely-higher-thanks-to-decades-of-dirty-air.html . This was not labeled as Opinion.QuoteThe Harvard study examined air pollution levels in 3,080 counties around the United States between 2000 and 2016, and compared the air pollution data to COVID-19 death counts in each of those counties. The study focused on fine particle pollution (known as PM2.5), which is one of multiple air pollutants that are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The researchers concluded that a small increase in a county’s long-term exposure to the particle pollution led to a large increase that county’s COVID-19 death rate.
Oh boy...
You are misunderstanding. You said the article I quoted was an opinion article. I simply tried telling you the article I was referencing was not an opinion article.
The problem is you didn't quote my entire message, so now you're misapplying what I'm trying to say. In fact, my entire original comment was saying this study shouldn't be construed as fact. You have managed to spin everything around that I originally said.
Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29Along Laurel Drive, there is one local gas station (US Gas) that would sure lose revenue from summer Shore traffic if that partial GSP interchange is eliminated. I've used Exit 30 many times for my trips to Ocean City.
Interesting Project to eliminate Exit 30 in favor of Exit 29. I think a lot of people on Laurel Drive will appreciate that, and there's no businesses in that immediate vicinity that would be impacted. However, it's noted that CR 559 will probably need upgrading and the new double left turn lane coming off the Causeway onto 559 may become a bit overloaded during prime travel periods.
There's also a grilled cheese place on that stretch we've been to that made it on Diners Drive-ins and Dives. I'm sure that won't help their business either, assuming they can get through our current crisis.Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29Along Laurel Drive, there is one local gas station (US Gas) that would sure lose revenue from summer Shore traffic if that partial GSP interchange is eliminated. I've used Exit 30 many times for my trips to Ocean City.
Interesting Project to eliminate Exit 30 in favor of Exit 29. I think a lot of people on Laurel Drive will appreciate that, and there's no businesses in that immediate vicinity that would be impacted. However, it's noted that CR 559 will probably need upgrading and the new double left turn lane coming off the Causeway onto 559 may become a bit overloaded during prime travel periods.
Additionally, and looking through Historic Aerials for the area (1956 is the earliest that shows the interchange & GSP), Exit 30 was originally a full-movement trumpet interchange and Laurel Drive featured few or no residences along it.There's also a grilled cheese place on that stretch we've been to that made it on Diners Drive-ins and Dives. I'm sure that won't help their business either, assuming they can get through our current crisis.Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29Along Laurel Drive, there is one local gas station (US Gas) that would sure lose revenue from summer Shore traffic if that partial GSP interchange is eliminated. I've used Exit 30 many times for my trips to Ocean City.
Interesting Project to eliminate Exit 30 in favor of Exit 29. I think a lot of people on Laurel Drive will appreciate that, and there's no businesses in that immediate vicinity that would be impacted. However, it's noted that CR 559 will probably need upgrading and the new double left turn lane coming off the Causeway onto 559 may become a bit overloaded during prime travel periods.
Wow - I'm surprised by both the full movement interchange and the fact that it predates most of the houses along Laurel Drive. I just always assumed that the interchange came later, and that it was too late to zone that properly to avoid having Ocean City's main gateway on a residential street. There really needs to be a four lane corridor from the Parkway to the 9th Street Bridge, and I was disappointed that they didn't widen Route 52 to four lanes to Route 9 when they had the opportunity a few years ago (they may have already had this project in mind...)Additionally, and looking through Historic Aerials for the area (1956 is the earliest that shows the interchange & GSP), Exit 30 was originally a full-movement trumpet interchange and Laurel Drive featured few or no residences along it.There's also a grilled cheese place on that stretch we've been to that made it on Diners Drive-ins and Dives. I'm sure that won't help their business either, assuming they can get through our current crisis.Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29Along Laurel Drive, there is one local gas station (US Gas) that would sure lose revenue from summer Shore traffic if that partial GSP interchange is eliminated. I've used Exit 30 many times for my trips to Ocean City.
Interesting Project to eliminate Exit 30 in favor of Exit 29. I think a lot of people on Laurel Drive will appreciate that, and there's no businesses in that immediate vicinity that would be impacted. However, it's noted that CR 559 will probably need upgrading and the new double left turn lane coming off the Causeway onto 559 may become a bit overloaded during prime travel periods.
The interchanges conversion to its current partial southbound exit/northbound entrance configuration as well as residential development along Laurel Drive occurred sometime between the 1963 & 1970 Historic Aerial photos of the area.
Upshoot: For this location, such was not the typical, usual shoehorning of a highway & interchange in an already-developed area; and, hence, ticking off NIMBYs. In this case, the highway & interchange was present prior to such (i.e. such was there first).
That said, the blame for the seasonal Shore traffic along Laurel Drive lies squarely on the town itself. Somers Point could've very easily zoned the corridor for either businesses only or even prohibited development along it and/or had such the street constructed as a 4-laner to US 9 when the GSP interchange was first built.
Every resident that decided to reside along Laurel Drive should've known that the road was going to have seasonal congestion prior to purchasing their homes.
The turnpike saw a 29% traffic decline and a 23% drop in toll collections last month, however commercial traffic only declined 3% and revenues from trucks and other non-passenger vehicles increased 2.1%, Manuelli said.
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.htmlDon't they usually make over a billion annually, close to $1.5 billion including the Garden State? $23 million isn't much.QuoteThe turnpike saw a 29% traffic decline and a 23% drop in toll collections last month, however commercial traffic only declined 3% and revenues from trucks and other non-passenger vehicles increased 2.1%, Manuelli said.
Over 12 months, were the trend to continue, you would lose nearly $300 million, or about 20% of the $1.5 billion total. I have not tried to vet your numbers, just doing the math. 20% of revenue - not profit - is huge.https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.htmlDon't they usually make over a billion annually, close to $1.5 billion including the Garden State? $23 million isn't much.QuoteThe turnpike saw a 29% traffic decline and a 23% drop in toll collections last month, however commercial traffic only declined 3% and revenues from trucks and other non-passenger vehicles increased 2.1%, Manuelli said.
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.htmlDon't they usually make over a billion annually, close to $1.5 billion including the Garden State? $23 million isn't much.QuoteThe turnpike saw a 29% traffic decline and a 23% drop in toll collections last month, however commercial traffic only declined 3% and revenues from trucks and other non-passenger vehicles increased 2.1%, Manuelli said.
To avoid the dreaded and pricy $50 administrative fee — pay the bill by the due date. A second notice will include the administrative fee, the same as a violation notice. They first notice only has a charge for the tolls, the same rate you’d pay in cash.
“The due date is on the invoice. If it’s paid by that date, there is no administrative fee,” Feeney said. “If it’s paid after that date, the administrative fee applies. The due date is 30 calendar days after the date of the invoice.”
One New Jersey Senate bill calls for overhauling how speed limits are set on the state’s busiest roadways.
Sen. Declan O’Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has renewed his pursuit to change the formula for setting speed limits. Specifically, he wants limits on limited-access highways that include the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to be set using the 85th percentile formula.
The formula bases speed limits on the rate at or below which 85% of drivers are traveling.
“Right now virtually 100% of drivers on our underposted limited-access highways are breaking the law,” O’Scanlon said in previous remarks. “Either they/we are all reckless, homicidal maniacs, or our method of setting speed limits is seriously flawed.”
If approved, the New Jersey Department of Transportation and other state traffic agencies would use 85th percentile studies to set speed limits. State agencies would reevaluate speed limits at least every decade, or when a road is substantially changed.
O’Scanlon says adopting the formula is a better option for setting top speeds than relying on politicians and officials to make the correct decision.
“My position is that we need to remove legislators and bureaucrats from the speed limit setting process and empower highway traffic safety engineers to do their jobs unencumbered by political influence,” O’Scanlon has stated.
Critics say drivers face multiple distractions while behind the wheel. They voice concerns that decreased reaction times due to distractions and possible faster speeds would make wrecks more devastating.
O’Scanlon says he is not looking to change how fast people drive.
“We are talking about having speed limits reflect the speeds people are already driving so that we have a better, more uniform flow of traffic.”
He adds that the change would result in “the smoothest, safest level of traffic flow and inflict the least amount of arbitrary punishment on people behaving reasonably.”
Also included in the bill is a provision to limit fines for speeding violations. Citations handed out for speeding on a roadway where a traffic study has not been completed would be limited to $20.
The bill, S608, awaits consideration in the Senate Transportation Committee. O’Scanlon offered the same bill during the previous two-year session, but it did not come up for a vote.
New Jersey bill would set ”˜fact-based’ speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)QuoteOne New Jersey Senate bill calls for overhauling how speed limits are set on the state’s busiest roadways.
Sen. Declan O’Scanlon, R-Monmouth, has renewed his pursuit to change the formula for setting speed limits. Specifically, he wants limits on limited-access highways that include the New Jersey Turnpike and Garden State Parkway to be set using the 85th percentile formula.
The formula bases speed limits on the rate at or below which 85% of drivers are traveling.
“Right now virtually 100% of drivers on our underposted limited-access highways are breaking the law,” O’Scanlon said in previous remarks. “Either they/we are all reckless, homicidal maniacs, or our method of setting speed limits is seriously flawed.”
If approved, the New Jersey Department of Transportation and other state traffic agencies would use 85th percentile studies to set speed limits. State agencies would reevaluate speed limits at least every decade, or when a road is substantially changed.
O’Scanlon says adopting the formula is a better option for setting top speeds than relying on politicians and officials to make the correct decision.
“My position is that we need to remove legislators and bureaucrats from the speed limit setting process and empower highway traffic safety engineers to do their jobs unencumbered by political influence,” O’Scanlon has stated.
Critics say drivers face multiple distractions while behind the wheel. They voice concerns that decreased reaction times due to distractions and possible faster speeds would make wrecks more devastating.
O’Scanlon says he is not looking to change how fast people drive.
“We are talking about having speed limits reflect the speeds people are already driving so that we have a better, more uniform flow of traffic.”
He adds that the change would result in “the smoothest, safest level of traffic flow and inflict the least amount of arbitrary punishment on people behaving reasonably.”
Also included in the bill is a provision to limit fines for speeding violations. Citations handed out for speeding on a roadway where a traffic study has not been completed would be limited to $20.
The bill, S608, awaits consideration in the Senate Transportation Committee. O’Scanlon offered the same bill during the previous two-year session, but it did not come up for a vote.
Amen to Senator O'Scanlon for proposing a bill that is actually realistic instead of the usual hypocritical crap.Unfortunately, reality will likely get shot down for something in fantasy land.
It has been announced that the Kresson Road overpass over the Turnpike in Cherry Hill Township will be rebuilt. It was not stated whether it will be lengthened to accomodate six lanes beneath it however.
It has been announced that the Kresson Road overpass over the Turnpike in Cherry Hill Township will be rebuilt. It was not stated whether it will be lengthened to accomodate six lanes beneath it however.
It will be built for future Turnpike widening.
Probably 6 with left and right shoulders and clearance to the edge of traveled way.It has been announced that the Kresson Road overpass over the Turnpike in Cherry Hill Township will be rebuilt. It was not stated whether it will be lengthened to accomodate six lanes beneath it however.
It will be built for future Turnpike widening.
All of the bridge replacement work on the southern part (Exit 1 to Exit 6) of the New Jersey Turnpike (especially structures that carry other roads over the Turnpike) appear to have been built to accommodate 6 or even 8 lanes of Turnpike.
Any reason why the northbound cars only section of the NJTP was closed from exit 6 to exit 10 or so?Work. It'll reopen.
Is this to keep people from speeding?
All of the bridge replacement work on the southern part (Exit 1 to Exit 6) of the New Jersey Turnpike (especially structures that carry other roads over the Turnpike) appear to have been built to accommodate 6 or even 8 lanes of Turnpike.Probably 6 with left and right shoulders and clearance to the edge of traveled way.
Any reason why the northbound cars only section of the NJTP was closed from exit 6 to exit 10 or so?
Is this to keep people from speeding?
Any reason why the northbound cars only section of the NJTP was closed from exit 6 to exit 10 or so?
Is this to keep people from speeding?
They would have to shut down the entire state to keep people from speeding. And if the last 2 months have shown me anything, that surely wouldn't work either.
From my observation:Any reason why the northbound cars only section of the NJTP was closed from exit 6 to exit 10 or so?
Is this to keep people from speeding?
They would have to shut down the entire state to keep people from speeding. And if the last 2 months have shown me anything, that surely wouldn't work either.
I'm amazed at how much people read into these roadway closures. The Turnpike builds their roadway for exactly what they're doing. Pre-Covid19, a roadway closure wasn't given a 2nd thought. Today, people assume there's some sort of hidden agenda.
Maybe the only difference is they're doing more daytime road closures than before, but the closures in general really aren't that unusual.
From my observation:Is there enough traffic on the road that funneling the traffic into 3 lanes one way is causing delay? If not, it may not be "needed" for the entire length, but it makes any work easier because of not having to deal with traffic.
-It wasn't work for the whole 30 miles, it was just a few touch up spots, hardly needing a full 30 mile closure
-This section was just built, doesn't/shouldn't need major workRoutine maintenance, etc. Every road has this, just because it's "new" (almost 6 years old), doesn't mean it isn't getting routine maintenance, bridge inspections, etc. It also carries a very busy traffic load, so that just adds wear and tear that needs to be dealt with. Give it a few years, the Turnpike will eventually need a resurfacing project if it hasn't already gotten one.
Simplest explanation is the correct oneFrom my observation:Is there enough traffic on the road that funneling the traffic into 3 lanes one way is causing delay? If not, it may not be "needed" for the entire length, but it makes any work easier because of not having to deal with traffic.
-It wasn't work for the whole 30 miles, it was just a few touch up spots, hardly needing a full 30 mile closure-This section was just built, doesn't/shouldn't need major workRoutine maintenance, etc. Every road has this, just because it's "new" (almost 6 years old), doesn't mean it isn't getting routine maintenance, bridge inspections, etc. It also carries a very busy traffic load, so that just adds wear and tear that needs to be dealt with. Give it a few years, the Turnpike will eventually need a resurfacing project if it hasn't already gotten one.
Nobody said it was "major work". It's just easier to work without traffic, and if volumes are light enough, they can do that.
From my observation:Is there enough traffic on the road that funneling the traffic into 3 lanes one way is causing delay? If not, it may not be "needed" for the entire length, but it makes any work easier because of not having to deal with traffic.
-It wasn't work for the whole 30 miles, it was just a few touch up spots, hardly needing a full 30 mile closure-This section was just built, doesn't/shouldn't need major workRoutine maintenance, etc. Every road has this, just because it's "new" (almost 6 years old), doesn't mean it isn't getting routine maintenance, bridge inspections, etc. It also carries a very busy traffic load, so that just adds wear and tear that needs to be dealt with. Give it a few years, the Turnpike will eventually need a resurfacing project if it hasn't already gotten one.
Nobody said it was "major work". It's just easier to work without traffic, and if volumes are light enough, they can do that.
Regarding the proposed 2020 capital plan, next to each project is a schedule without an actual date, only a number of months. Does this indicate the number of months from when this plan was released, for example, one project says 6 months for designing and planning while construction states 18 months. Does this mean it will be completed sometime in 2022? I imagine we will start seeing these projects pop up during this decade ahead.
Regarding the proposed 2020 capital plan, next to each project is a schedule without an actual date, only a number of months. Does this indicate the number of months from when this plan was released, for example, one project says 6 months for designing and planning while construction states 18 months. Does this mean it will be completed sometime in 2022? I imagine we will start seeing these projects pop up during this decade ahead.
No...they are proposed length of time of construction. These were only public hearings. The toll increase still needs to be voted on and approved. After that, assuming the full toll increase is granted, then they can formulate a timeline of when projects will start being funded, designed, and constructed.
Regarding the proposed 2020 capital plan, next to each project is a schedule without an actual date, only a number of months. Does this indicate the number of months from when this plan was released, for example, one project says 6 months for designing and planning while construction states 18 months. Does this mean it will be completed sometime in 2022? I imagine we will start seeing these projects pop up during this decade ahead.
Despite calls from drivers and a leading state senator to delay action during a telephone public hearing, the board voted 7 to 0 to approve the toll increase and the $24 billion capital plan that included $16 billion to widen sections of the Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, permanently implement cashless toll payment and to replace a bridge between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
I've never liked using Wilmington as a control city southbound, as the turnpike sort of doesn't go to Wilmington, and you have to backtrack to get there.
I've never liked using Wilmington as a control city southbound, as the turnpike sort of doesn't go to Wilmington, and you have to backtrack to get there.
The rest is the usual mix of nonsense, including calls from clueless people to spend money on other infrastructure and transit projects, even though the tolls keep the state from having to use gas tax money to maintain one of its most important highways.
I just read a zipper on the turnpike's official website claiming that they're resuming cash tolls.
https://www.njta.com/
I never even knew they stopped taking them.
I've never liked using Wilmington as a control city southbound, as the turnpike sort of doesn't go to Wilmington, and you have to backtrack to get there.I agree.
I agree.I've never liked using Wilmington as a control city southbound, as the turnpike sort of doesn't go to Wilmington, and you have to backtrack to get there.I hate Trenton and Camden being used as well.
IMO when entering the NJTP headed southbound before the PATP the control city need to be Philadelphia.
South of exit 6 it needs to be Wilmington/Baltimore-Washington.
I've never liked using Wilmington as a control city southbound, as the turnpike sort of doesn't go to Wilmington, and you have to backtrack to get there.I agree. It should be Baltimore.
WilmingtonI've never liked using Wilmington as a control city southbound, as the turnpike sort of doesn't go to Wilmington, and you have to backtrack to get there.I agree. It should be Baltimore.
How is NJTA collecting tolls if the pay by plate thing is in effect? If no one to collect that means the camera is there, but without entry ticket (which collector uses to calculate fare), how can they tell where the motorist came from when entering?
How is NJTA collecting tolls if the pay by plate thing is in effect? If no one to collect that means the camera is there, but without entry ticket (which collector uses to calculate fare), how can they tell where the motorist came from when entering?
I assume they were using LPRs to figure out where the car entered and where it exited. Same tech they use to send you a violation if you don't have EZPass and go thru the EZPass only lane.
I prefer the Illinois approach in this case - IMO, the control city on the New Jersey Turnpike southbound south of Exit 6 should just be "Delaware" or maybe "Delaware and Maryland."
I agree that sometimes a state name might make more sense than a city name, but it is not permitted by the MUTCD. Interstate highway signs are supposed to show the next control city on the route as the destination; whether it makes sense or not.........
I wonder if the 3-3-3-3 set up all the way to the Delaware memorial bridge would stop all congestion in the area as well as making that the main route to take over I-95.only if you made two more delaware memorial bridges and added 3 lanes each way to the i-95 merge
iPhone
D’oh I definitely forgot you would need to add more bridges, but im sure they could make that work by merging it into 3-3 a mile or so before the bridge.I wonder if the 3-3-3-3 set up all the way to the Delaware memorial bridge would stop all congestion in the area as well as making that the main route to take over I-95.only if you made two more delaware memorial bridges and added 3 lanes each way to the i-95 merge
iPhone
the nj turnpike authority has anounced a plan to raise tolls on GSP and nj tpke and in that plan includes numerous widening of njtpke rehabilitation of bridges in mixing bowl and completion of interchanges along GSP and most of all CASHLESS tolling ON NJ TPKE a big improvment from its 1950s ticket system which has been in use since the turnpike opened in 1951 the plans are on https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf)yes we know
Judging by my experiences with the EZ Pass pay by toll system, that's not a good deal. I still haven't received my bill for crossing the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and that was back in December.
Experiences. The past two times I've used the toll-by-plate payment, I crossed the Triborough Bridge twice but was only billed once, and as I mentioned earlier, still haven't been billed for the Francis Scott Key Bridge. That means the system is missing drivers that pass through those electronic toll plazas, which means they're defective. On the previous times I was billed for what I owed, and I paid what I owed. Now you might be thinking, What's the big deal? You got something for free for a change. And you're right. But somebody else out there is probably thinking, "Who is this bum getting free rides across (take your pick), bridge, while us working schleps who use that bridge every day to get to and from work have to pay full fare? What makes this asshole think he's better than me?"Judging by my experiences with the EZ Pass pay by toll system, that's not a good deal. I still haven't received my bill for crossing the Francis Scott Key Bridge, and that was back in December.
Experiences, or experience?
the nj turnpike authority has anounced a plan to raise tolls on GSP and nj tpke and in that plan includes numerous widening of njtpke rehabilitation of bridges in mixing bowl and completion of interchanges along GSP and most of all CASHLESS tolling ON NJ TPKE a big improvment from its 1950s ticket system which has been in use since the turnpike opened in 1951 the plans are on https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf)Well I like a few ideas, along.
III. PreferNo.
-Skip 1-2 widening
Yes. He does prefer that.III. PreferNo.
-Skip 1-2 widening
Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
I'm guessing that the driver got onto the Eastern Spur in Secaucus, coming from NJ Route 495. 7:21 PM on Friday evening.He came through the same toll plaza, but looks like he was coming down the eastern spur from further north (i.e. the 80/95 interchange or from 46), entering on the "18E" side, rather than from the "16E" side (495).
Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Likewise, Exit 6 doesn't immediately put you on the PA Turnpike, 16E for the Lincoln Tunnel, 18E/W for the GWB, etc.
I never liked these all-class tickets anyway. Motorists can't read them, and the ticket dispenser pinfeeds results in spacing issues on the ticket.
I have a couple of photos of tickets on my website. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Likewise, Exit 6 doesn't immediately put you on the PA Turnpike, 16E for the Lincoln Tunnel, 18E/W for the GWB, etc.
I never liked these all-class tickets anyway. Motorists can't read them, and the ticket dispenser pinfeeds results in spacing issues on the ticket.
I do miss the classic oneswith the cutout corners that mimic the shield(ok I misremembered the cutouts. Doesn't change that they were way easier to read though). They're all going to be relics soon anyway.
I like the mechanical VMS signs there too. I always wanted to see every message they had.I have a couple of photos of tickets on my website. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Likewise, Exit 6 doesn't immediately put you on the PA Turnpike, 16E for the Lincoln Tunnel, 18E/W for the GWB, etc.
I never liked these all-class tickets anyway. Motorists can't read them, and the ticket dispenser pinfeeds results in spacing issues on the ticket.
I do miss the classic oneswith the cutout corners that mimic the shield(ok I misremembered the cutouts. Doesn't change that they were way easier to read though). They're all going to be relics soon anyway.
Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Likewise, Exit 6 doesn't immediately put you on the PA Turnpike, 16E for the Lincoln Tunnel, 18E/W for the GWB, etc.
I never liked these all-class tickets anyway. Motorists can't read them, and the ticket dispenser pinfeeds results in spacing issues on the ticket.
I do miss the classic oneswith the cutout corners that mimic the shield(ok I misremembered the cutouts. Doesn't change that they were way easier to read though). They're all going to be relics soon anyway.
I like the mechanical VMS signs there too. I always wanted to see every message they had.I have a couple of photos of tickets on my website. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Likewise, Exit 6 doesn't immediately put you on the PA Turnpike, 16E for the Lincoln Tunnel, 18E/W for the GWB, etc.
I never liked these all-class tickets anyway. Motorists can't read them, and the ticket dispenser pinfeeds results in spacing issues on the ticket.
I do miss the classic oneswith the cutout corners that mimic the shield(ok I misremembered the cutouts. Doesn't change that they were way easier to read though). They're all going to be relics soon anyway.
I've always had this mental image of those signs making a "clang" noise when they rotate because they remind me of the board on the original Family Feud, where you heard that sound when the answers were displayed.Oh, that'd be funny. Now I'm starting to wish that were true.
Apologies for the fuzziness. My cell phone camera does NOT handle close-up/macro stuff at all. I found this along CT Route 372 in Cromwell, CT. Probably a driver at the Super 8 there. Anyways, the ticket lists Exit 1 as the Delaware Memorial Bridge? Shouldn't Exit 1 be the unnumbered exit after the toll plaza in Pennsville?"Exit 1" is the toll plaza itself. The Delaware Memorial Bridge is the primary destination from that plaza.
Likewise, Exit 6 doesn't immediately put you on the PA Turnpike, 16E for the Lincoln Tunnel, 18E/W for the GWB, etc.
I never liked these all-class tickets anyway. Motorists can't read them, and the ticket dispenser pinfeeds results in spacing issues on the ticket.
I do miss the classic oneswith the cutout corners that mimic the shield(ok I misremembered the cutouts. Doesn't change that they were way easier to read though). They're all going to be relics soon anyway.
The toll tickets in the 1970s did have the corners cut like the turnpike shield. As a kid I remember seeing next to Exit 7A the words "Not Yet Open" on the ticket (that exit opened in 1974).
Others can probably answer this better, but I would assume they had to stop the cutouts when they went to the magstripe tickets since the corners would probably increase the likelihood of a jam in the machine when the toll collector fed the ticket into the machine to be read.
New Jersey government has a long history of using IBM hardware for various tasks, even to this day. So I wouldn't be surprised at IBM punch cards being used.
New Jersey government has a long history of using IBM hardware for various tasks, even to this day. So I wouldn't be surprised at IBM punch cards being used.
So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
They GOT to redo that.So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
It's the original I-95 mileage corresponding to its original route over Scudders Falls, up the Somerset Freeway, then the seven miles or so of 287 it was going to take over, and finally up the rest of the Turnpike. It's just coincidence that it lines up with 80's mileage so closely.
They GOT to redo that.So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
It's the original I-95 mileage corresponding to its original route over Scudders Falls, up the Somerset Freeway, then the seven miles or so of 287 it was going to take over, and finally up the rest of the Turnpike. It's just coincidence that it lines up with 80's mileage so closely.
So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
The new alignment of I-95 would add approximately 4 miles to the exit numbers north of exit 18.
So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
From what I remember reading, it's fictional I-95 mileage based on the fictional highway known as the Somerset Freeway. However, it might be close enough to the actual I-95 mileage resulting from the PA Turnpike interchange that they could leave those numbers alone. Does anyone know for sure?
I'm also curious how or if the New Jersey Turnpike's exits are going to be re-numbered according to the MUTCD-mandated mileage-based numbering. I still have mixed opinions on the MUTCD standardization there. On the one hand, it would ruin the famous and historic exit numbers, but on the other hand, you'd no longer have the "[X], [X+1], [X+1]A, [X+2], [X+2]A, etc." sort of sequence that has long plagued sequential exit numbering and made it bad idea.
Update: Other people already answered your question while I was typing my rambling response.
It is 68, at least southbound (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i95&state=NJ&file=102_0892.JPG).The new alignment of I-95 would add approximately 4 miles to the exit numbers north of exit 18.
Yeah, I just looked it up and noticed that. But, as mentioned, you could still keep the exit numbers on the I-80/95 concurrency as slightly fudged I-80 mileage-based numbers.
Here's a pertinent question, though: What should the US 46 exit be numbered?
https://goo.gl/maps/RMiRmHawn7CfSbF68
It would be nice if it had a signed exit number! Wikipedia says it's Exit 68 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike), but that wouldn't work with the existing I-95 mileage, and since that part doesn't run concurrently with I-80, it should probably have a different number, unless you want to fudge those four or so miles off of the I-95 mileage.
US-46 is the historic northern terminus of the NJ Turnpike, its technically Exit 18E. Exit 68 is assigned to Challenger Rd.
US-46 is the historic northern terminus of the NJ Turnpike, its technically Exit 18E. Exit 68 is assigned to Challenger Rd.
Actually 18E is the toll plaza in Secaucus shared with 16E. It was 18 in the beginning, but got moved back later on. When the western spur got built, it became 18E as the counterpart became 18W. BTW, 18W is the plaza near the Meadowlands Sports Complex.
Last I checked, the US 46 exit doesn't have a number northbound.US-46 is the historic northern terminus of the NJ Turnpike, its technically Exit 18E. Exit 68 is assigned to Challenger Rd.
Actually 18E is the toll plaza in Secaucus shared with 16E. It was 18 in the beginning, but got moved back later on. When the western spur got built, it became 18E as the counterpart became 18W. BTW, 18W is the plaza near the Meadowlands Sports Complex.
You're mixing toll plazas and exits. Toll plaza 18E is in Secaucus shared with 16E but Exit 18 (no E or W needed) has historically been at U.S. 46.
The difference between plazas and exits is no different than on the NY Thruway where Plaza 15 is Woodbury in the middle of the Harriman interchange but Exit 15 is I-287/NY-17/NJ-17 at Suffern or at the other end, Plaza 50 is the Williamsville plaza but Exit 50 is I-290. Usually the plaza and its like-numbered exit are close, sometimes they aren't.
Last I checked, the US 46 exit doesn't have a number northbound.
Although I have to admit looking at the Turnpike website, they have apparently decided "interchange" is a synonym for "toll plaza". It's not.
lstone19, I also remember that history of the Turnpike ending at US 46 with the original toll plaza located just before the interchange. The toll plaza was relocated to the Secaucus complex circa 1964, but the Turnpike still ended at US 46 'til about 1971 when the "missing mile" to I-80 was finally built along with the Western Leg of the Turnpike. Great old stuff from when I was a kid traveling with my parents.
J&N, what are some of the common complaints people have about the NJT? It's always been my favorite highway to drive.
Last I checked, the US 46 exit doesn't have a number northbound.
As I said, it was historically exit 18. Some of us are old enough to remember when the NJ Turnpike ended at US 46 with I-95 unconstructed between there and I-80. The bridge used by northbound Turnpike to westbound U.S. 46 traffic is, I believe, the bridge used as part of the trumpet interchange that was the north end of the Turnpike before the western alignment and the extension to I-80 was built (the bridge was bi-directional back then - note the unused west half of that bridge).
Although I have to admit looking at the Turnpike website, they have apparently decided "interchange" is a synonym for "toll plaza". It's not.
There is no concurrency with I-80. I-80 ends at I-95, and the fact that the numbers are only off by 1 or 2 from I-80's mileage is completely coincidental.
As I said, it was historically exit 18. Some of us are old enough to remember when the NJ Turnpike ended at US 46 with I-95 unconstructed between there and I-80. The bridge used by northbound Turnpike to westbound U.S. 46 traffic is, I believe, the bridge used as part of the trumpet interchange that was the north end of the Turnpike before the western alignment and the extension to I-80 was built (the bridge was bi-directional back then - note the unused west half of that bridge).
Although I have to admit looking at the Turnpike website, they have apparently decided "interchange" is a synonym for "toll plaza". It's not.
Growing up with that interchange not far away, I always considered that it was the Turnpike’s “interchange” with the free road system. Never really gave it much more thought than that.
It is different. The NY Thruway signs Exit 15 as I-287/17. The NJ Turnpike specifically does not sign an Exit 1 or Exit 18W/E because those are the mainline. (In fact, I think 18E is signed along the mainline heading north.)US-46 is the historic northern terminus of the NJ Turnpike, its technically Exit 18E. Exit 68 is assigned to Challenger Rd.
Actually 18E is the toll plaza in Secaucus shared with 16E. It was 18 in the beginning, but got moved back later on. When the western spur got built, it became 18E as the counterpart became 18W. BTW, 18W is the plaza near the Meadowlands Sports Complex.
You're mixing toll plazas and exits. Toll plaza 18E is in Secaucus shared with 16E but Exit 18 (no E or W needed) has historically been at U.S. 46.
The difference between plazas and exits is no different than on the NY Thruway where Plaza 15 is Woodbury in the middle of the Harriman interchange but Exit 15 is I-287/NY-17/NJ-17 at Suffern or at the other end, Plaza 50 is the Williamsville plaza but Exit 50 is I-290. Usually the plaza and its like-numbered exit are close, sometimes they aren't.
Calling the Somerset Freeway "fictional" is a figure of speech. The existence of the proposal is non-fictional, but the existence of the physical object is not actual, and "actual" is an antonym of "fictional" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fictional).
Theres a lot of people that don't understand how mileage-based exiting works.
J&N, what are some of the common complaints people have about the NJT? It's always been my favorite highway to drive.
The tolls. The price of the tolls. The other drivers. Conditions of the service areas. Congestion.
Exit 1 - 4 is still only 4 lanes and frequently experiences congestion during peak weekends. Additionally, the areas closer to Newark, Jersey City, and into New York City can be bottlenecks during peak weekends and rush hours.J&N, what are some of the common complaints people have about the NJT? It's always been my favorite highway to drive.
The tolls. The price of the tolls. The other drivers. Conditions of the service areas. Congestion.
1. If you drive with the flow of traffic you'll have less people giving you the business.
2. The Turnpike Authority is stepping their game up with rest stop renovation.
3. Ever since the latest extension of the second carriageway was completed, I've never experienced any congestion.
The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).I fully expect that if the NJTA ever renumbered the turnpike exits to mileage, it would use the turnpike's mileage straight to the GWB.
That said, it would not be hard to renumber NJ Turnpike exits to use I-95's current mileage, similar to the way PTC has two overlapping number sets for the mainline and Northeast Extension...
1 -> (unnumbered)
2 -> 13
3 -> 26
4 -> 34
5 -> 44
6 -> (unnumbered)
(6A) -> 2
7 -> 8
7A -> 15
8 -> 22
8A -> 28
9 -> 38
10 -> 43
11 -> 45
12 -> 51
13 -> 54
13A -> 57
14 -> 59
(unnumbered) - same
15E -> 62
15W -> 63
15X -> 65
16E -> 67
16W -> 68
18E -> (unnumbered)
18W -> (unnumbered)
68 -> 72
69 -> 73
70 -> 74
71 -> 75
72 -> 76
73 -> 77
74 -> 78
While I didn't include them, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include W on the western spur exits and E on the eastern spur ones, for clarity.
Theres a lot of people that don't understand how mileage-based exiting works.
Funny, because it's easier to understand than sequential-based exit numbering in practice.
I wonder, though, how the alignment for the canceled Somerset Freeway was known so precisely as to put mile markers or exit numbers at the other end of the state. Surely, as the plans changed several times before cancellation the mileage was premature. Or were there plans to re-align the exit numbers once the roadway was built in case they didn't match? If so, how would it be any different from changing them now that the actual I-95 is complete and its mileage is known?So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
From what I remember reading, it's fictional I-95 mileage based on the fictional highway known as the Somerset Freeway. However, it might be close enough to the actual I-95 mileage resulting from the PA Turnpike interchange that they could leave those numbers alone. Does anyone know for sure?
I'm also curious how or if the New Jersey Turnpike's exits are going to be re-numbered according to the MUTCD-mandated mileage-based numbering. I still have mixed opinions on the MUTCD standardization there. On the one hand, it would ruin the famous and historic exit numbers, but on the other hand, you'd no longer have the "[X], [X+1], [X+1]A, [X+2], [X+2]A, etc." sort of sequence that has long plagued sequential exit numbering and made it bad idea.
Update: Other people already answered your question while I was typing my rambling response.
The Somerset Freeway isn't fictional. It's just canceled. Rich Somerset and Mercer County NIMBY's got it wiped off the map because they didn't want a freeway near their homes. Don't call it fictional.
Theres a lot of people that don't understand how mileage-based exiting works.
Funny, because it's easier to understand than sequential-based exit numbering in practice.
Heh, then you have people who understand it too well. A couple of years ago my brother-in-law and his wife were visiting us from Phoenix. He almost flipped out on the Beltway because he thought he was getting close (he was), but then she told him they needed Exit 173 when they had just passed Exit 52 and he was baffled as to how they had 120 miles to go. (For those unfamiliar, the Beltway jumps from Exit 57 at Springfield to Exit 173 three miles east of there due to I-95's exit numbers trumping the Beltway's for the final eight miles in Virginia.) I had warned them of this in the directions I gave them, but it didn’t register.
stridentweasel's post reminds me of how I-95 in Maine used to have multiple sets of exit numbers, including (IIRC) some duplicates due to the Maine Turnpike numbers being independent of the others.
I wonder, though, how the alignment for the canceled Somerset Freeway was known so precisely as to put mile markers or exit numbers at the other end of the state. Surely, as the plans changed several times before cancellation the mileage was premature. Or were there plans to re-align the exit numbers once the roadway was built in case they didn't match? If so, how would it be any different from changing them now that the actual I-95 is complete and its mileage is known?So after the final toll plaza Northbound on the NJTP, 18, what do the exits on I-95 between the exit 18 and the GWB correspond to?
Is it I-95 mileage in NJ or I-80?
From what I remember reading, it's fictional I-95 mileage based on the fictional highway known as the Somerset Freeway. However, it might be close enough to the actual I-95 mileage resulting from the PA Turnpike interchange that they could leave those numbers alone. Does anyone know for sure?
I'm also curious how or if the New Jersey Turnpike's exits are going to be re-numbered according to the MUTCD-mandated mileage-based numbering. I still have mixed opinions on the MUTCD standardization there. On the one hand, it would ruin the famous and historic exit numbers, but on the other hand, you'd no longer have the "[X], [X+1], [X+1]A, [X+2], [X+2]A, etc." sort of sequence that has long plagued sequential exit numbering and made it bad idea.
Update: Other people already answered your question while I was typing my rambling response.
The Somerset Freeway isn't fictional. It's just canceled. Rich Somerset and Mercer County NIMBY's got it wiped off the map because they didn't want a freeway near their homes. Don't call it fictional.
Since we always talk about the exit numbers on this thread, I have a question. Let's suppose that, eventually, all of the New Jersey Turnpike's exits get numbered exactly according to the way the MUTCD wants it. As has been discussed before....Oh I would love it if they went to mileage base.The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).I fully expect that if the NJTA ever renumbered the turnpike exits to mileage, it would use the turnpike's mileage straight to the GWB.
That said, it would not be hard to renumber NJ Turnpike exits to use I-95's current mileage, similar to the way PTC has two overlapping number sets for the mainline and Northeast Extension...
1 -> (unnumbered)
2 -> 13
3 -> 26
4 -> 34
5 -> 44
6 -> (unnumbered)
(6A) -> 2
7 -> 8
7A -> 15
8 -> 22
8A -> 28
9 -> 38
10 -> 43
11 -> 45
12 -> 51
13 -> 54
13A -> 57
14 -> 59
(unnumbered) - same
15E -> 62
15W -> 63
15X -> 65
16E -> 67
16W -> 68
18E -> (unnumbered)
18W -> (unnumbered)
68 -> 72
69 -> 73
70 -> 74
71 -> 75
72 -> 76
73 -> 77
74 -> 78
While I didn't include them, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include W on the western spur exits and E on the eastern spur ones, for clarity.
If all that ends up happening, would it be a bad idea to go ahead and sign NJ 700 south of I-95, and sign NJ 95W on the western spur [if that's actually the official designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike#Newark_to_Ridgefield_Park)], in order to avoid confusion that may arise from different parts of the Turnpike having exits based on different sets of miles?
I'm just thinking, lots of people might ask, "Why do the exit numbers suddenly go from 44 to 8 when you go north?" It might be confusing to answer with, "One set of numbers is for just the New Jersey Turnpike, and the other set of numbers is for I-95, which is also the New Jersey Turnpike." But if you could say, "One set of numbers is for the 700 Turnpike, and the other set of numbers is for the 95 Turnpike (and another set of numbers is for the 78 Turnpike, and another set of numbers is for the 95W Turnpike)," I think that would be easier for people to wrap their heads around.
At least it would for me, and I come from a state where people ask questions along the lines of, "Why do I-70's exit numbers suddenly go from the 300s to the 100s and 200s and then suddenly to the 400s when you go east?," and the answer is "One set of numbers is for the toll-free portions of I-70, and the other set of numbers is for the Kansas Turnpike portion of I-70."
And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.
You could just do I-95 EB Spur...like on the North part of the NJTP or in Dallas with I-35, or even in NC with I-85.And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.
Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea. Probably never going to happen. Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.
I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion. Others may disagree.
I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.
It's not going to happen. Nor is the signing of 700. The Turnpike shield is enough of a route marker to do the job. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.You could just do I-95 EB Spur...like on the North part of the NJTP or in Dallas with I-35, or even in NC with I-85.And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.
Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea. Probably never going to happen. Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.
I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion. Others may disagree.
I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.
You could just do I-95 EB Spur...like on the North part of the NJTP or in Dallas with I-35, or even in NC with I-85.And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.
Old "Fictional Highways" type of idea. Probably never going to happen. Pennsylvania likes having I-95 go through their state, and the "Express" banner would probably cause more confusion than it would solve.
I still kind of think it might be worth signing the NJ 700 designation, however, just to differentiate it from the I-95 portion. Others may disagree.
I-x95 has also been discussed, but it's unnecessary.
It's not going to happen. Nor is the signing of 700. The Turnpike shield is enough of a route marker to do the job. I don't know why anyone would think otherwise.
Also, I think the Turnpike should always stay numbered according to its actual length over resetting the exit numbering where 95 enters it. That's just going to confuse things. Follow the Turnpike's actual mileposts. That's the system that makes the most sense to the driving public who know they're on the NJ Turnpike and probably either have no idea or no care that they're also on Interstate 95 for a portion of the route. Keep the mileage the same, set the exit numbers based on its whole length including the 95 extension to the GWB. I'd prefix the exit numbers on the eastern and western spurs with E and W like they are now.
That's far more important to following the letter of the law just to make some road geeks happy.
Again, I don't disagree with you, but if the NJTP is allowed to keep its own mileage-based numbering for its whole length, then why wasn't the PA Turnpike allowed to keep its numbering on the I-95 portion? A sudden jump on I-95's exit numbers to the 300s would have confused almost nobody, but they changed it to do what the MUTCD wants.
Also, I think the Turnpike should always stay numbered according to its actual length over resetting the exit numbering where 95 enters it. That's just going to confuse things. Follow the Turnpike's actual mileposts. That's the system that makes the most sense to the driving public who know they're on the NJ Turnpike and probably either have no idea or no care that they're also on Interstate 95 for a portion of the route.
Alexander Dziewa, 27, of National Park, Gloucester County, was riding a TailG electric scooter in the left lane of the Turnpike in Kearny around 2:24 a.m. when he was hit from behind by a Buick Rendezvous SUV, police said.
For those asking about Maine, I-95 used to go as
1- Kittery (NB)
2- Kittery
3- Kittery
4- York
[Toll Plaza]
2- Wells
3- Kennebunk
4- Biddeford
5- Saco
etc...
Since the changes in 2004 and widening, it now goes
1- Kittery (NB)
2- Kittery
3- Kittery
7- York
[Toll Plaza - soon to be a mile further north]
19- Wells
25- Kennebunk
32- Biddeford
36- Saco
etc...
Ok...back to Joisey now!
Again, I don't disagree with you, but if the NJTP is allowed to keep its own mileage-based numbering for its whole length, then why wasn't the PA Turnpike allowed to keep its numbering on the I-95 portion? A sudden jump on I-95's exit numbers to the 300s would have confused almost nobody, but they changed it to do what the MUTCD wants.
Were they not allowed to, or did they elect not to?
The barrier toll was moved west of I-95. In a sense, the PA Turnpike begins/ends there for most travelers, and I-95 becomes a whole separate highway.
Remember also, the PA Turnpike doesn't begin 276's exit numbering at 0.
Based on that, the NJ Turnpike could begin their exit numbering at any point they want. If they decide to make the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge MP 50, they are welcome to do so. When they sign Exits 1 - 6 as 0 to 50ish or whatever, the exit numbers can just keep rolling along, because the I-95 portion of the Turnpike doesn't necessarily have to start with 0. Remember also, the MUTCD terms milemarkers reference points, so any starting reference point is valid.
Wasn't there yet another set of numbers on the segment past Freeport and Brunswick, the part that's now the northern extension of I-295? I haven't been on that particular stretch of highway since August 1990, so it's understandable why I don't quite recall.
Part of the problem with using MUTCD required numbering on the NJT is that the system in the Manual simply doesn't take into account the reality of the pre-existing toll roads in the Northeast. It was designed for the newly built free interstates that exist in most of the country. It's as if the Feds didn't even know the toll roads existed.Thank you for saying (but better) what I’ve been trying to say both there and in the NY Thruway topic. Trying to retro-fit numbering exit by route on the pre-existing toll roads is clumsy as evidenced by the Pennsylvania Turnpike where saying “PA Turnpike Exit n” means nothing without knowing which of the five interstate routes (I-76, I-276, I-95, I-476, and I-70 (not that it factors into the exit numbering)) it’s on. “Pennsylvania Turnpike” no longer has any meaning in navigation directions.
And unfortunately trying to renumber the NJT or NY Thruway using current MUTCD standards is at best a clumsy adaptation of those standards and no matter how ya' set it up, it's not going to be a good fit. There is no easy and logical solution.
And the dumb ass driving public will be scratching their heads every time the numbers change along the route.
Not really. The core Pennsylvania Turnpike (ignoring the Pittsburgh expressways) has only two sets of numbers - one for I-76/I-276 (I-276 continues I-76's numbers, and I don't think I've seen anyone other than you think of that as confusing), and one for I-476. The part that is I-95 was functionally expelled from the Turnpike when that happened, even though the PTC continues to maintain it and collects a toll entering from NJ. Since the Northeast Extension is really a completely separate road that happens to intersect and be integrated into the ticket system, it's actually LESS confusing now than when it used the same exit numbers.Part of the problem with using MUTCD required numbering on the NJT is that the system in the Manual simply doesn't take into account the reality of the pre-existing toll roads in the Northeast. It was designed for the newly built free interstates that exist in most of the country. It's as if the Feds didn't even know the toll roads existed.Thank you for saying (but better) what I’ve been trying to say both there and in the NY Thruway topic. Trying to retro-fit numbering exit by route on the pre-existing toll roads is clumsy as evidenced by the Pennsylvania Turnpike where saying “PA Turnpike Exit n” means nothing without knowing which of the five interstate routes (I-76, I-276, I-95, I-476, and I-70 (not that it factors into the exit numbering)) it’s on. “Pennsylvania Turnpike” no longer has any meaning in navigation directions.
And unfortunately trying to renumber the NJT or NY Thruway using current MUTCD standards is at best a clumsy adaptation of those standards and no matter how ya' set it up, it's not going to be a good fit. There is no easy and logical solution.
And the dumb ass driving public will be scratching their heads every time the numbers change along the route.
iPad
Soooo any one know when this will be fixed. Sorry im late to the party.Late to the party is right! That was fixed two years ago.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/70a527272e1c80088146fa567c526e9c.jpg)
Ill go put on my 60’s mobster suit.
iPhone
Holy sh** really?Not really. The core Pennsylvania Turnpike (ignoring the Pittsburgh expressways) has only two sets of numbers - one for I-76/I-276 (I-276 continues I-76's numbers, and I don't think I've seen anyone other than you think of that as confusing), and one for I-476. The part that is I-95 was functionally expelled from the Turnpike when that happened, even though the PTC continues to maintain it and collects a toll entering from NJ. Since the Northeast Extension is really a completely separate road that happens to intersect and be integrated into the ticket system, it's actually LESS confusing now than when it used the same exit numbers.Part of the problem with using MUTCD required numbering on the NJT is that the system in the Manual simply doesn't take into account the reality of the pre-existing toll roads in the Northeast. It was designed for the newly built free interstates that exist in most of the country. It's as if the Feds didn't even know the toll roads existed.Thank you for saying (but better) what I’ve been trying to say both there and in the NY Thruway topic. Trying to retro-fit numbering exit by route on the pre-existing toll roads is clumsy as evidenced by the Pennsylvania Turnpike where saying “PA Turnpike Exit n” means nothing without knowing which of the five interstate routes (I-76, I-276, I-95, I-476, and I-70 (not that it factors into the exit numbering)) it’s on. “Pennsylvania Turnpike” no longer has any meaning in navigation directions.
And unfortunately trying to renumber the NJT or NY Thruway using current MUTCD standards is at best a clumsy adaptation of those standards and no matter how ya' set it up, it's not going to be a good fit. There is no easy and logical solution.
And the dumb ass driving public will be scratching their heads every time the numbers change along the route.
iPad
Granted, the Thruway is a bit more complicated with the Berkshire Spur and with the I-87/I-90 situation not lending itself to easy solutions that work both ways like I-76/I-276/I-476 did.Soooo any one know when this will be fixed. Sorry im late to the party.Late to the party is right! That was fixed two years ago.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/70a527272e1c80088146fa567c526e9c.jpg)
Ill go put on my 60’s mobster suit.
iPhone
Not really. The core Pennsylvania Turnpike (ignoring the Pittsburgh expressways) has only two sets of numbers - one for I-76/I-276 (I-276 continues I-76's numbers, and I don't think I've seen anyone other than you think of that as confusing), and one for I-476. The part that is I-95 was functionally expelled from the Turnpike when that happened, even though the PTC continues to maintain it and collects a toll entering from NJ. Since the Northeast Extension is really a completely separate road that happens to intersect and be integrated into the ticket system, it's actually LESS confusing now than when it used the same exit numbers.
I very much doubt most of the public really sees the change that leads you to say the I-95 part was “functionally expelled” from the Turnpike. What those of us who are “highway aware” and what the general public see are very different.
I am aware that the ticket section of the PA Turnpike only has two sets of numbers and yet if the reason for pushing to renumber roads like the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway is the public expects numbering by route, then why is it OK to not start the numbers over for I-276? You can’t have it both ways.
As for confusing, prior to the renumbering, I knew exits/plazas 1 to 30 were the mainline and 31 to 38 were the NE extension. Now we have (in my opinion) the absurdity that PA Turnpike Exit 56 is in Allentown while PA Turnpike Exit 57 is in Pittsburgh. Saying “PA Turnpike Exit 56” doesn’t tell me much unless I already know 56 in on the NE extension. It was easy to memorize the ranges that were mainline and NE extension. But it’s no longer ranges - it’s more of a scattershot arrangement of what’s mainline and what’s NE extension. And if I, someone who takes an interest in roads, is confused, I’m sure much of the general public is confused (or if not confused, frustrated by a numbering system that is not intuitive like the old system).
Sadly the GPS doesnt take you the new way
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/19325e57f6d92e9d3991eebd5604918a.jpg)
Exactly. The timing on the I-95 route with the new connection fixing the I-95 gap would probably be as good as NJTP as long as there is no traffic on I-95.
Sadly the GPS doesnt take you the new way
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/19325e57f6d92e9d3991eebd5604918a.jpg)
GPS primarily works by taking you the fastest route, not the signed route. In that case, the primary routing shown above would almost always be the fastest. It's shorter, and based on posted speed limits, faster. However, I'd bet if there was a major issue on the NJ Turnpike between Exits 1 & 6, the I-95 routing may be the preferred path in that case.
Another example would be going from Philly to Newark, DE. The normal primary route would be 95 to 495 around Wilmington back to 95...not 95 the entire way.
Now, their secondary and thirdinary options are sometimes very questionable. Why isn't one of the 3 options following I-95?
Now, their secondary and thirdinary options are sometimes very questionable.
Exactly. The timing on the I-95 route with the new connection fixing the I-95 gap would probably be as good as NJTP as long as there is no traffic on I-95.
Sadly the GPS doesnt take you the new way
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/19325e57f6d92e9d3991eebd5604918a.jpg)
GPS primarily works by taking you the fastest route, not the signed route. In that case, the primary routing shown above would almost always be the fastest. It's shorter, and based on posted speed limits, faster. However, I'd bet if there was a major issue on the NJ Turnpike between Exits 1 & 6, the I-95 routing may be the preferred path in that case.
Another example would be going from Philly to Newark, DE. The normal primary route would be 95 to 495 around Wilmington back to 95...not 95 the entire way.
Now, their secondary and thirdinary options are sometimes very questionable. Why isn't one of the 3 options following I-95?
Now, their secondary and thirdinary options are sometimes very questionable.
Today's vocabulary lesson: tertiary, not thirdinary. I'm thinking tertiary is probably a word you've heard but weren't sure what it meant.
Now we have (in my opinion) the absurdity that PA Turnpike Exit 56 is in Allentown while PA Turnpike Exit 57 is in Pittsburgh. Saying PA Turnpike Exit 56 doesnt tell me much unless I already know 56 in on the NE extension.
No one around here says "PA Turnpike Exit 56". They say "Northeast Extension Exit 56".
If you're coming from the west, no one is going to say "take the PA Turnpike to Exit 56" without mentioning that you switch from the main (or mainline) Turnpike to the Northeast Extension.
Vdeane, you presented an interesting theory and you might be right. If so, it's taking a lot longer for the toll roads to die off than the Feds probably thought it would back in the 1950's. LOLThere were a few states that took federal money to build interstate connections to toll roads and incurred an obligation in federal law to remove the tolls once the construction bonds were paid off; unfortunately, they successfully lobbied Congress to get that provision removed.
And istone19, we're close in age and may see this issue with a little wider perspective than some of the younger people here might. It pays to have lived through the history of a lot of this stuff.
Exactly. I don't understand why one would think of the mainline and Northeast Extension as one road. They intersect at a T (with respect to the toll system; for the past 25-30 years, I-476 has had a connection to the south), for crying out loud! If someone just said "PA Turnpike exit X", I'd assume the mainline unless I heard otherwise.Now we have (in my opinion) the absurdity that PA Turnpike Exit 56 is in Allentown while PA Turnpike Exit 57 is in Pittsburgh. Saying “PA Turnpike Exit 56” doesn’t tell me much unless I already know 56 in on the NE extension.
No one around here says "PA Turnpike Exit 56". They say "Northeast Extension Exit 56".
If you're coming from the west, no one is going to say "take the PA Turnpike to Exit 56" without mentioning that you switch from the main (or mainline) Turnpike to the Northeast Extension.
I'm pretty sure the PTC doesn't even use Turnpike branding anymore for the section east of I-95. For all intents and purposes, they truncated it.Not really. The core Pennsylvania Turnpike (ignoring the Pittsburgh expressways) has only two sets of numbers - one for I-76/I-276 (I-276 continues I-76's numbers, and I don't think I've seen anyone other than you think of that as confusing), and one for I-476. The part that is I-95 was functionally expelled from the Turnpike when that happened, even though the PTC continues to maintain it and collects a toll entering from NJ. Since the Northeast Extension is really a completely separate road that happens to intersect and be integrated into the ticket system, it's actually LESS confusing now than when it used the same exit numbers.
I very much doubt most of the public really sees the change that leads you to say the I-95 part was “functionally expelled” from the Turnpike. What those of us who are “highway aware” and what the general public see are very different.
I am aware that the ticket section of the PA Turnpike only has two sets of numbers and yet if the reason for pushing to renumber roads like the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway is the public expects numbering by route, then why is it OK to not start the numbers over for I-276? You can’t have it both ways.
As for confusing, prior to the renumbering, I knew exits/plazas 1 to 30 were the mainline and 31 to 38 were the NE extension. Now we have (in my opinion) the absurdity that PA Turnpike Exit 56 is in Allentown while PA Turnpike Exit 57 is in Pittsburgh. Saying “PA Turnpike Exit 56” doesn’t tell me much unless I already know 56 in on the NE extension. It was easy to memorize the ranges that were mainline and NE extension. But it’s no longer ranges - it’s more of a scattershot arrangement of what’s mainline and what’s NE extension. And if I, someone who takes an interest in roads, is confused, I’m sure much of the general public is confused (or if not confused, frustrated by a numbering system that is not intuitive like the old system).
iPad
Another solution for the NJ Turnpike would be to have I-95 use its own numbers for the PA Turnpike Extension and jump where it joins the Turnpike mainline to the Turnpike numbers. For Newark Bay, I'd just use I-78 numbers and fudge them if any conflict with the mainline numbers. The Western Spur would probably have to be fudged - I wonder if an exception could be made to the MUTCD to keep the E/W numbers?I very much doubt most of the public really sees the change that leads you to say the I-95 part was “functionally expelled” from the Turnpike. What those of us who are “highway aware” and what the general public see are very different.
I am aware that the ticket section of the PA Turnpike only has two sets of numbers and yet if the reason for pushing to renumber roads like the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway is the public expects numbering by route, then why is it OK to not start the numbers over for I-276? You can’t have it both ways.
As for confusing, prior to the renumbering, I knew exits/plazas 1 to 30 were the mainline and 31 to 38 were the NE extension. Now we have (in my opinion) the absurdity that PA Turnpike Exit 56 is in Allentown while PA Turnpike Exit 57 is in Pittsburgh. Saying “PA Turnpike Exit 56” doesn’t tell me much unless I already know 56 in on the NE extension. It was easy to memorize the ranges that were mainline and NE extension. But it’s no longer ranges - it’s more of a scattershot arrangement of what’s mainline and what’s NE extension. And if I, someone who takes an interest in roads, is confused, I’m sure much of the general public is confused (or if not confused, frustrated by a numbering system that is not intuitive like the old system).
I kind of agree that the PA Turnpike's numbering system with the conversion of both the mainline and Northeast Extension to I-76 and I-476 mileage-based exit numbering respectively, is awkward at best. You can see from this sign right here: https://goo.gl/maps/WcBNdToLxvYPMsGU8 , how they want to keep considering it as a unified exit numbering system, yet it's obvious from the sign alone that the numbers have taken on a very discontinuous order. And, if I'm not mistaken, it's only by pure luck that the numbers on the Northeast Extension don't repeat the lower numbers on I-76. What if they build a new tourist attraction just north of US 22 that warrants adding an Exit 57 to the Northeast Extension? That would ruin the system as we know it!
Someone else made the point that many of the turnpikes and older toll roads are not well covered by the MUTCD rules. The best examples that come to my mind are:
On the topic at hand: The New Jersey Turnpike. Solution? Start I-95 exit numbering at around 50 instead of 0 at the PA/NJ state line? It's a loose interpretation of the MUTCD, but I like it. However, it raises the question, how do you ensure that the new Western Spur and Newark Bay Extension numbers don't conflict with any of the lower numbers on the Turnpike Mainline or I-95's numbers respectively, assuming you want the whole Turnpike's exit numbers to be treated as a unified system?
Pennsylvania Turnpike. It's already been decided, but it doesn't seem to please everyone.
New York State Thruway. This is another tough one. The simplest solution is to just use continuous I-90 numbering from west to east, and then use I-87 numbering from south to north, but doing that immediately sacrifices a logical flow of numbers on the Thruway mainline, so you would just have to think of I-87 and I-90 as different Thruways.
Ohio Turnpike. Probably best to leave it as it is and just let I-76's numbers jump when it connects to the Turnpike. But the MUTCD gods would frown on this.
Kansas Turnpike. Similar. Keep Turnpike numbering on I-335 and I-470, causing I-335 not to start at 0 just like I-276, and causing a huge jump in exit numbers on I-470, just like I-76 in Ohio. Then switch the I-70 portion to I-70 numbering, causing a jump in Kansas Turnpike exit numbers that probably most people wouldn't notice because I-70 seems to be the more dominant through route, anyway.
Tri-State Tollway. It's already weird. The exit numbers go up for eastbound I-94, and then they go down for southbound I-294. Probably the only thing that bugs people is the I-80/294 concurrency, and probably many of us would agree it would be better to use I-80's exit numbers on that portion instead.
The Turner and Will Rogers Turnpikes in Oklahoma don't have this problem; they just use I-44 exit numbering. The problem comes in where I-44 connects to what I believe is technically the northern end of the Creek Turnpike just south of where it becomes the Will Rogers Turnpike, and I-44 suddenly jumps down to Creek Turnpike exit numbering. Come on, would it be that hard to just use I-44 exit numbering there?
Any others?
Exactly. I don't understand why one would think of the mainline and Northeast Extension as one road. They intersect at a T (with respect to the toll system; for the past 25-30 years, I-476 has had a connection to the south), for crying out loud! If someone just said "PA Turnpike exit X", I'd assume the mainline unless I heard otherwise.
In hindsight, the PTC's decision to continue the numbering as if the Northeast Extension was an actual extension and not the spur it really is was very, very stupid. They should have probably done what the Thruway did with the Berkshire Spur if they wanted a unified numbering system.
I'm pretty sure the PTC doesn't even use Turnpike branding anymore for the section east of I-95. For all intents and purposes, they truncated it.
Because you're 29 and are too young to remember when the PA Turnpike was commonly thought of as one road and marketed that way (and I-476 south of the Turnpike came much later). The first time I rode the PA Turnpike (way too young to drive), I don't believe the NE Extension had a number so what else did you call it but "PA Turnpike".
If the NJ Turnpike wants to de-emphasize their name, then go ahead and re-number based on route numbers. But so long as they think the NJ Turnpike name is important, then people will think of the road as the NJ Turnpike as primary and the route as secondary (if they think about it at all).
...Likewise with the NJ Turnpike - inertia says south of I-287 isn't I-95. Maybe in another 30 to 40 years, you'll get to the point where for almost all drivers, the Turnpike has always been I-95 north of the PA Turnpike exit but you're not there yet.
QuoteIn hindsight, the PTC's decision to continue the numbering as if the Northeast Extension was an actual extension and not the spur it really is was very, very stupid. They should have probably done what the Thruway did with the Berkshire Spur if they wanted a unified numbering system.
That I agree with. The Thruway got it right (don't forget the N exit numbers on the Niagara Thruway (I-190)) as did the NJ Turnpike (since this is that road's topic) with 14A, B, and C. But now what the PA Turnpike is essentially saying is "remember what we taught you about how our exit numbers work? Please try to completely forget about it and pretend we never did that. And if you can't forget, you'll just have to be confused."
Why does 95 just cut across to NJ anyway? Why didnt they continue straight across to New York. That mess of interstates & highways is crazy around PA/Jersey.Exactly. The timing on the I-95 route with the new connection fixing the I-95 gap would probably be as good as NJTP as long as there is no traffic on I-95.
Sadly the GPS doesnt take you the new way
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/19325e57f6d92e9d3991eebd5604918a.jpg)
GPS primarily works by taking you the fastest route, not the signed route. In that case, the primary routing shown above would almost always be the fastest. It's shorter, and based on posted speed limits, faster. However, I'd bet if there was a major issue on the NJ Turnpike between Exits 1 & 6, the I-95 routing may be the preferred path in that case.
Another example would be going from Philly to Newark, DE. The normal primary route would be 95 to 495 around Wilmington back to 95...not 95 the entire way.
Now, their secondary and thirdinary options are sometimes very questionable. Why isn't one of the 3 options following I-95?
In free-flow conditions, staying on I-95 the entire way is 3.9 miles longer than using the NJ Turnpike, and takes approximately 6 - 8 extra minutes.
Even taking I-295 between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and NJ 73 to bypass the Turnpike in either direction is faster than staying on I-95 the whole way thru this area.
Thus, it takes an unusual issue on the Turnpike to suggest I-95 as a primary route thru the area. Even congestion on the Turnpike could be offset by congestion on I-95, still making the Turnpike the better route.Now, their secondary and thirdinary options are sometimes very questionable.
Today's vocabulary lesson: tertiary, not thirdinary. I'm thinking tertiary is probably a word you've heard but weren't sure what it meant.
Yeah, I took some liberties there using thirdinary. After all, I did have the squiggly lines below the word! :cool:
Why does 95 just cut across to NJ anyway? Why didnt they continue straight across to New York. That mess of interstates & highways is crazy around PA/Jersey.Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway” It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it :sombrero:
Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
I was reading up about that as well, however the somerset freeway was a mess as well. It went no where near NYC. It was to far west.Why does 95 just cut across to NJ anyway? Why didnt they continue straight across to New York. That mess of interstates & highways is crazy around PA/Jersey.Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway” It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it :sombrero:
Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
I was reading up about that as well, however the somerset freeway was a mess as well. It went no where near NYC. It was to far west.Why does 95 just cut across to NJ anyway? Why didnt they continue straight across to New York. That mess of interstates & highways is crazy around PA/Jersey.Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway” It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it :sombrero:
Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
It was a Highway for the local commercial & residential.
iPhone
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200708/681c162fa5076edf0c2ea2c594c04f3e.jpg)I was reading up about that as well, however the somerset freeway was a mess as well. It went no where near NYC. It was to far west.Why does 95 just cut across to NJ anyway? Why didnt they continue straight across to New York. That mess of interstates & highways is crazy around PA/Jersey.Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway” It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it :sombrero:
Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
It was a Highway for the local commercial & residential.
iPhone
Huh? It was on a path directly to NYC.
I very much doubt most of the public really sees the change that leads you to say the I-95 part was “functionally expelled” from the Turnpike. What those of us who are “highway aware” and what the general public see are very different.
I am aware that the ticket section of the PA Turnpike only has two sets of numbers and yet if the reason for pushing to renumber roads like the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway is the public expects numbering by route, then why is it OK to not start the numbers over for I-276? You can’t have it both ways.
As for confusing, prior to the renumbering, I knew exits/plazas 1 to 30 were the mainline and 31 to 38 were the NE extension. Now we have (in my opinion) the absurdity that PA Turnpike Exit 56 is in Allentown while PA Turnpike Exit 57 is in Pittsburgh. Saying “PA Turnpike Exit 56” doesn’t tell me much unless I already know 56 in on the NE extension. It was easy to memorize the ranges that were mainline and NE extension. But it’s no longer ranges - it’s more of a scattershot arrangement of what’s mainline and what’s NE extension. And if I, someone who takes an interest in roads, is confused, I’m sure much of the general public is confused (or if not confused, frustrated by a numbering system that is not intuitive like the old system).
I kind of agree that the PA Turnpike's numbering system with the conversion of both the mainline and Northeast Extension to I-76 and I-476 mileage-based exit numbering respectively, is awkward at best. You can see from this sign right here: https://goo.gl/maps/WcBNdToLxvYPMsGU8 , how they want to keep considering it as a unified exit numbering system, yet it's obvious from the sign alone that the numbers have taken on a very discontinuous order. And, if I'm not mistaken, it's only by pure luck that the numbers on the Northeast Extension don't repeat the lower numbers on I-76. What if they build a new tourist attraction just north of US 22 that warrants adding an Exit 57 to the Northeast Extension? That would ruin the system as we know it!
So are there any plans to actually re-number the exits of I-95 north of exit 18?I doubt you'll see those renumbered unless the rest of the Turnpike is. It'd be more confusing to do those out of context of anything else. (Standard disclaimer: I do not know any actual plans in this regard.)
Some MUTCD style exit signs have popped up on the southern section of the NJTP at Exit 4 and 5 southbound. Just one advance sign at each was put up, so you get a mismatch of styles for the time being.
Both signs appear to be new going by Streetview. One was a 1/4 mile advance for Exit 5 (odd) and the other a 1/2 mile advance for Exit 4. The Exit 5 one was surprising because Turnpike standard for advances is usually 2 miles, 1 mile, 1/2 mile. 1/4 mile signs are only used in urban areas with closely spaced exits. Both were ground mounted as well.
Edit: I can't seem to find these new signs, by the way. Are we using the same StreetView? https://goo.gl/maps/ndrNxVwNVST54NF47
Edit: I can't seem to find these new signs, by the way. Are we using the same StreetView? https://goo.gl/maps/ndrNxVwNVST54NF47
Same here. Latest GSV I see is from August 2019.
But to illustrate the point, observe this 1/4 mile sign for Exit 9 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4712423,-74.4099326,3a,75y,18.01h,104.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNDF83wWeCdyEeF9o1HHQGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which replaced the "classic" up-to-the-right arrow sign (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/n9.jpg) (taken from Alps' site since apparently they've scrubbed older GSV data from the Turnpike?), and the sign at the gore point itself (http://"https://www.google.com/maps/@40.474478,-74.4075214,3a,37.2y,37.64h,103.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBg6aFJId6YavwqL4WShkIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which replaced the classic over the lane exit gore sign (https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/n9g.jpg). Haven't seen any of this as ground mount since everything north of 9 is in the more urban areas or the dual-dual roadways.
These signs are brand new (they weren't up as recently as December). The ground mounted 1/4 mile one caught me by surprise particularly because the giant curved arrow Exit 5 sign is still up.
Some MUTCD style exit signs have popped up on the southern section of the NJTP at Exit 4 and 5 southbound. Just one advance sign at each was put up, so you get a mismatch of styles for the time being.
That's surprising. I thought all the signage south of 6 was going to exist as is until it was due for replacement, and the signage south of there was replaced in the late aughts, not long before the widening project.
Some MUTCD style exit signs have popped up on the southern section of the NJTP at Exit 4 and 5 southbound. Just one advance sign at each was put up, so you get a mismatch of styles for the time being.
That's surprising. I thought all the signage south of 6 was going to exist as is until it was due for replacement, and the signage south of there was replaced in the late aughts, not long before the widening project.
Signage lasts about 20 years, so if they replaced it after 10 years it's not horribly early, especially if they decided to go all in on maintaining a single style on the entire roadway. I looked thru the minutes of the meetings for the past year and didn't see anything that stood out, so they could be part of an older signing project or something done in-house.
I think everyone here assumed they wouldn't replace the signage to the MUTCD style until necessary, but I'm not sure the Turnpike ever technically said that.
I don't recall mentioning that. It would be no more than a guess on my part. Technically, a sign lasts 12 years.Some MUTCD style exit signs have popped up on the southern section of the NJTP at Exit 4 and 5 southbound. Just one advance sign at each was put up, so you get a mismatch of styles for the time being.
That's surprising. I thought all the signage south of 6 was going to exist as is until it was due for replacement, and the signage south of there was replaced in the late aughts, not long before the widening project.
Signage lasts about 20 years, so if they replaced it after 10 years it's not horribly early, especially if they decided to go all in on maintaining a single style on the entire roadway. I looked thru the minutes of the meetings for the past year and didn't see anything that stood out, so they could be part of an older signing project or something done in-house.
I think everyone here assumed they wouldn't replace the signage to the MUTCD style until necessary, but I'm not sure the Turnpike ever technically said that.
I'm pretty sure I remember Alps mentioning in either this thread a long time ago, in discussion about the MUTCD signage from 9 northward, that the NJTA had no plans to replace the signage with MUTCD signage until the signage was due for replacement, which would clearly be 20-25 years since it was all new. I believe that to be a NJTA standard and most signage south of 6 was replaced in the mid aughts, so I'm surprised that they suddenly decided to move towards MUTCD signage there.
I don't recall mentioning that. It would be no more than a guess on my part. Technically, a sign lasts 12 years.Some MUTCD style exit signs have popped up on the southern section of the NJTP at Exit 4 and 5 southbound. Just one advance sign at each was put up, so you get a mismatch of styles for the time being.
That's surprising. I thought all the signage south of 6 was going to exist as is until it was due for replacement, and the signage south of there was replaced in the late aughts, not long before the widening project.
Signage lasts about 20 years, so if they replaced it after 10 years it's not horribly early, especially if they decided to go all in on maintaining a single style on the entire roadway. I looked thru the minutes of the meetings for the past year and didn't see anything that stood out, so they could be part of an older signing project or something done in-house.
I think everyone here assumed they wouldn't replace the signage to the MUTCD style until necessary, but I'm not sure the Turnpike ever technically said that.
I'm pretty sure I remember Alps mentioning in either this thread a long time ago, in discussion about the MUTCD signage from 9 northward, that the NJTA had no plans to replace the signage with MUTCD signage until the signage was due for replacement, which would clearly be 20-25 years since it was all new. I believe that to be a NJTA standard and most signage south of 6 was replaced in the mid aughts, so I'm surprised that they suddenly decided to move towards MUTCD signage there.
And yet the former Exit 6 overhead stood over 50 years without need to replace or fall to metal fatigue during that time period. If the NJTA never widened that part of the road who knows how long that classic gantry would have stayed up.
And yet the former Exit 6 overhead stood over 50 years without need to replace or fall to metal fatigue during that time period. If the NJTA never widened that part of the road who knows how long that classic gantry would have stayed up.That one was non-reflective. Reflective signs last 12 years due to average wear. Sun exposure and the elements can change that.
Some MUTCD style exit signs have popped up on the southern section of the NJTP at Exit 4 and 5 southbound. Just one advance sign at each was put up, so you get a mismatch of styles for the time being.
That's surprising. I thought all the signage south of 6 was going to exist as is until it was due for replacement, and the signage south of there was replaced in the late aughts, not long before the widening project.
Signage lasts about 20 years, so if they replaced it after 10 years it's not horribly early, especially if they decided to go all in on maintaining a single style on the entire roadway. I looked thru the minutes of the meetings for the past year and didn't see anything that stood out, so they could be part of an older signing project or something done in-house.
I think everyone here assumed they wouldn't replace the signage to the MUTCD style until necessary, but I'm not sure the Turnpike ever technically said that.
I'm pretty sure I remember Alps mentioning in either this thread a long time ago, in discussion about the MUTCD signage from 9 northward, that the NJTA had no plans to replace the signage with MUTCD signage until the signage was due for replacement, which would clearly be 20-25 years since it was all new. I believe that to be a NJTA standard and most signage south of 6 was replaced in the mid aughts, so I'm surprised that they suddenly decided to move towards MUTCD signage there.
Here we go
Exit 5: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/2020-07-12_10_04_34_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_39.jpg
Here we goI wonder if those were upgrades or knockdowns.
Exit 5: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/2020-07-12_10_04_34_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_39.jpg
Exit 4: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/2020-07-12_10_15_27_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_43.jpg
I still maintain:
1. I see expanding the NJTP from 2 to 3 lanes from the DE Mem Bridge to exit 4 is not needed.
-Exit 4 to exit 3/2 yes, but 2 south I don't see it, traffic is free flowing.
Expand the 3-3 configuration to the Del Mem bridge & make it merge into the 4 lanes per bridge.I still maintain:
1. I see expanding the NJTP from 2 to 3 lanes from the DE Mem Bridge to exit 4 is not needed.
-Exit 4 to exit 3/2 yes, but 2 south I don't see it, traffic is free flowing.
welp, the rest of the world maintains otherwise.
and yes, i've sat in traffic between 2 and the bridge before.
The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.The bottle neck is from the lack of Express lanes.
Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg/800px-2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg)
^^^^ It appears to be on the Garden State Pkwy South @ the I-95/NJTP ExitThank you. Ive drove pass this before & couldn’t remember. Now I do.
The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.
The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.
Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg/800px-2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg)
2. YES! We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there. Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area. Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing. Hardly a priority.The bottleneck exists through the whole corridor, and needs widening to 6 lanes.
The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129. Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.
Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg/800px-2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg)
I want to say no, but honestly I’d have to go back thru the pics I took, and I’m not doing that right now. They’re all posted at the link in the NJ thread so do feel free to check first. They were taken Saturday 7/11The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129. Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.
Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg/800px-2020-07-16_10_43_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_32.jpg)
StreetView (October 2019) shows Trenton as the control city NB, and entering the Turnpike at the Exit 11 tolls, the control city was Trenton as of September 2019. Were these also changed? There is no direct access to U.S. 1 from NB.
2. YES! We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there. Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area. Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing. Hardly a priority.
Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.
Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.
NJTA doesn't like posting county routes, even for the 5xx routes which serve as a secondary state highway system more or less. Although thinking about it, there aren't a ton of places where Turnpike interchanges are with county roads. Maybe Exit 12 and possibly 15X? Exit 12 flows out to 602 which is a minor county road. 15X is by CR657 in Hudson, but I'm not sure if it empties out directly onto it. The only instance of a county shield I can think of is at Exit 10 post toll plaza since there are direct ramps to 514.
Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.
NJTA doesn't like posting county routes, even for the 5xx routes which serve as a secondary state highway system more or less. Although thinking about it, there aren't a ton of places where Turnpike interchanges are with county roads. Maybe Exit 12 and possibly 15X? Exit 12 flows out to 602 which is a minor county road. 15X is by CR657 in Hudson, but I'm not sure if it empties out directly onto it. The only instance of a county shield I can think of is at Exit 10 post toll plaza since there are direct ramps to 514.
They interestingly do have it posted at the Southbound exit just below the Interchange 1 toll plaza. https://goo.gl/maps/2mLpii9ipuL8vZ6r7 Besides being on the bottom of the sign rather than the top:
A) The exit doesn't directly lead you to CR 540. You would need to make a left, go about 1/4 mile, then continue thru the traffic light to finally be on CR 540.
B) The corresponding northbound exit only mentions US 40; no mention of NJ 140 or CR 540.
C) The Southbound exit ends at a traffic-lighted intersection which includes CR 551. No mention on the Turnpike of it though.
Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129. Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.
Yes that stinks to have Newark when the Parkway just came from there. Rahway or Woodbridge would be the better pick and yes New Brunswick should be SB being that many side roads use that city already.Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129. Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.
As a side note, it has never made sense for US 1 to be signed as either Trenton or Newark from the parkway (or 287 for that matter) since the turnpike is a better route. It makes more sense to sign US 1 as Elizabeth (or Linden or another closer city to the north) and New Brunswick. Its particularly odd that US 1 is signed northbound as New Brunswick at 295, but never southbound to my recollection (I haven't driven all of US 1 in NJ recently, but that's something I intend to remedy in the near future).
Yes that stinks to have Newark when the Parkway just came from there. Rahway or Woodbridge would be the better pick and yes New Brunswick should be SB being that many side roads use that city already.Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129. Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.
As a side note, it has never made sense for US 1 to be signed as either Trenton or Newark from the parkway (or 287 for that matter) since the turnpike is a better route. It makes more sense to sign US 1 as Elizabeth (or Linden or another closer city to the north) and New Brunswick. Its particularly odd that US 1 is signed northbound as New Brunswick at 295, but never southbound to my recollection (I haven't driven all of US 1 in NJ recently, but that's something I intend to remedy in the near future).
I-287 has NJ 27 S Bound as New Brunswick, but US 1 is the faster route and should be signed as such with Highland Park being NJ 27's control city S Bound. Also NJ 18 still uses Middlesex and Highland Park copied over from the old days. NJ 18 should be signed Middlesex and New Brunswick and being that nearby River Road is the direct route there, leave it off of the now Route 18 exits.
Plus, New York is still used for Route 22 E Bound (left over from before I-78 of course) and should use more local destinations such as Green Brook, North Plainfield, or even Union. For the longest time I-78 was signed Newark with US 22 as New York. Go figure, the local road gets the big city and the freeway got the other big city. IMO both Newark and New York should be used for I-78 E Bound from I-287 and drop Easton going for I-78 W Bound as Allentown is more appropriate now that I-78 continues beyond Still Valley. Both Clinton and now Easton were used because of US 22 as those are that roads destinations west of Somerville on guide signs.
When, when is it congested aside from the day before Thanksgiving?
2. YES! We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there. Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area. Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing. Hardly a priority.
Dude...knock this shit off. You're simply not driving the times when congestion occurs. No need to repeat yourself 20 times.
Rush hour.When, when is it congested aside from the day before Thanksgiving?
2. YES! We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there. Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area. Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing. Hardly a priority.
Dude...knock this shit off. You're simply not driving the times when congestion occurs. No need to repeat yourself 20 times.
Sorry I drive there all the time and haven't experienced it.
Whereas I experienced this ALL the time between exits 6-9 prior to it being doubled.
I'm not seeing the need.
Sorry I drive there all the time and haven't experienced it.
Whereas I experienced this ALL the time between exits 6-9 prior to it being doubled.
I'm not seeing the need.
Well, according to this https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.msg2486666#msg2486666 , your response 3134 states you made 28.5 trips in a 3 year period, or about 9 trips per year. Fairly easy to miss the congestion if you're not on it during evening rush hours or busy weekends. You further say that you're barely able to maintain the speed limit or 5 over, which even in normal traffic, indicates that traffic is barely moving above congested levels.
For some reason, you think that construction should only happen after a road not only is congested on a regular basis, but that you experienced such congestion. The turnpike wouldn't be considering widening the roadway if such congestion didn't exist already. Plus the turnpike has been widening overpasses for over 20 years now in anticipation of an eventual widening, indicating its future traffic levels will only increase, and congestion is expected..
What you should have done you feel so strongly, is provided the Turnpike Authority written testimony that you don't believe the southern portion of the turnpike has been widened during the recent public comment period.
Oh well.
Are you from the Tristate area? The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.Sorry I drive there all the time and haven't experienced it.
Whereas I experienced this ALL the time between exits 6-9 prior to it being doubled.
I'm not seeing the need.
Well, according to this https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.msg2486666#msg2486666 , your response 3134 states you made 28.5 trips in a 3 year period, or about 9 trips per year. Fairly easy to miss the congestion if you're not on it during evening rush hours or busy weekends. You further say that you're barely able to maintain the speed limit or 5 over, which even in normal traffic, indicates that traffic is barely moving above congested levels.
For some reason, you think that construction should only happen after a road not only is congested on a regular basis, but that you experienced such congestion. The turnpike wouldn't be considering widening the roadway if such congestion didn't exist already. Plus the turnpike has been widening overpasses for over 20 years now in anticipation of an eventual widening, indicating its future traffic levels will only increase, and congestion is expected..
What you should have done you feel so strongly, is provided the Turnpike Authority written testimony that you don't believe the southern portion of the turnpike has been widened during the recent public comment period.
Oh well.
Drive it at least 1 month, it is nothing like exit 6-9 pre 2014.
Also if I can go 70 mph, that is free flowing and that is the case.
The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.
Thats already known. But blue country is acting like the roads dont have backups.The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.
Population growth is supposed to be exponential. That's just how it works.
Thats already known. But blue country is acting like the roads dont have backups.The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.
Population growth is supposed to be exponential. That's just how it works.
So I had to make sure it was known.
iPhone
Thats already known. But blue country is acting like the roads dont have backups.The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.
Population growth is supposed to be exponential. That's just how it works.
So I had to make sure it was known.
iPhone
Not only blue country but other regions of USA too. Developers are allowed to develop and get richer while the roads that can't handle the increased traffic from the new developments get ignored.
The Turnpike is at or near capacity as it is today on the 4 lane segment, and is congested during peak times, including rush hour, summers, holidays, etc. mentioned above, and looking at a 20 year future growth period, the Turnpike will most certainly require 6 lanes in order to not having a failing LOS by 2040.
I'm not a frequent traveler of the Turnpike, but when I drove it last summer during a summer weekday, traffic moved between 35 and 80+ mph and was always fluctuating, random stop-and-go, trucks micropassing, etc. Is this acceptable for 2020, and will this be expected with traffic growth and future volumes by 2040?
For a more local example, I could argue I-64 does not need widening between Richmond and Williamsburg because I can drive it off-peak and be flowing at 60 - 70 mph the whole way (despite a 70 mph speed limit that nobody seems to be able to maintain), but I try it during a peak weekend or during the summer, and you could be moving 55-60 mph, then finally get up to the speed limit (70 mph), then have to slam the brakes down to 30 mph, and even occasionally to a complete stop, for what appears to be absolutely nothing. The highway is rural, interchanges are spaced out 5-10 miles apart, yet the traffic volumes are so heavy that it clogs. And rightfully so, by 2021, 21 miles from Newport News to Williamsburg will have been expanded to 6 lanes, 5 miles near Richmond expanded in 2019, and remaining 28 mile segment simply waiting for funding. An environmental impact statement has been completed on the whole corridor, recommended full 6 lane widening, and is getting completed in phases as funding is enabled.
As much as I've complained about it, I must admit the 12 miles completed in 2017 and 2019 from Newport News to Williamsburg have drastically improved that segment, and the 2019 widening of 5 miles east of I-295 removed what was for the longest time a major bottleneck, both far worse than the remaining rural segments. They get tight during peak weekends and rush hour, but easily move 75 - 80 mph (all complete segments are posted 65 mph, which they previously were prior to widening). No more exiting at Exit 211 or 205 to take US-60 to I-295 to avoid the 5 mile backup east of I-295, or slogging up Jefferson Ave in Newport News to avoid the constant stop-and-go up to Williamsburg during rush hour and holidays, plus the awful 4 to 2 lane drop heading north / westbound. Those segments will eventually require 8 lane widening, and is planned in the future, but 6 lanes made a huge difference over 4 lanes for this interim widening. The rural areas that are planned for 6 lanes should be adequate as they do not also carry local rush hour traffic alongside through traffic, but rather mostly through traffic.
I can tell you IMO the NJTP really doesn't need that widening, I am not subject to those kind of delays.You either must get lucky, or drive it during off peak times that you’re not subject to delays. It appears everybody else here has experienced otherwise.
Which segments?I can tell you IMO the NJTP really doesn't need that widening, I am not subject to those kind of delays.You either must get lucky, or drive it during off peak times that you’re not subject to delays. It appears everybody else here has experienced otherwise.
Would you say I-64 is adequate?
The 4 lane segment between Exit 205 and Exit 234.Which segments?I can tell you IMO the NJTP really doesn't need that widening, I am not subject to those kind of delays.You either must get lucky, or drive it during off peak times that you’re not subject to delays. It appears everybody else here has experienced otherwise.
Would you say I-64 is adequate?
It certainly is more congested than the NJTP exits 2-4.
It definitely needs it before the southern portion of the NJTP I'll say that much.The 4 lane segment between Exit 205 and Exit 234.Which segments?I can tell you IMO the NJTP really doesn't need that widening, I am not subject to those kind of delays.You either must get lucky, or drive it during off peak times that you’re not subject to delays. It appears everybody else here has experienced otherwise.
Would you say I-64 is adequate?
It certainly is more congested than the NJTP exits 2-4.
I can drive it during off peak periods and maintain 60 - 70 mph and “free flowing” despite a posted 70 mph speed limit throughout.
. That was pretty good. I liked were you went with that.Thats already known. But blue country is acting like the roads dont have backups.The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.
Population growth is supposed to be exponential. That's just how it works.
So I had to make sure it was known.
iPhone
Not only blue country but other regions of USA too. Developers are allowed to develop and get richer while the roads that can't handle the increased traffic from the new developments get ignored.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
"bluecountry" is the forum member who's been saying there are no traffic backups on the New Jersey Turnpike. Tonytone wasn't making a reference of the "blue state, red state" sort the TV commentators make.
To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.It was because of this that I still avoid using that stretch of Turnpike by force of habit when heading south out of NJ, and turn to my old friend, I-295. I like having more exit opportunities if I have to bail for some reason, and I've even gotten stuck in backups on the relatively few times I've used that stretch even after the new interchange was built.
https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.
To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.
In modern times, traffic also congests going NB, which I can see from the overpasses between Exits 2 and 3, in which case the widened roadway between 6 & 9 has no effect on.
To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.
In modern times, traffic also congests going NB, which I can see from the overpasses between Exits 2 and 3, in which case the widened roadway between 6 & 9 has no effect on.
The authority has started to post travel times ahead of Exit 4, to show the time to the Del Mem Br from the Turnpike and from 295. They always seem to think 295 takes longer. I haven't ever bothered to time it, but given that 295 traffic has to slog through the 76 interchange, Al-Jo Curve, and all of the construction over there, it probably does take a few minutes longer.
To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.
In modern times, traffic also congests going NB, which I can see from the overpasses between Exits 2 and 3, in which case the widened roadway between 6 & 9 has no effect on.
The authority has started to post travel times ahead of Exit 4, to show the time to the Del Mem Br from the Turnpike and from 295. They always seem to think 295 takes longer. I haven't ever bothered to time it, but given that 295 traffic has to slog through the 76 interchange, Al-Jo Curve, and all of the construction over there, it probably does take a few minutes longer.
I think those signs are meant to estimate the time from "the sign" to the Del Mem Br via NJTP vs 295. So, naturally, it will be longer given you also have to exit onto 73. Unless there is a major issue on the turnpike. I have seen them for the last few years, but don't recall an instance where 295 was faster just yet. Bad luck I guess.
https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7Hopefully they do this for all exits.
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.
To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.
In modern times, traffic also congests going NB, which I can see from the overpasses between Exits 2 and 3, in which case the widened roadway between 6 & 9 has no effect on.
The authority has started to post travel times ahead of Exit 4, to show the time to the Del Mem Br from the Turnpike and from 295. They always seem to think 295 takes longer. I haven't ever bothered to time it, but given that 295 traffic has to slog through the 76 interchange, Al-Jo Curve, and all of the construction over there, it probably does take a few minutes longer.
Haven't been on I-64 since 2017, so is construction now finished with the expansion?It was split up into three phases, two of which have been complete.
It's for Great Adventure.To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.
In modern times, traffic also congests going NB, which I can see from the overpasses between Exits 2 and 3, in which case the widened roadway between 6 & 9 has no effect on.
The authority has started to post travel times ahead of Exit 4, to show the time to the Del Mem Br from the Turnpike and from 295. They always seem to think 295 takes longer. I haven't ever bothered to time it, but given that 295 traffic has to slog through the 76 interchange, Al-Jo Curve, and all of the construction over there, it probably does take a few minutes longer.
I think those signs are meant to estimate the time from "the sign" to the Del Mem Br via NJTP vs 295. So, naturally, it will be longer given you also have to exit onto 73. Unless there is a major issue on the turnpike. I have seen them for the last few years, but don't recall an instance where 295 was faster just yet. Bad luck I guess.
That's fair. Still, their logic with some of those signs doesn't always make sense. For example, they have one before Exit 11 about time to 195 via the Parkway or the Turnpike. That makes no sense to me. Both roads take you to 195, but on opposite sides of the state. It really depends where you're going. If you're heading to Trenton, taking the Parkway to 98 and then having to cut clear across the state doesn't make a ton of sense. If you're heading to the shore, going down the Turnpike to 7A and cutting westward doesn't make a ton of sense either, especially on a summer weekend with GA traffic to contend with as well. Context does matter.
It's for Great Adventure.To be fair, traffic wasn't an issue south of Exit 6 before the big widening "uncorked" it. Now its routine for southbound backups at Exit 4 due to the lane drop.
Interchange 1 had horrendous backups in the 1990s and early 2000s before the new plaza was built. Traffic used to be forced off at Exit 4.
In modern times, traffic also congests going NB, which I can see from the overpasses between Exits 2 and 3, in which case the widened roadway between 6 & 9 has no effect on.
The authority has started to post travel times ahead of Exit 4, to show the time to the Del Mem Br from the Turnpike and from 295. They always seem to think 295 takes longer. I haven't ever bothered to time it, but given that 295 traffic has to slog through the 76 interchange, Al-Jo Curve, and all of the construction over there, it probably does take a few minutes longer.
I think those signs are meant to estimate the time from "the sign" to the Del Mem Br via NJTP vs 295. So, naturally, it will be longer given you also have to exit onto 73. Unless there is a major issue on the turnpike. I have seen them for the last few years, but don't recall an instance where 295 was faster just yet. Bad luck I guess.
That's fair. Still, their logic with some of those signs doesn't always make sense. For example, they have one before Exit 11 about time to 195 via the Parkway or the Turnpike. That makes no sense to me. Both roads take you to 195, but on opposite sides of the state. It really depends where you're going. If you're heading to Trenton, taking the Parkway to 98 and then having to cut clear across the state doesn't make a ton of sense. If you're heading to the shore, going down the Turnpike to 7A and cutting westward doesn't make a ton of sense either, especially on a summer weekend with GA traffic to contend with as well. Context does matter.
I believe such has only been applied to the southbound GSP exit 129 signs. The northbound Exit 129 signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5359175,-74.3030366,3a,75y,339.94h,81.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg1_X1G_xJtrmI-X6r54gug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) lists Trenton.https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7Hopefully they do this for all exits.
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.
Haven't been on I-64 since 2017, so is construction now finished with the expansion?It was split up into three phases, two of which have been complete.
Phase 1 covers Exit 255 - Exit 250, and was completed in December 2017.
Phase 2 covers Exit 250 - Exit 242 (southern VA-199 interchange), and was completed in April 2019.
Phase 3 covers Exit 242 - Exit 234 (northern VA-199 interchange), and will be complete in late 2021.
The completed segments with now 3 lanes in each direction have made a huge improvement over the old design with only 2 lanes in each direction.
Additionally, a fourth project near Richmond widened I-64 from 4 to 6 lanes between Exit 200 (I-295) and Exit 205, and was completed in August 2019.
The ultimate goal is to widen the remaining 28 miles between Exit 205 and Exit 234 to 6 lanes, though no funding has been secured. The planning organization for the Richmond area submitted an application on SmartScale (VDOT's funding program) a few years back to widen between Exit 205 and Exit 211, though did not receive funding. The HRTPO (Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization) is working to acquire funding for a Phase 4, spanning Exit 234 to Exit 227, and may well be complete by or before 2030, if not more additional segments such as the aforementioned Exit 205 - Exit 211 proposal.
First, the NJTP was so bad between exits 6-9 because of the lack of the Somerset Freeway and not getting to it sooner when earlier when LOS was decreasing. The few years before the construction started, it was routine for 25 mile delays to form from exits 6-8A on weekends constantly and significant other delays at other times. Those significant delays would not have happened if the work had been done sooner. It's unfair to use that as a comparison point. Using that as a basis says stop many projects until we have horrendous traffic.
Second, it is not appropriate to compare needs between the lists of items involving multiple jurisdictions. The NJTA is only responsible for two roadways, the turnpike and the parkway. That is all they can prioritize and manage, all based on their toll collection capability and ability to obtain bonds. Even the other projects involve different states/jurisdictions, who each have to individually rank and prioritize based on their their resources and overall needs and those projects relative to needs.
I wonder where on that span between exit 205 and 234 it goes from Hampton and Richmond jurisdiction?About a mile west of Exit 227, at the New Kent county line. That’s where HRTPO’s proposed Phase 4 would end.
You know it is silly if they are widening I-64 to 6 lanes, that I-95 between I-295 and exit 126 is just 6 lanes with NO plans to make it wider.I-95 should be a minimum of 8 lanes between Richmond and DC. It’s a joke they haven’t touched it and have no plans to. At least they’re going somewhere with I-64.
What was the reason 6-9 was so crowded, as that's not a very urban area like NJ is north of 9.The Pennsylvania Turnpike from the west tying into the New Jersey Turnpike north. A large traffic load comes in from there, and even moreso from Philadelphia with I-95 complete.
Very very frustrating, 95 needs to be 8 lanes from 295 to exit 126, then 12 lanes to PWpkwy, then 14 lanes to 495.I wonder where on that span between exit 205 and 234 it goes from Hampton and Richmond jurisdiction?About a mile west of Exit 227, at the New Kent county line. That’s where HRTPO’s proposed Phase 4 would end.
The 21 mile project from Exit 255 to Exit 234 completed the majority of the Hampton Roads segment, now 2/3 complete with full completion by late next year.QuoteYou know it is silly if they are widening I-64 to 6 lanes, that I-95 between I-295 and exit 126 is just 6 lanes with NO plans to make it wider.I-95 should be a minimum of 8 lanes between Richmond and DC. It’s a joke they haven’t touched it and have no plans to. At least they’re going somewhere with I-64.
I-295 was built properly between I-95 and I-64, still adequate today, and should be how the whole interstate up to DC looks.
Actually I think it really picks up after 195, which takes the 'local' 295 traffic onto the NJTP.What was the reason 6-9 was so crowded, as that's not a very urban area like NJ is north of 9.The Pennsylvania Turnpike from the west tying into the New Jersey Turnpike north. A large traffic load comes in from there, and even moreso from Philadelphia with I-95 complete.
What was the reason 6-9 was so crowded, as that's not a very urban area like NJ is north of 9.
I say bring the 3-3-3-3 Atleast by Cherry hill & the rest of the way to Del Memorial bridge keep it 4 lanes in each direction.What was the reason 6-9 was so crowded, as that's not a very urban area like NJ is north of 9.
(You guessed some of this correctly in your response regarding 295, before I posted this)
In addition to sprjus' response, the stretch of roadway between 6 and 9, and more specifically between Exits 7A and 8A, was the clogged artery of I-95 in the grand network of roadways connecting NY and points North & East, with PA/DE and points South & West.
Between 7A and 8A, there was only 6 thru lanes - 3 North and 3 South. North of that, the Turnpike widened out to 10, then 12, then 14 lanes. 287 and the Parkway diverted traffic from the Turnpike to points further North and East Once in NY, numerous highways directed people closer to their origins or destinations.
South of 7A, you had the parallel 295, which added another 6 lanes to the corridor immediately parallel to it. Just a few miles further west, you had 95 itself, which added another 6 lanes or so. Even at it's narrowest point in South Jersey, you still had 2 lanes on the Turnpike and 2 lanes on 295 in each direction, or 8 lanes total; greater than the 6 lanes total in Central Jersey.
You also had the PA Turnpike mixing in too, which was 4 lanes wide, then 6 lanes in NJ.
The end result: Up north, at minimum and immediately adjacent to this area:
12 Lanes of the NJ Turnpike
6 Lanes of 287
10 Lanes of the GSP
28 Total Lanes
Just South:
6 Lanes of Turnpike
6 Lanes of 295
6 Lanes of 95
4 Lanes of the PA Turnpike
22 Total Lanes.
And all of that traffic had to squeeze into 6 Lanes of the NJ Turnpike between 6 & 8A.
If you wanted to expand that, look at 95 in Delaware. 2 Lanes of 95, 3 lanes of 495, 2 lanes of the NJ Turnpike and 2 Lanes of 295 (9 Lanes total) all narrow down into 5 lanes of 95 in Delaware below DE 141. When 95 narrows down to 4 lanes, at least enough traffic diverts off of 95 onto DE 1 to really bottleneck the area. US 13/40 also assist with the traffic flow down there, especially off of 295 and 495, to alleviate some of the traffic from 95.
Sounds like VA with 95 south of 495....if only they would follow and make it 12 lanes to exit 126 then 8 to 295.What was the reason 6-9 was so crowded, as that's not a very urban area like NJ is north of 9.
(You guessed some of this correctly in your response regarding 295, before I posted this)
In addition to sprjus' response, the stretch of roadway between 6 and 9, and more specifically between Exits 7A and 8A, was the clogged artery of I-95 in the grand network of roadways connecting NY and points North & East, with PA/DE and points South & West.
Between 7A and 8A, there was only 6 thru lanes - 3 North and 3 South. North of that, the Turnpike widened out to 10, then 12, then 14 lanes. 287 and the Parkway diverted traffic from the Turnpike to points further North and East Once in NY, numerous highways directed people closer to their origins or destinations.
South of 7A, you had the parallel 295, which added another 6 lanes to the corridor immediately parallel to it. Just a few miles further west, you had 95 itself, which added another 6 lanes or so. Even at it's narrowest point in South Jersey, you still had 2 lanes on the Turnpike and 2 lanes on 295 in each direction, or 8 lanes total; greater than the 6 lanes total in Central Jersey.
You also had the PA Turnpike mixing in too, which was 4 lanes wide, then 6 lanes in NJ.
The end result: Up north, at minimum and immediately adjacent to this area:
12 Lanes of the NJ Turnpike
6 Lanes of 287
10 Lanes of the GSP
28 Total Lanes
Just South:
6 Lanes of Turnpike
6 Lanes of 295
6 Lanes of 95
4 Lanes of the PA Turnpike
22 Total Lanes.
And all of that traffic had to squeeze into 6 Lanes of the NJ Turnpike between 6 & 8A.
If you wanted to expand that, look at 95 in Delaware. 2 Lanes of 95, 3 lanes of 495, 2 lanes of the NJ Turnpike and 2 Lanes of 295 (9 Lanes total) all narrow down into 5 lanes of 95 in Delaware below DE 141. When 95 narrows down to 4 lanes, at least enough traffic diverts off of 95 onto DE 1 to really bottleneck the area. US 13/40 also assist with the traffic flow down there, especially off of 295 and 495, to alleviate some of the traffic from 95.
I'm disappointed the new capital plan doesn't include:
1. Re-doing the control city signs to be Philadelphia on SB NJTP
2. Re-numbering the exits north of exit 18, either continue with the NJTP exits OR do the real I-95
I hope so...I'm disappointed the new capital plan doesn't include:
1. Re-doing the control city signs to be Philadelphia on SB NJTP
2. Re-numbering the exits north of exit 18, either continue with the NJTP exits OR do the real I-95
Capital Plans tend to show large ticket items; not everything the Turnpike intends to purchase or work on during the next several years. The current capital plan would up with more projects than originally projected due to favorable construction costs over the past 10 years.
I'm disappointed the new capital plan doesn't include:
1. Re-doing the control city signs to be Philadelphia on SB NJTP
2. Re-numbering the exits north of exit 18, either continue with the NJTP exits OR do the real I-95
Self-serve gas will probably happen first! LOL
Funny you mention that. In the last few weeks I've self-served myself a couple of times at busy stations when the attendant was elsewhere serving others. Maybe because of COVID, but the attendants seem to just shrug it off. My out-of-state plates may also be a factor in that...
Funny you mention that. In the last few weeks I've self-served myself a couple of times at busy stations when the attendant was elsewhere serving others. Maybe because of COVID, but the attendants seem to just shrug it off. My out-of-state plates may also be a factor in that...
If you aren't allowed to self-serve, then why aren't the pumps locked, so attendants have to scan a card to unlock them?
Not blaming you for finding a loophole. Just saying, if it's such a big deal, why not have an easy mechanism for it?
Why is New Jersey so against self-serve in the first place?
Funny you mention that. In the last few weeks I've self-served myself a couple of times at busy stations when the attendant was elsewhere serving others. Maybe because of COVID, but the attendants seem to just shrug it off. My out-of-state plates may also be a factor in that...
If you aren't allowed to self-serve, then why aren't the pumps locked, so attendants have to scan a card to unlock them?
Not blaming you for finding a loophole. Just saying, if it's such a big deal, why not have an easy mechanism for it?
Some places have the employee card lock, some don't. If you know a place doesn't, you can serve yourself. I've been more reluctant to do it with COVID, but obviously I have no choice if I leave the state.Funny you mention that. In the last few weeks I've self-served myself a couple of times at busy stations when the attendant was elsewhere serving others. Maybe because of COVID, but the attendants seem to just shrug it off. My out-of-state plates may also be a factor in that...
If you aren't allowed to self-serve, then why aren't the pumps locked, so attendants have to scan a card to unlock them?
Not blaming you for finding a loophole. Just saying, if it's such a big deal, why not have an easy mechanism for it?
that would be incredibly expensive to implement in a manner that actually properly managed access control - both up-front and ongoing maintenance. nobody would voluntarily do it, and there's zero chance of legislation being passed that would force the matter.
Funny you mention that. In the last few weeks I've self-served myself a couple of times at busy stations when the attendant was elsewhere serving others. Maybe because of COVID, but the attendants seem to just shrug it off. My out-of-state plates may also be a factor in that...
If you aren't allowed to self-serve, then why aren't the pumps locked, so attendants have to scan a card to unlock them?
Not blaming you for finding a loophole. Just saying, if it's such a big deal, why not have an easy mechanism for it?
I've seen these locking mechanisms at Hess/Speedway, and at BJ's gas.
(Note...in NJ you don't need a membership to get gas at a warehouse club. At Sams Club, they don't require any sort of card to activate the pumps. At BJs, the attendant has an employee card to turn the pump on).
Why isn't it dont more widespread? Probably because the penalty is so minor or non-existant for serving yourself, it's not worth it. The penalty actually goes against the gas ststion, not the customer. And a lock only prevents someone from starting the pump. I can still go out and take the nozzle out, put the cap on, and get my receipt.
The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
"The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
"The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
"The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
"The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
Not really. They know what can happen in the lead up to a divisive election. Better to just remove them before someone gets a bug up their butt about how their candidate flag should be allowed
"The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
Not really. They know what can happen in the lead up to a divisive election. Better to just remove them before someone gets a bug up their butt about how their candidate flag should be allowed
Well, what about the 4 presidential elections, 4 gubernatorial elections, 9 congressional elections and countless local elections since 2001? Why “now” ? It seems like whomever decided that really wasn’t thinking about how it would look to the public...
Nobody had Bush flags, Kerry flags, McCain flags, Hillary flags... this is a new phenomenon. This will be a more divisive election than any of the past four."The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
Not really. They know what can happen in the lead up to a divisive election. Better to just remove them before someone gets a bug up their butt about how their candidate flag should be allowed
Well, what about the 4 presidential elections, 4 gubernatorial elections, 9 congressional elections and countless local elections since 2001? Why “now” ? It seems like whomever decided that really wasn’t thinking about how it would look to the public...
Because Trump Supporters are the most vocal of the past 19 years. They are the ones who hold boat parades, biker parades, parades of all sort to show their support. And nipping this one in the bud is a good thing.
Nobody had Bush flags, Kerry flags, McCain flags, Hillary flags... this is a new phenomenon. This will be a more divisive election than any of the past four."The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
Not really. They know what can happen in the lead up to a divisive election. Better to just remove them before someone gets a bug up their butt about how their candidate flag should be allowed
Well, what about the 4 presidential elections, 4 gubernatorial elections, 9 congressional elections and countless local elections since 2001? Why “now” ? It seems like whomever decided that really wasn’t thinking about how it would look to the public...
Because Trump Supporters are the most vocal of the past 19 years. They are the ones who hold boat parades, biker parades, parades of all sort to show their support. And nipping this one in the bud is a good thing.
As previously mentioned, those American flags have been there long before Trump was President."The long-standing policy of the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has been to prohibit the display of any flags, signs or banners by private parties on Turnpike Authority property. While we appreciate the desire of some New Jersey residents to express their patriotism in these turbulent times by displaying flags on turnpike and parkway overpasses, Turnpike Authority regulations do not allow it."The Turnpike Authority has removed American flags honoring 9/11 victims from various overpasses owned by the agency. This has resulted in a protest near the authority headquarters. The flags have been in place since 9/11.
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2020/09/07/rally-held-woodbridge-after-flags-removed-turnpike-bridge/5738829002/
Not really sure why the NJTA didn't leave well enough alone on that, unless there was an instance of a flag they felt was at risk of coming detached and flying down onto the roadway. Or why they could not come up with some sort of compromise on this. Maybe some sort of display at one of the service areas that are right in that area on both sides of the road. Also, one of the protesters quoted in the article cited the wrong organization (NJTPA).
That statement is true.
Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
Not really. They know what can happen in the lead up to a divisive election. Better to just remove them before someone gets a bug up their butt about how their candidate flag should be allowed
Well, what about the 4 presidential elections, 4 gubernatorial elections, 9 congressional elections and countless local elections since 2001? Why “now” ? It seems like whomever decided that really wasn’t thinking about how it would look to the public...
Because Trump Supporters are the most vocal of the past 19 years. They are the ones who hold boat parades, biker parades, parades of all sort to show their support. And nipping this one in the bud is a good thing.
Yup, but "mah freedom of speech" will be a thing brought up if they don't ban ALL flags equally.
I distinctly remember that exit being free for a time between it was marked as just Sports Complex and it being called Exit 19W, it had the EzPass gantries but it didnt charge you.
On those rotating drum signs on the Turnpike north leading into the 80-95 interchangeYup, if the road is closed they can display that.
What are the other readings on those? and have they ever displayed anything else besides the control cities for 80 and 95?
On those rotating drum signs on the Turnpike north leading into the 80-95 interchange
What are the other readings on those? and have they ever displayed anything else besides the control cities for 80 and 95?
im referring to the ones on the turnpike north, past the 18E/18W toll plaza and Vince Lombardi rest stop
one says 80 west hackensack patterson, the other one says 95 north george washington bridge fort lee
Did they ever get to removing Dover for I-80 west being Hackensack and Paterson are control points at the Express Local split?im referring to the ones on the turnpike north, past the 18E/18W toll plaza and Vince Lombardi rest stop
one says 80 west hackensack patterson, the other one says 95 north george washington bridge fort lee
I think they can be flipped to say "closed" and "all traffic" as needed, but of course, likely only during emergencies or some kind of MAJOR construction.
The NJTA passed a $2.1 Billion Budget for 2021, by far the largest in history. While traffic is expected to be lower due to COVID related reasons, revenues should be higher due to the recently passed toll increases.I would imagine the money will go to a mix of construction and design. I don't know offhand which projects would be shovel-ready.
So far in 2020, revenues are about $1.1 Billion, about $270 million less than forecasted.
Within a nj.com article (which I didn't bother linking as you need a paid subscription to read the entire thing), it stated "The biggest budget increase is the $1 billion capital budget, reflecting the toll increase that funds the first year of the authority immediate five year $5.2 billion capital improvement program. Of that, 84% would be spent on bridge reconstruction, paving and highway drainage. That is part of the authority’s longer term $24 billion 20-year capital plan."
It did not state exactly which projects will be worked on next year, and glancing at the NJTA website, there aren't any updated documents which provides any details. The pavement on several areas of the Turnpike is quite old, so good to see them working on that. There are many bridges on both highways that are 40 - 60 years old, so some significant work is needed on them as well.
Of the widenings proposed, the widening from Interchanges 1 - 4 appears to be the easiest and least controversial (except for one person on these forums), so we may see those advance fairly soon...although I would suspect most of the work will be several years away. If it's similar to the Interchange 6 - 9 widening, this project will be cut up to several contracts of several miles each.
The NJTA passed a $2.1 Billion Budget for 2021, by far the largest in history. While traffic is expected to be lower due to COVID related reasons, revenues should be higher due to the recently passed toll increases.the exits 1-4 widening is only widening njtpke from 2 to 3 lanes in this section it is stated in the capital plan that the project is broken up into 3 contracts contract 1 is interchanges 1-2 contract 2 is 2-3 and 3 is 3-4 here is a link to the capital plan its on pages 36-38 https://www.njta.com/media/5613/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/5613/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf)
So far in 2020, revenues are about $1.1 Billion, about $270 million less than forecasted.
Within a nj.com article (which I didn't bother linking as you need a paid subscription to read the entire thing), it stated "The biggest budget increase is the $1 billion capital budget, reflecting the toll increase that funds the first year of the authority immediate five year $5.2 billion capital improvement program. Of that, 84% would be spent on bridge reconstruction, paving and highway drainage. That is part of the authority’s longer term $24 billion 20-year capital plan."
It did not state exactly which projects will be worked on next year, and glancing at the NJTA website, there aren't any updated documents which provides any details. The pavement on several areas of the Turnpike is quite old, so good to see them working on that. There are many bridges on both highways that are 40 - 60 years old, so some significant work is needed on them as well.
Of the widenings proposed, the widening from Interchanges 1 - 4 appears to be the easiest and least controversial (except for one person on these forums), so we may see those advance fairly soon...although I would suspect most of the work will be several years away. If it's similar to the Interchange 6 - 9 widening, this project will be cut up to several contracts of several miles each.
The NJTA passed a $2.1 Billion Budget for 2021, by far the largest in history. While traffic is expected to be lower due to COVID related reasons, revenues should be higher due to the recently passed toll increases.the exits 1-4 widening is only widening njtpke from 2 to 3 lanes in this section it is stated in the capital plan that the project is broken up into 3 contracts contract 1 is interchanges 1-2 contract 2 is 2-3 and 3 is 3-4 here is a link to the capital plan its on pages 36-38 https://www.njta.com/media/5613/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf (https://www.njta.com/media/5613/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf)
So far in 2020, revenues are about $1.1 Billion, about $270 million less than forecasted.
Within a nj.com article (which I didn't bother linking as you need a paid subscription to read the entire thing), it stated "The biggest budget increase is the $1 billion capital budget, reflecting the toll increase that funds the first year of the authority immediate five year $5.2 billion capital improvement program. Of that, 84% would be spent on bridge reconstruction, paving and highway drainage. That is part of the authority’s longer term $24 billion 20-year capital plan."
It did not state exactly which projects will be worked on next year, and glancing at the NJTA website, there aren't any updated documents which provides any details. The pavement on several areas of the Turnpike is quite old, so good to see them working on that. There are many bridges on both highways that are 40 - 60 years old, so some significant work is needed on them as well.
Of the widenings proposed, the widening from Interchanges 1 - 4 appears to be the easiest and least controversial (except for one person on these forums), so we may see those advance fairly soon...although I would suspect most of the work will be several years away. If it's similar to the Interchange 6 - 9 widening, this project will be cut up to several contracts of several miles each.
The part of the New Jersey Turnpike that I use most-frequently is between Interchanges 1 and 6, almost always weekends and holidays, and the road can be extremely busy then.
IMO the NJTA has wisely put widening of the four-lane part of the Turnpike, which is 1 to 4, in its capital program. Yes a lot of this has to do with terrible lane discipline ("nestoring") in Lane 1 which leads to passing on the right and plenty of unsafe lane changes, but the issue is much less acute in the six-lane section between 4 and 6.
Only issue I have (and it is a minor and non-technical matter) is that the 1 to 4 section is the only part of the road that comes close to being the original New Jersey Turnpike, and that will no longer be "original" when the widening is completed.
Many bridges over the Turnpike south of Interchange 6 have been reconstructed to allow for 6 or maybe even 8 lanes (with shoulders) of Turnpike under them. Anyone know how many bridges over the Pike still require total replacement?
The part of the New Jersey Turnpike that I use most-frequently is between Interchanges 1 and 6, almost always weekends and holidays, and the road can be extremely busy then.
IMO the NJTA has wisely put widening of the four-lane part of the Turnpike, which is 1 to 4, in its capital program. Yes a lot of this has to do with terrible lane discipline ("nestoring") in Lane 1 which leads to passing on the right and plenty of unsafe lane changes, but the issue is much less acute in the six-lane section between 4 and 6.
Only issue I have (and it is a minor and non-technical matter) is that the 1 to 4 section is the only part of the road that comes close to being the original New Jersey Turnpike, and that will no longer be "original" when the widening is completed.
Many bridges over the Turnpike south of Interchange 6 have been reconstructed to allow for 6 or maybe even 8 lanes (with shoulders) of Turnpike under them. Anyone know how many bridges over the Pike still require total replacement?
All of these issues are on the Authority's radar. They're aware of what every inch of their system looks like.The part of the New Jersey Turnpike that I use most-frequently is between Interchanges 1 and 6, almost always weekends and holidays, and the road can be extremely busy then.
IMO the NJTA has wisely put widening of the four-lane part of the Turnpike, which is 1 to 4, in its capital program. Yes a lot of this has to do with terrible lane discipline ("nestoring") in Lane 1 which leads to passing on the right and plenty of unsafe lane changes, but the issue is much less acute in the six-lane section between 4 and 6.
Only issue I have (and it is a minor and non-technical matter) is that the 1 to 4 section is the only part of the road that comes close to being the original New Jersey Turnpike, and that will no longer be "original" when the widening is completed.
Many bridges over the Turnpike south of Interchange 6 have been reconstructed to allow for 6 or maybe even 8 lanes (with shoulders) of Turnpike under them. Anyone know how many bridges over the Pike still require total replacement?
That is my biggest gripe, I feel the 1-4 section feels a little scenic, like a poor man's Merrit Parkway, which I feel will be lost.
I also think at least between exit 1-2, it is not necessary.
As well, exit 4-6 4 lanes is more pressing as is fixing it around MM 100 where there is no shoulder.
By my unofficial count (so, like the polls, factor in a 4% margin of error),By my unofficial count (so, like the polls, factor in a 4% margin of error),
From the Interchange 1 toll plaza to and including Interchange 2:
12 Overpasses, 5 underpasses
From north of Int. 2 to and including Int. 3:
18 overpasses, 8 underpasses
From north of Int. 3 to and including Int. 4:
9 overpasses, 4 underpasses
Total: 39 overpasses, 17 underpasses
Of those, about 8 overpasses have already been replaced and widened for 3 lanes. 1 or 2 overpasses are scheduled for replacement soon, and 2 underpasses are already wide enough for 3 lanes.
That will leave about 29 overpasses and 15 underpasses that still need to be widened.
In addition, there's bridges between the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the Interchange 1 toll plaza (I'm not sure what the plans will be for this area). If they widen this entire area as well, there are:
4 overpasses, 3 of which will need to be widened, and 2 underpasses, both of which need to be widened.
In addition, there's bridges between the Delaware Memorial Bridge to the Interchange 1 toll plaza (I'm not sure what the plans will be for this area). If they widen this entire area as well, there are:
4 overpasses, 3 of which will need to be widened, and 2 underpasses, both of which need to be widened.
So the widening from the southern terminus up to Exit 4 is a much a bridge replacement project (and I suppose maybe a bridge widening project for the structures that carry the Turnpike over other roads and bodies of water) as it is a Turnpike widening project. Since those bridges are presumably around 70 years old, it probably make sense to replace them at this point.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike has replaced dozens of bridge over its roads over the past 20 or 25 years, so it makes sense that NJTA would do the same.
So the widening from the southern terminus up to Exit 4 is a much a bridge replacement project (and I suppose maybe a bridge widening project for the structures that carry the Turnpike over other roads and bodies of water) as it is a Turnpike widening project. Since those bridges are presumably around 70 years old, it probably make sense to replace them at this point.
The Pennsylvania Turnpike has replaced dozens of bridge over its roads over the past 20 or 25 years, so it makes sense that NJTA would do the same.
And, consider this: Of the original overpasses for the Turnpike from Int. 1 to Int. 4, in the 70 year time span, only ONE has been replaced for a road widening project! That'll be the NJ 42 overpass, replaced around 1995-1999, when Rt. 42 was widened. The other overpasses reconstructed were due to age (although all the overpasses in this stretch were built around the same time), but were built to accommodate an eventual 3rd lane on the Turnpike.
Posted before, the Kresson Road bridge over the turnpike in Cherry Hill is currently being replaced/widened. The Route 45 bridge in West Deptford and Route 73 bridge in Mount Laurel have been replaced some years ago. It would make sense for many of these overpasses to be replaced in the near future as they have aged significantly. The Church Road overpass in Mount Laurel in the vicinity of exit 4 should be next on the list since this bridge sees heavy traffic daily.
Given the large number of bridges to be replaced (I am speaking of the ones over the Turnpike, not under), I wonder if NJTA is going to consider any innovative approaches, such as having bridge superstructures and decks prefabricated elsewhere and transported to the construction site for a fast installation?
Posted before, the Kresson Road bridge over the turnpike in Cherry Hill is currently being replaced/widened. The Route 45 bridge in West Deptford and Route 73 bridge in Mount Laurel have been replaced some years ago. It would make sense for many of these overpasses to be replaced in the near future as they have aged significantly. The Church Road overpass in Mount Laurel in the vicinity of exit 4 should be next on the list since this bridge sees heavy traffic daily.
The NJ 45 overpass started intriguing me because Rt. 45 was only one lane each direction when the Turnpike was built. It appears around 1970-73, the Southbound overpass was built, and the existing bridge became the NB side. That entire structure was replaced and lengthened roughly around 2005.
As far as Church Road goes, heavy use has relatively little impact on when the overpass would need to be replaced. The NJ 70 overpass is 8 lanes wide and sees multiple times more traffic than the 2 lane Church Road overpass, which based on traffic volumes would be replaced before Church Rd.Given the large number of bridges to be replaced (I am speaking of the ones over the Turnpike, not under), I wonder if NJTA is going to consider any innovative approaches, such as having bridge superstructures and decks prefabricated elsewhere and transported to the construction site for a fast installation?
If standard NJTA construction methods continue, including as we saw on the Turnpike 6-9 and the GSP 36-80 widenings, they will go with conventional methods.
For wider overpasses, they'll close a few lanes, shift traffic and widen sections at a time.
For busier 2 lane overpasses, they tend to build a new overpass directly next to the old overpass, and use a fairly discreet shift in the local roadway to the new overpass. The new overpass will often have the same number of lanes as the old overpass, as it's rare that an overpass will be widened, unless NJDOT or the county has plans to widen the rest of the roadway in the vicinity of the overpass.
On lesser used overpasses, the NJTA will do the above, or just close the local roadway and replace the bridge on its current footprint.
arent there already 12ft shoulders on this section or are they adding the the leftPosted before, the Kresson Road bridge over the turnpike in Cherry Hill is currently being replaced/widened. The Route 45 bridge in West Deptford and Route 73 bridge in Mount Laurel have been replaced some years ago. It would make sense for many of these overpasses to be replaced in the near future as they have aged significantly. The Church Road overpass in Mount Laurel in the vicinity of exit 4 should be next on the list since this bridge sees heavy traffic daily.
The NJ 45 overpass started intriguing me because Rt. 45 was only one lane each direction when the Turnpike was built. It appears around 1970-73, the Southbound overpass was built, and the existing bridge became the NB side. That entire structure was replaced and lengthened roughly around 2005.
As far as Church Road goes, heavy use has relatively little impact on when the overpass would need to be replaced. The NJ 70 overpass is 8 lanes wide and sees multiple times more traffic than the 2 lane Church Road overpass, which based on traffic volumes would be replaced before Church Rd.Given the large number of bridges to be replaced (I am speaking of the ones over the Turnpike, not under), I wonder if NJTA is going to consider any innovative approaches, such as having bridge superstructures and decks prefabricated elsewhere and transported to the construction site for a fast installation?
If standard NJTA construction methods continue, including as we saw on the Turnpike 6-9 and the GSP 36-80 widenings, they will go with conventional methods.
For wider overpasses, they'll close a few lanes, shift traffic and widen sections at a time.
For busier 2 lane overpasses, they tend to build a new overpass directly next to the old overpass, and use a fairly discreet shift in the local roadway to the new overpass. The new overpass will often have the same number of lanes as the old overpass, as it's rare that an overpass will be widened, unless NJDOT or the county has plans to widen the rest of the roadway in the vicinity of the overpass.
On lesser used overpasses, the NJTA will do the above, or just close the local roadway and replace the bridge on its current footprint.
While they aren't widening most overpasses, I did notice there are safety shoulders on most if not all of the new overpasses in the 6-9 section which were not present previously, IIRC.
Sorry, I should've clarified. I meant overpasses over the turnpike. Many had no safety shoulders prior to the 6-9 widening.arent there already 12ft shoulders on this section or are they adding the the leftPosted before, the Kresson Road bridge over the turnpike in Cherry Hill is currently being replaced/widened. The Route 45 bridge in West Deptford and Route 73 bridge in Mount Laurel have been replaced some years ago. It would make sense for many of these overpasses to be replaced in the near future as they have aged significantly. The Church Road overpass in Mount Laurel in the vicinity of exit 4 should be next on the list since this bridge sees heavy traffic daily.
The NJ 45 overpass started intriguing me because Rt. 45 was only one lane each direction when the Turnpike was built. It appears around 1970-73, the Southbound overpass was built, and the existing bridge became the NB side. That entire structure was replaced and lengthened roughly around 2005.
As far as Church Road goes, heavy use has relatively little impact on when the overpass would need to be replaced. The NJ 70 overpass is 8 lanes wide and sees multiple times more traffic than the 2 lane Church Road overpass, which based on traffic volumes would be replaced before Church Rd.Given the large number of bridges to be replaced (I am speaking of the ones over the Turnpike, not under), I wonder if NJTA is going to consider any innovative approaches, such as having bridge superstructures and decks prefabricated elsewhere and transported to the construction site for a fast installation?
If standard NJTA construction methods continue, including as we saw on the Turnpike 6-9 and the GSP 36-80 widenings, they will go with conventional methods.
For wider overpasses, they'll close a few lanes, shift traffic and widen sections at a time.
For busier 2 lane overpasses, they tend to build a new overpass directly next to the old overpass, and use a fairly discreet shift in the local roadway to the new overpass. The new overpass will often have the same number of lanes as the old overpass, as it's rare that an overpass will be widened, unless NJDOT or the county has plans to widen the rest of the roadway in the vicinity of the overpass.
On lesser used overpasses, the NJTA will do the above, or just close the local roadway and replace the bridge on its current footprint.
While they aren't widening most overpasses, I did notice there are safety shoulders on most if not all of the new overpasses in the 6-9 section which were not present previously, IIRC.
now i havent seen any thing on the north end of the tpke why dont they extend the truck lanes to the gwbGiven that trucks are now banned from the lower level, it could make a sort of sense to do so (though then you'd tie the truck lanes directly to the upper level instead of the lower), but that would probably be environmentally prohibitive in the Meadowlands.
arent there already 12ft shoulders on this section or are they adding the the leftGiven the large number of bridges to be replaced (I am speaking of the ones over the Turnpike, not under), I wonder if NJTA is going to consider any innovative approaches, such as having bridge superstructures and decks prefabricated elsewhere and transported to the construction site for a fast installation?
While they aren't widening most overpasses, I did notice there are safety shoulders on most if not all of the new overpasses in the 6-9 section which were not present previously, IIRC.
now i havent seen any thing on the north end of the tpke why dont they extend the truck lanes to the gwb
Between the Turnpike's Vince Lombardi Service Plaza and the GWB, they would need to figure out the whole roadway situation as it's currently set up for an Express/Local figuration that wouldn't work too well with how the rest of the 6 - 14 Car/Truck roadway configuration works, along with the GWB Truck restrictions.
Between the Turnpike's Vince Lombardi Service Plaza and the GWB, they would need to figure out the whole roadway situation as it's currently set up for an Express/Local figuration that wouldn't work too well with how the rest of the 6 - 14 Car/Truck roadway configuration works, along with the GWB Truck restrictions.
Lombardi Service Plaza to the I-80 junction is NOT Express/Local. Rather, it and the Turnpike south of it to Newark Airport is designed to keep the two dominant traffic flows at the north end separated. Those two flows are Newark Airport - West Spur - GWB and Lincoln Tunnel - East Spur - I-80. Look carefully at the roadways between the Lombardi Service Plaza and I-80 and you'll see that traffic from the West Spur to the GWB and from the East Spur to I-80 (and vice versa) do not share any roadway.
I-95 between I-80 and the GWB is Express/Local but both are reached from the same Turnpike roadway. Heading north, you choose whether you're going on I-95 to the GWB or on I-80 at the east spur/west spur merge after the service plaza and before US 46. After that, you are committed.
oh yes i completely agree just it would be worth constructing considering this section is fu**ed at all hours of the dayBetween the Turnpike's Vince Lombardi Service Plaza and the GWB, they would need to figure out the whole roadway situation as it's currently set up for an Express/Local figuration that wouldn't work too well with how the rest of the 6 - 14 Car/Truck roadway configuration works, along with the GWB Truck restrictions.
Lombardi Service Plaza to the I-80 junction is NOT Express/Local. Rather, it and the Turnpike south of it to Newark Airport is designed to keep the two dominant traffic flows at the north end separated. Those two flows are Newark Airport - West Spur - GWB and Lincoln Tunnel - East Spur - I-80. Look carefully at the roadways between the Lombardi Service Plaza and I-80 and you'll see that traffic from the West Spur to the GWB and from the East Spur to I-80 (and vice versa) do not share any roadway.
I-95 between I-80 and the GWB is Express/Local but both are reached from the same Turnpike roadway. Heading north, you choose whether you're going on I-95 to the GWB or on I-80 at the east spur/west spur merge after the service plaza and before US 46. After that, you are committed.
Points taken.
Overall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
Points taken.
Overall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
Between the Turnpike's Vince Lombardi Service Plaza and the GWB, they would need to figure out the whole roadway situation as it's currently set up for an Express/Local figuration that wouldn't work too well with how the rest of the 6 - 14 Car/Truck roadway configuration works, along with the GWB Truck restrictions.
Lombardi Service Plaza to the I-80 junction is NOT Express/Local. Rather, it and the Turnpike south of it to Newark Airport is designed to keep the two dominant traffic flows at the north end separated. Those two flows are Newark Airport - West Spur - GWB and Lincoln Tunnel - East Spur - I-80. Look carefully at the roadways between the Lombardi Service Plaza and I-80 and you'll see that traffic from the West Spur to the GWB and from the East Spur to I-80 (and vice versa) do not share any roadway.
I-95 between I-80 and the GWB is Express/Local but both are reached from the same Turnpike roadway. Heading north, you choose whether you're going on I-95 to the GWB or on I-80 at the east spur/west spur merge after the service plaza and before US 46. After that, you are committed.
Points taken.
Overall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
Between the Turnpike's Vince Lombardi Service Plaza and the GWB, they would need to figure out the whole roadway situation as it's currently set up for an Express/Local figuration that wouldn't work too well with how the rest of the 6 - 14 Car/Truck roadway configuration works, along with the GWB Truck restrictions.
Lombardi Service Plaza to the I-80 junction is NOT Express/Local. Rather, it and the Turnpike south of it to Newark Airport is designed to keep the two dominant traffic flows at the north end separated. Those two flows are Newark Airport - West Spur - GWB and Lincoln Tunnel - East Spur - I-80. Look carefully at the roadways between the Lombardi Service Plaza and I-80 and you'll see that traffic from the West Spur to the GWB and from the East Spur to I-80 (and vice versa) do not share any roadway.
I-95 between I-80 and the GWB is Express/Local but both are reached from the same Turnpike roadway. Heading north, you choose whether you're going on I-95 to the GWB or on I-80 at the east spur/west spur merge after the service plaza and before US 46. After that, you are committed.
Points taken.
Overall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
I do remember talk at one time adding truck lanes on the Western Spur to Exit 16W along with another proposed interchange to connect to the never built Route 17 extension to I-280 was reported in the Star Ledger.
So it might of been studied.
I would like to know why the western spur is only four lanes north of 16W. Yet the other spur is six lanes with a smaller traffic count than its counterpart. Should also be six lanes.
I compleetely agree but on both sides of the gwb there is alot of weaving one place is over the alex ham bridge ik its not jersey tpke realated and on the jersey side its badPoints taken.
Thanks. I don't think the Turnpike gets enough credit regarding the north end configuration and the thought that went into it. Most of the general public doesn't even realize that the major flows are kept separated and that there is actually a good reason the Turnpike normally advises GWB traffic use the west spur.QuoteOverall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
I agree, the current arrangement does not lend itself to car/truck. Couple that with the Express being upper deck and Local being lower deck (except for the crossover for those vehicles that must go to the upper deck) and it's a mess. Multiple goals and it can't do everything without more roadways.
I live in the Chicago area now so am rarely there but from growing up in NJ, have always known lower deck requires being in the local lanes after I-80. One year, I was coming up on the express/local split intending to go to the express lanes and upper deck when about five seconds from being committed, heard a traffic report mentioning a crash on the upper deck. Immediate hard right (safely) to the local lanes!
I compleetely agree but on both sides of the gwb there is alot of weaving one place is over the alex ham bridge ik its not jersey tpke realated and on the jersey side its badPoints taken.
Thanks. I don't think the Turnpike gets enough credit regarding the north end configuration and the thought that went into it. Most of the general public doesn't even realize that the major flows are kept separated and that there is actually a good reason the Turnpike normally advises GWB traffic use the west spur.QuoteOverall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
I agree, the current arrangement does not lend itself to car/truck. Couple that with the Express being upper deck and Local being lower deck (except for the crossover for those vehicles that must go to the upper deck) and it's a mess. Multiple goals and it can't do everything without more roadways.
I live in the Chicago area now so am rarely there but from growing up in NJ, have always known lower deck requires being in the local lanes after I-80. One year, I was coming up on the express/local split intending to go to the express lanes and upper deck when about five seconds from being committed, heard a traffic report mentioning a crash on the upper deck. Immediate hard right (safely) to the local lanes!
The NJ Turnpike does address that particular weaving issue though. Guide signs for I-87 and the Deegan Expressway are directed to use local lanes to the lower level.
I compleetely agree but on both sides of the gwb there is alot of weaving one place is over the alex ham bridge ik its not jersey tpke realated and on the jersey side its badPoints taken.
Thanks. I don't think the Turnpike gets enough credit regarding the north end configuration and the thought that went into it. Most of the general public doesn't even realize that the major flows are kept separated and that there is actually a good reason the Turnpike normally advises GWB traffic use the west spur.QuoteOverall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
I agree, the current arrangement does not lend itself to car/truck. Couple that with the Express being upper deck and Local being lower deck (except for the crossover for those vehicles that must go to the upper deck) and it's a mess. Multiple goals and it can't do everything without more roadways.
I live in the Chicago area now so am rarely there but from growing up in NJ, have always known lower deck requires being in the local lanes after I-80. One year, I was coming up on the express/local split intending to go to the express lanes and upper deck when about five seconds from being committed, heard a traffic report mentioning a crash on the upper deck. Immediate hard right (safely) to the local lanes!
The NJ Turnpike does address that particular weaving issue though. Guide signs for I-87 and the Deegan Expressway are directed to use local lanes to the lower level.
ik this from personal expierience i am a truck driver my self and having to shoot across almost 4 lanes of traffic like a j**k*ss and every time i go over this bridge i have guys flipping me off screaming and cursing at me i had a guy cut me off one time and i hit the air horns and the jumped out of his car trying to pick a fight with me and i hopped out and lets just say he said oh my bad have a good day man lmaoI compleetely agree but on both sides of the gwb there is alot of weaving one place is over the alex ham bridge ik its not jersey tpke realated and on the jersey side its badPoints taken.
Thanks. I don't think the Turnpike gets enough credit regarding the north end configuration and the thought that went into it. Most of the general public doesn't even realize that the major flows are kept separated and that there is actually a good reason the Turnpike normally advises GWB traffic use the west spur.QuoteOverall though, the current setup doesn't lend itself to a good way to do a Car/Truck roadway division without some serious modifications.
I agree, the current arrangement does not lend itself to car/truck. Couple that with the Express being upper deck and Local being lower deck (except for the crossover for those vehicles that must go to the upper deck) and it's a mess. Multiple goals and it can't do everything without more roadways.
I live in the Chicago area now so am rarely there but from growing up in NJ, have always known lower deck requires being in the local lanes after I-80. One year, I was coming up on the express/local split intending to go to the express lanes and upper deck when about five seconds from being committed, heard a traffic report mentioning a crash on the upper deck. Immediate hard right (safely) to the local lanes!
The NJ Turnpike does address that particular weaving issue though. Guide signs for I-87 and the Deegan Expressway are directed to use local lanes to the lower level.
That's fine... unless you are a truck.
^^^^I know lol i was in a rush to do something lol
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Punctuation is your friend!
It happens to all of us.^^^^I know lol i was in a rush to do something lol
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Punctuation is your friend!
They really do need to update the signage on the SB NJTP.
There is just ONE Philadelphia sign and that is at Exit 6.
Having Trenton/Camden as the control cities is really absurd for so many reasons.
The stretch from Exit 6 to Exit 9 should have a speed limit set to 75 in the car lane.
The stretch from Exit 6 to Exit 9 should have a speed limit set to 75 in the car lane.
^
If the speed limit is ever increased beyond 65 mph, it should apply for both trucks and cars. There’s no need for split limits.
I agree the speed limit should be 70 mph, if not greater, but that would be more realistic staying aligned with nearby states.
^
If the speed limit is ever increased beyond 65 mph, it should apply for both trucks and cars. There’s no need for split limits.
I agree the speed limit should be 70 mph, if not greater, but that would be more realistic staying aligned with nearby states.
Except NY and DE are 65, so it already is aligned with the 2 of 3 states it borders. And PA roads near NJ max out at 65, and often are lower.
...except for the PA Turnpike, which is 70 MPH over the majority of the highway and connects directly to the NJ Turnpike.^Except NY and DE are 65, so it already is aligned with the 2 of 3 states it borders. And PA roads near NJ max out at 65, and often are lower.
If the speed limit is ever increased beyond 65 mph, it should apply for both trucks and cars. There’s no need for split limits.
I agree the speed limit should be 70 mph, if not greater, but that would be more realistic staying aligned with nearby states.
...except for the PA Turnpike, which is 70 MPH over the majority of the highway and connects directly to the NJ Turnpike.^Except NY and DE are 65, so it already is aligned with the 2 of 3 states it borders. And PA roads near NJ max out at 65, and often are lower.
If the speed limit is ever increased beyond 65 mph, it should apply for both trucks and cars. There’s no need for split limits.
I agree the speed limit should be 70 mph, if not greater, but that would be more realistic staying aligned with nearby states.
Was on the Turnpike 2 weeks ago, travelling between 14 - GWB. Stuff I noticed:
-I discovered the free turnaround there. Kinda wonder why they make it possible, probably because it's in the center and they have to serve both directions.
-Also, any reason why there's a park and ride in the plaza? No reason why you'd use it when you could take a bus or train from nearby Secaucus.
-Wonder why the I-80 split for I-95 NB starts early, preventing access to US 46. Is it because there would be a weaving problem if the 46 and 80 exits are close together?
...except for the PA Turnpike, which is 70 MPH over the majority of the highway and connects directly to the NJ Turnpike.^Except NY and DE are 65, so it already is aligned with the 2 of 3 states it borders. And PA roads near NJ max out at 65, and often are lower.
If the speed limit is ever increased beyond 65 mph, it should apply for both trucks and cars. There’s no need for split limits.
I agree the speed limit should be 70 mph, if not greater, but that would be more realistic staying aligned with nearby states.
While the PA Turnpike is 70 mph, that's only true west of the US 1 Interchange. East of the Interchange, it's 55 mph. If motorists only use I-95, its fully 55 in PA, and those motorists would never see the 70 limit. The NJ Turnpike Extension is 65 mph. Since were talking about alignment of speed limits, NJ is the faster highway than what one encounters near the NJ/PA border for several miles in PA. It would make more sense for PA to raise their 55 limit to 65 to align with NJ.
(And I'm ignoring the bridge speed limit, which i believe is only 50 mph)
Was on the Turnpike 2 weeks ago, travelling between 14 - GWB. Stuff I noticed:
-Vince Lombardi plaza got a facelift. No longer feels and smells like a 1970s basement.
-I discovered the free turnaround there. Kinda wonder why they make it possible, probably because it's in the center and they have to serve both directions.
-Also, any reason why there's a park and ride in the plaza? No reason why you'd use it when you could take a bus or train from nearby Secaucus.
-Wonder why the I-80 split for I-95 NB starts early, preventing access to US 46. Is it because there would be a weaving problem if the 46 and 80 exits are close together?
Was on the Turnpike 2 weeks ago, travelling between 14 - GWB. Stuff I noticed:
-Vince Lombardi plaza got a facelift. No longer feels and smells like a 1970s basement.
-I discovered the free turnaround there. Kinda wonder why they make it possible, probably because it's in the center and they have to serve both directions.
-Also, any reason why there's a park and ride in the plaza? No reason why you'd use it when you could take a bus or train from nearby Secaucus.
-Wonder why the I-80 split for I-95 NB starts early, preventing access to US 46. Is it because there would be a weaving problem if the 46 and 80 exits are close together?
On Tuesday, Turnpike Authority commissioners approved new contacts covering toll collectors and two other unions, this time without any predictions about when the last cash toll would be handed to a person.
Judging by today's roadwaywiz live drive, it looks like I-95 is now pervasively signed on the northbound pull-through signs. Finally - it's about time!Also southbound, except at 8A.
If NJTA goes to AET, are the tolling stations going to be then on the mainline in between each interchange charging only for travel between each exit gap?
Seems to have the same effect as each ramp as FL 23 in Jacksonville uses that particular way to charge you by traveling between all exit ramps to make it all fair.
One reason to avoid mainline toll gantries is what happened with MD 200. It had some mainline closures due to upgrades to the electronic tolling equipment.If NJTA goes to AET, are the tolling stations going to be then on the mainline in between each interchange charging only for travel between each exit gap?
Seems to have the same effect as each ramp as FL 23 in Jacksonville uses that particular way to charge you by traveling between all exit ramps to make it all fair.
I cannot speak to what the NJTA has planned for the Turnpike and the Parkway, but I do know that toll roads designed from the ground up to be all-electronic toll collection (407 ETR and MD-200 and others) charge all traffic, and there are few or no "free" sections. 407 ETR does it with gantries across the entrance and exit ramps for the most part (there are mainline gantries near terminii). MD-200 has a gantry between each interchange.
The NJTP doesn't have to change gantry configurations as its already a closed ticket system.
The NJTP doesn't have to change gantry configurations as its already a closed ticket system.
But the Mass Pike was also a closed system (west of Route 128) but they decided to go with all mainline gantries. So never think that a toll road will do what's logical.
For the NJ Turnpike, it would make sense for them to leave the AET locations at the toll plazas. The infrastructure is already there, and the only significant modifications are to knocking down the existing toll plazas, building free-standing gantries across the roadway and closing off open medians.
Buildings in the middle of the highway, such as at Interchanges 1 and 16E/18E, may even remain and can be used as substations.
I don't think gantries across the roadway is a deal-breaker though. While the road is heavily travelled, it's much more lightly travelled overnight. If they can manage to rebuild miles of roadway due to widening projects and replace scores of VMSs every 3 miles, they can close occasionally lanes or sections if necessary to replace equipment once in a great while without much issue. From Exits 1 - 7, it's easy to detour traffic to 295, which is done relatively often in the case of serious accidents or maintenance issues. From Exit 6 - 14, it's even easier to do so because of the dual-dual roadway.
The GS Parkway is interesting though. When someone can go from Atlantic City to LBI and never pay a toll, that's undoubtfully something that would be on the NJTA's mind to rectify. I've been outspoken in the lack of need to do two-way tolling on 95 and the CBB in Maryland because there's very few alternatives that motorists would travel significant distances for to avoid a toll. Some areas of the Parkway are different, where one can easily exit or enter at a location just a few miles away to avoid a toll. However, I don't see them going full mainline gantry or full ramp gantry, because there are so many entry/exit points on the highway. I would see them maintaining a hybrid approach to their system, but filling in some gaps with one-way tolling, or maybe go two-way tolling where only one-way tolling exists now.
The GS Parkway is interesting though. When someone can go from Atlantic City to LBI and never pay a toll, that's undoubtfully something that would be on the NJTA's mind to rectify. I've been outspoken in the lack of need to do two-way tolling on 95 and the CBB in Maryland because there's very few alternatives that motorists would travel significant distances for to avoid a toll. Some areas of the Parkway are different, where one can easily exit or enter at a location just a few miles away to avoid a toll. However, I don't see them going full mainline gantry or full ramp gantry, because there are so many entry/exit points on the highway. I would see them maintaining a hybrid approach to their system, but filling in some gaps with one-way tolling, or maybe go two-way tolling where only one-way tolling exists now.
In case of restoring two way tolling on the GSP, look at the Verrazano Bridge. They went back, but with the Great Egg Bridge, they can keep it two ways due to no other free way around it all in the area. The Beesly Point Bridge is history and the Ocean City toll bridge is tolled as well and most likely the same way of travel.
But then there are the mysteries. Why is there no toll after US 9 leaves after the Mullica River Bridge all the way to just beyond Atlantic City? And why, for the southern nine miles, do you pay a ramp toll if you go between 0 and 4 but nothing else for any travel between the 0 and the start of the old NJDOT section at MP 9?
The GS Parkway is interesting though. When someone can go from Atlantic City to LBI and never pay a toll, that's undoubtfully something that would be on the NJTA's mind to rectify. I've been outspoken in the lack of need to do two-way tolling on 95 and the CBB in Maryland because there's very few alternatives that motorists would travel significant distances for to avoid a toll. Some areas of the Parkway are different, where one can easily exit or enter at a location just a few miles away to avoid a toll. However, I don't see them going full mainline gantry or full ramp gantry, because there are so many entry/exit points on the highway. I would see them maintaining a hybrid approach to their system, but filling in some gaps with one-way tolling, or maybe go two-way tolling where only one-way tolling exists now.
I've always found the free sections of the GSP to be interesting. Some I understood well, some I think I know why they're there, and others make no sense.
There are, as I think most people know, the pre-existing sections of road that were incorporated into the GSP and, at least back in the 1970's when I had a summer job with NJDOT, were maintaining by NJDOT rather than the GSP. Those are Exits/MPs 9 to 12, 80 to 83, and 129 to 140. I suspect the bridge over the Mullica River is free because US 9 was rerouted over it. And I suspect there are some free possibilities using ramps because the Parkway decided it just wasn't worth the cost of installing toll collection equipment for lightly used exits.
But then there are the mysteries. Why is there no toll after US 9 leaves after the Mullica River Bridge all the way to just beyond Atlantic City? And why, for the southern nine miles, do you pay a ramp toll if you go between 0 and 4 but nothing else for any travel between the 0 and the start of the old NJDOT section at MP 9?
But then there are the mysteries. Why is there no toll after US 9 leaves after the Mullica River Bridge all the way to just beyond Atlantic City? And why, for the southern nine miles, do you pay a ramp toll if you go between 0 and 4 but nothing else for any travel between the 0 and the start of the old NJDOT section at MP 9?
Starting from Cape May, you can make it up to Exit 13 (Stone Harbor/Avalon) without paying a toll, and technically Sea Isle City at Exit 17 if you make the u-turn at the service plaza in the median. Going South, you can go all the way from Interchange 25 to Cape May without paying a toll, and all exits are free.
Some can be explained when they did away with the two way tolling just north of Sea Isle. I guess they estimated enough people wouldn't bother taking 55 and 47 - which is the only other significant way of travel for those that frequent the Cape May County area from the Philly area, to worry about tolling both ways.
The tolls at Exit 4 were always a head scratcher. US 9 is such an easy detour; yet NJDOT never had to widen or otherwise increase throughput on US 9 to accommodate people who would rather travel free than pay the toll.
Was it? I thought I-95 was meant to be routed along I-287 to Port Chester.
Something like this?Was it? I thought I-95 was meant to be routed along I-287 to Port Chester.
That was never the plan. An older plan had an alignment somewhere between the turnpike and parkway once, but that was discarded early on. Then it was the turnpike to 287 to Somerset Freeway.
I wonder if when the Turnpike goes all AET they will build proper freeway to freeway interchanges with I-195, I-287, the Parkway, etc. The exit 10 almost circle is probably the most embarrassing, especially since it was going to be the thru movement for I-95 had the Somerset Freeway not been cancelled.
No, here it is (I took this from the Somerset Freeway DEIS and enhanced it a little)Something like this?Was it? I thought I-95 was meant to be routed along I-287 to Port Chester.
That was never the plan. An older plan had an alignment somewhere between the turnpike and parkway once, but that was discarded early on. Then it was the turnpike to 287 to Somerset Freeway.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Philadelphia/New+York/@40.3261735,-74.9518389,8.7z/data=!4m24!4m23!1m15!1m1!1s0x89c6b7d8d4b54beb:0x89f514d88c3e58c1!2m2!1d-75.1652215!2d39.9525839!3m4!1m2!1d-74.6320252!2d40.5158258!3s0x89c3ea4e58756465:0xdb3a0770de7d308e!3m4!1m2!1d-74.4063391!2d40.5495974!3s0x89c3b81d993f5a61:0x79622782b94fa15e!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!3e0 (Obviously the route isn't exactly right because the freeway hasn't been built)
Yep, looks like "THRU TRAFFIC" is gone. I'll need to find an excuse to take a trip down in that direction some time in the spring when the pandemic situation is (hopefully) better and get some new pictures.Judging by today's roadwaywiz live drive, it looks like I-95 is now pervasively signed on the northbound pull-through signs. Finally - it's about time!Also southbound, except at 8A.
Yep, looks like "THRU TRAFFIC" is gone. I'll need to find an excuse to take a trip down in that direction some time in the spring when the pandemic situation is (hopefully) better and get some new pictures.Judging by today's roadwaywiz live drive, it looks like I-95 is now pervasively signed on the northbound pull-through signs. Finally - it's about time!Also southbound, except at 8A.
I wonder if when the Turnpike goes all AET they will build proper freeway to freeway interchanges with I-195, I-287, the Parkway, etc. The exit 10 almost circle is probably the most embarrassing, especially since it was going to be the thru movement for I-95 had the Somerset Freeway not been cancelled.
Nope, as none of the above was included in the overall capital plan. And especially at 287 & the GSP, there's no real room to do it anyway.
Yep, looks like "THRU TRAFFIC" is gone. I'll need to find an excuse to take a trip down in that direction some time in the spring when the pandemic situation is (hopefully) better and get some new pictures.Judging by today's roadwaywiz live drive, it looks like I-95 is now pervasively signed on the northbound pull-through signs. Finally - it's about time!Also southbound, except at 8A.
The pandemic hasn't stopped me all year. I visited NJ in April, and I roamed NJ and MD like a mad man starting in May. Kept up til mid November, mainly stopping because I prefer my road pictures to have more colors than just gray and brown in the background. But I'll be visiting NJ monthly just like always all winter, pandemic and travel restrictions be damned.
I'm not sure if this is an NJDOT or NJTA install, but its possibly the only sign with both PATP and NJTP trailblazers. Now if only they'd put a sign like this on the mainline instead of just here on 130...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2020-07-23_17_39_59_View_north_along_U.S._Route_130_%28Burlington-Bordentown_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike_%28TO_Pennsylvania_Turnpike%29_in_Florence_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
I know that. I've taken several pictures of those. These are mine from last summer, though they weren't the first I took:I'm not sure if this is an NJDOT or NJTA install, but its possibly the only sign with both PATP and NJTP trailblazers. Now if only they'd put a sign like this on the mainline instead of just here on 130...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2020-07-23_17_39_59_View_north_along_U.S._Route_130_%28Burlington-Bordentown_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike_%28TO_Pennsylvania_Turnpike%29_in_Florence_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
I believe that's a NJ Tpk install.
Penn Turnpike is written out instead on the Turnpike. https://goo.gl/maps/Tq6nRoSf814Jsdgv9 I imagine this was done here just for brevity's sake. It's not really a recognizable shield for the PA Turnpike.
NJ's road agencies seem very conservative in using a neighboring state's trailblazers. Witness the GSP and I-287 not having any NY Thurway shields posted.
Yes, those signs are from NYTA. Note the NY-17 shield.
Although they're NYSTA installs, they're on NJDOT property and that would be why they haven't been changed.NJ's road agencies seem very conservative in using a neighboring state's trailblazers. Witness the GSP and I-287 not having any NY Thurway shields posted.
Except for these, but I'm guessing these were NYSTA installs...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/2020-09-08_14_33_34_View_north_along_Interstate_287_and_New_Jersey_State_Route_17_approaching_the_New_York_State_Thruway_in_Mahwah_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/2020-09-08_14_35_47_View_north_along_Interstate_287_and_New_Jersey_State_Route_17_just_south_of_the_New_York_State_Thruway_in_Mahwah_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Interestingly, at least as of September when I took these two photos, they had not replaced them with "Governor Mario Cuomo Bridge" as they did with the final one...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1150893,-74.1613275,3a,75y,12.68h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK4xhAGZHFV8itAJt42-tlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?
Technically it just says "287", not centered under the "South". I think he's going for the lane stipples - this is no longer a split. Left two lanes go north, right lane adds a 4th lane and goes east.There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?
I-287 South?
I'm not sure if this is an NJDOT or NJTA install, but its possibly the only sign with both PATP and NJTP trailblazers. Now if only they'd put a sign like this on the mainline instead of just here on 130...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2020-07-23_17_39_59_View_north_along_U.S._Route_130_%28Burlington-Bordentown_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike_%28TO_Pennsylvania_Turnpike%29_in_Florence_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
I believe that's a NJ Tpk install.
Penn Turnpike is written out instead on the Turnpike. https://goo.gl/maps/Tq6nRoSf814Jsdgv9 I imagine this was done here just for brevity's sake. It's not really a recognizable shield for the PA Turnpike.
I'm not sure if this is an NJDOT or NJTA install, but its possibly the only sign with both PATP and NJTP trailblazers. Now if only they'd put a sign like this on the mainline instead of just here on 130...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2020-07-23_17_39_59_View_north_along_U.S._Route_130_%28Burlington-Bordentown_Road%29_at_the_exit_for_Interstate_95-New_Jersey_Turnpike_%28TO_Pennsylvania_Turnpike%29_in_Florence_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
I believe that's a NJ Tpk install.
Penn Turnpike is written out instead on the Turnpike. https://goo.gl/maps/Tq6nRoSf814Jsdgv9 I imagine this was done here just for brevity's sake. It's not really a recognizable shield for the PA Turnpike.
DOT...... U Channel posts
The error on that Mario Cuomo Bridge sign above was that I-287 goes East from Suffern, not South as the sign says. Only I-87/T'way goes theoretically South. I-287 goes East all the way to Rye, NY where it ends at I-95. In fact years ago, route marker signs along the Thruway from Suffern to the I-87/287 split East of the TZ Bridge used to say 87-South/287-East. Don't remember if those markers are still posted along that stretch.
There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?
NJ's road agencies seem very conservative in using a neighboring state's trailblazers. Witness the GSP and I-287 not having any NY Thurway shields posted.
Except for these, but I'm guessing these were NYSTA installs...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/2020-09-08_14_33_34_View_north_along_Interstate_287_and_New_Jersey_State_Route_17_approaching_the_New_York_State_Thruway_in_Mahwah_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/2020-09-08_14_35_47_View_north_along_Interstate_287_and_New_Jersey_State_Route_17_just_south_of_the_New_York_State_Thruway_in_Mahwah_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Interestingly, at least as of September when I took these two photos, they had not replaced them with "Governor Mario Cuomo Bridge" as they did with the final one...
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1150893,-74.1613275,3a,75y,12.68h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK4xhAGZHFV8itAJt42-tlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
I know he was a NY Governor, but why not just let it be Mario Cuomo or just Cuomo Bridge, as other people have shortened names to fit on a guide.I think if they shortened it to "Cuomo Bridge" the allegations that Andrew was really naming it for his own vanity would be too undeniable (as if everyone didn't hate the change as it is).
I know he was a NY Governor, but why not just let it be Mario Cuomo or just Cuomo Bridge, as other people have shortened names to fit on a guide.I think if they shortened it to "Cuomo Bridge" the allegations that Andrew was really naming it for his own vanity would be too undeniable (as if everyone didn't hate the change as it is).
SignBridge was referring to the sign linked above (not the ones i photographed), which DOES show 287 erroneously grouped with south.All of the signs in this thread lately show SOUTH [87 Thruway] and then 287. The 287 is intentionally not grouped with SOUTH, they just failed to make it EAST for some reason.Interestingly, at least as of September when I took these two photos, they had not replaced them with "Governor Mario Cuomo Bridge" as they did with the final one...There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1150893,-74.1613275,3a,75y,12.68h,88.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK4xhAGZHFV8itAJt42-tlg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Why is East Brunswick a control city for Exit 9?
https://goo.gl/maps/bAFYWpmz6w3WPMALA
Why is East Brunswick a control city for Exit 9?I presume you mean "isn't", and its interesting it got removed, but no idea why.
https://goo.gl/maps/bAFYWpmz6w3WPMALA
Why is East Brunswick a control city for Exit 9?
https://goo.gl/maps/bAFYWpmz6w3WPMALA
What am I missing here? On the current signs, it isn't listed. Did you mean to ask why it isn't a control city, or are you asking why it used to be listed on the old signs in the past before the Turnpike adopted a new style? Either way, East Brunswick is just to the east of the Turnpike through there and New Brunswick is just to the west.
Shouldn’t there be one control per direction? I would think the new method would address that. Also East Brunswick is a big commercial retail community attracting patrons from all over the region. Why not feature it?
Shouldn’t there be one control per direction? I would think the new method would address that. Also East Brunswick is a big commercial retail community attracting patrons from all over the region. Why not feature it?
Mostly because the Turnpike Authority will do its own thing as it sees fit. They did put it on a high mounted ancillary sign (https://goo.gl/maps/EnxPFCno4G6K5XjU6) ahead of the interchange, so the information isn't lost, just downgraded. I could buy an argument that people think having two different Brunswicks on the same sign is confusing, but NJDOT doesn't seem to think it a problem (https://goo.gl/maps/Y4odBzvN2j9Xmk3z9) and the Turnpike had both on the same signs for decades. Also, given that the interchange is in East Brunswick proper and they don't want to use that as the actual control city, then they could just use Old Bridge like NJDOT does (https://goo.gl/maps/MZYAgP6qT7kHaEdd6).
Well, what the Turnpike is actually is important right now, 'cause that's what this thread is about, right? And how do you know his name isn't Shirley? Also let's not forget that nice lady June Cleaver, who learned to speak Jive later in life, in time for her to take an important Airplane flight! LOL LOLthe engineers must have been smoking something when designing the southern state in general like not one section is Straight or not up to standards LMAO
And while we're off-topic I also gotta comment that those NYSDOT engineers must have been smoking something when they numbered those Sagtikos and Southern State Parkway exits. Ya' really hafta wonder when NYSDOT is going to get its act together and number exits on Long Island according to the MUTCD.
And now back to the NJ Turnpike.
it's a parkway LMAOWell, what the Turnpike is actually is important right now, 'cause that's what this thread is about, right? And how do you know his name isn't Shirley? Also let's not forget that nice lady June Cleaver, who learned to speak Jive later in life, in time for her to take an important Airplane flight! LOL LOLthe engineers must have been smoking something when designing the southern state in general like not one section is Straight or not up to standards LMAO
And while we're off-topic I also gotta comment that those NYSDOT engineers must have been smoking something when they numbered those Sagtikos and Southern State Parkway exits. Ya' really hafta wonder when NYSDOT is going to get its act together and number exits on Long Island according to the MUTCD.
And now back to the NJ Turnpike.
Alps, it sounds like you're implying that a road that is just a parkway doesn't need to be up to modern engineering standards. Am I hearing you right? As I'm sure you already know, the Long Island Parkways today are major commuter arteries, just without heavy trucks and busses.It was designed to certain standards at a certain time. He was wondering what the designers were smoking. If you designed a road like that now, you'd have to justify the design speed and include more modern safety elements perhaps. Why are you after me tonight?
Shouldn’t there be one control per direction? I would think the new method would address that. Also East Brunswick is a big commercial retail community attracting patrons from all over the region. Why not feature it?
Mostly because the Turnpike Authority will do its own thing as it sees fit. They did put it on a high mounted ancillary sign (https://goo.gl/maps/EnxPFCno4G6K5XjU6) ahead of the interchange, so the information isn't lost, just downgraded. I could buy an argument that people think having two different Brunswicks on the same sign is confusing, but NJDOT doesn't seem to think it a problem (https://goo.gl/maps/Y4odBzvN2j9Xmk3z9) and the Turnpike had both on the same signs for decades. Also, given that the interchange is in East Brunswick proper and they don't want to use that as the actual control city, then they could just use Old Bridge like NJDOT does (https://goo.gl/maps/MZYAgP6qT7kHaEdd6).
Its odd they actually changed their sign which I believe did once feature East Brunswick. Now, can it be argued that its not necessary? I suppose. The Oranges are a bit different in that there isn't one that's really dominant, versus New Brunswick which is the core of the Brunswicks (even if more people live in the sprawling East/North/South Brunswicks). NJDOT hasn't changed their sign on US 1, though perhaps they will https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4854196,-74.4165589,3a,75y,213.83h,81.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIN6VRyLXYuuRaRZx_k_kdw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That interchange is actually on the outskirts of New Brunswick, and East Brunswick is the next control city for 18 so that makes sense there. Besides, as I said, NJDOT isn't the same on that (other than that the Brunswicks are the one set of towns that won't get the "the" treatment as control cities on signs, e.g., The Plainfields, The Amboys, The Oranges). I was merely speculating on why the Turnpike Authority might have decided to move East Brunswick to an aux sign instead.
That interchange is actually on the outskirts of New Brunswick, and East Brunswick is the next control city for 18 so that makes sense there. Besides, as I said, NJDOT isn't the same on that (other than that the Brunswicks are the one set of towns that won't get the "the" treatment as control cities on signs, e.g., The Plainfields, The Amboys, The Oranges). I was merely speculating on why the Turnpike Authority might have decided to move East Brunswick to an aux sign instead.
This is admittedly a bit off-topic, but I'm glad someone brought up "the 'the' treatment," because I've been mildly fascinated with that for a while. Are there other states, or regions/countries, that have similarly named cities/towns that are commonly referenced as a plural with a definite article ("The [plural noun]")?
Shouldn’t there be one control per direction? I would think the new method would address that. Also East Brunswick is a big commercial retail community attracting patrons from all over the region. Why not feature it?
Mostly because the Turnpike Authority will do its own thing as it sees fit. They did put it on a high mounted ancillary sign (https://goo.gl/maps/EnxPFCno4G6K5XjU6) ahead of the interchange, so the information isn't lost, just downgraded. I could buy an argument that people think having two different Brunswicks on the same sign is confusing, but NJDOT doesn't seem to think it a problem (https://goo.gl/maps/Y4odBzvN2j9Xmk3z9) and the Turnpike had both on the same signs for decades. Also, given that the interchange is in East Brunswick proper and they don't want to use that as the actual control city, then they could just use Old Bridge like NJDOT does (https://goo.gl/maps/MZYAgP6qT7kHaEdd6).
...the Brunswicks are the one set of towns that won't get the "the" treatment as control cities on signs, e.g., The Plainfields, The Amboys, The Oranges ...I say that the only reason that Brunswicks do not get the "the" treatment is because, although Exit 9 is convenient to "New", "East", and "North", South Brunswick is (true to its name) further south enough that Exit 8A is the best way to go. There used to be a supplementary destination sign for 8A on the NJTP that listed four cities, one of which was South Brunswick. I think the sign only disappeared recently, when the truck lanes were extended and/or when MUTCD-compliant signs started appearing.
Shouldn’t there be one control per direction? I would think the new method would address that. Also East Brunswick is a big commercial retail community attracting patrons from all over the region. Why not feature it?
Mostly because the Turnpike Authority will do its own thing as it sees fit. They did put it on a high mounted ancillary sign (https://goo.gl/maps/EnxPFCno4G6K5XjU6) ahead of the interchange, so the information isn't lost, just downgraded. I could buy an argument that people think having two different Brunswicks on the same sign is confusing, but NJDOT doesn't seem to think it a problem (https://goo.gl/maps/Y4odBzvN2j9Xmk3z9) and the Turnpike had both on the same signs for decades. Also, given that the interchange is in East Brunswick proper and they don't want to use that as the actual control city, then they could just use Old Bridge like NJDOT does (https://goo.gl/maps/MZYAgP6qT7kHaEdd6).
Use Shore Points or even South River then.
Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
NY also has its own supplement to the MUTCD.Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
And NY does follow the MUTCD. Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway. Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still. Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.
Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
And NY does follow the MUTCD. Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway. Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still. Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.
Oddly enough, the old sign in NY had the same error, even though the reassurance shields are correct (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1215879,-74.1385934,3a,41.6y,111.24h,92.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEE8Ae3tldTjTPKMDYIbkYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (although the Thruway reassurance shield isn't usually posted for some reason).I wouldn't necessarily call that one erroneous due to the SOUTH legend being centered between the I-87 & Thruway shields while there's a blank space above the I-287 shield. Such IMHO was done intentionally/by design.
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i287/101_6021-s.JPG)
I've often thought Albany might be signed too soon on I-87, wouldn't Newburgh be better?
I'm not sure why Newburgh would need to be signed at all. Those coming from NJ on I-287 get auxillary signs that say "To New England, Use I-87 North to I-84 East". Outside of that, I can't imagine too many people who would need a sign to get them to Newburgh. Most know that Albany is to the north. But Newburgh?
I'm not sure why Newburgh would need to be signed at all. Those coming from NJ on I-287 get auxillary signs that say "To New England, Use I-87 North to I-84 East". Outside of that, I can't imagine too many people who would need a sign to get them to Newburgh. Most know that Albany is to the north. But Newburgh?
Newburgh is not, IMHO, well enough known. Thruway control cities should be the major ones along the road: NYC, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. From what I can see, the Thruway uses Erie west of Buffalo, passing on using Dunkirk, which along with adjacent Fredonia, is of comparable size to Newburgh.
EDIT: Maybe this needs to move to the Thruway topic, not here under NJ Turnpike
Newburgh is not, IMHO, well enough known. Thruway control cities should be the major ones along the road: NYC, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. From what I can see, the Thruway uses Erie west of Buffalo, passing on using Dunkirk, which along with adjacent Fredonia, is of comparable size to Newburgh.
EDIT: Maybe this needs to move to the Thruway topic, not here under NJ Turnpike
This probably should move to the Thruway topic, but I looked at the populations of these areas:
Albany - 1.1 million metro
Utica - 297 thousand metro
Syracuse - 662 thousand metro
Rochester - 1.1 million metro
Buffalo - 1.2 million metro
Newburgh/Poughkeepsie combined had 670 thousand, but most was Poughkeepsie from what I can tell, so it probably would make more sense to use Poughkeepsie.
Anyway, the point of all that was that Poughkeepsie probably makes more sense to use than Utica (I'm kinda surprised they even use Utica, its been quite a while since I was on the thruway west of Albany)
Newburgh does have one thing going for it that Dunkirk doesn't, at least as far as potential control city status goes - I-84 (and I-84 uses it as a control city).I'm not sure why Newburgh would need to be signed at all. Those coming from NJ on I-287 get auxillary signs that say "To New England, Use I-87 North to I-84 East". Outside of that, I can't imagine too many people who would need a sign to get them to Newburgh. Most know that Albany is to the north. But Newburgh?
Newburgh is not, IMHO, well enough known. Thruway control cities should be the major ones along the road: NYC, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. From what I can see, the Thruway uses Erie west of Buffalo, passing on using Dunkirk, which along with adjacent Fredonia, is of comparable size to Newburgh.
EDIT: Maybe this needs to move to the Thruway topic, not here under NJ Turnpike
States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...
... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DStates like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...
Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...
... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
It’s as much part of the NJ Turnpike now as I-84 used to be part of the Thruway...
Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Because one of NJ's Governor in the 90's needed revenue, so instead of raising taxes (or in addition to), he forced the Turnpike to "buy" the portion of I-95 between the NJ Tpk/I-80 and the PANYNJ maintained portion near the GWB for $400 million.
While a maintenance agreement between departments, authorities or agencies isn't terribly unusual, this deal was quite a bit unusual for its scope and cost.
Fair enough.Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
I-84 was not the Thruway. It was I-84 and maintained by the Thruway Authority. Otherwise every single state highway is the Transportation.Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Because one of NJ's Governor in the 90's needed revenue, so instead of raising taxes (or in addition to), he forced the Turnpike to "buy" the portion of I-95 between the NJ Tpk/I-80 and the PANYNJ maintained portion near the GWB for $400 million.
While a maintenance agreement between departments, authorities or agencies isn't terribly unusual, this deal was quite a bit unusual for its scope and cost.
If the Turnpike bought it, then it is theirs and it is the Turnpike.
I-84 was not the Thruway. It was I-84 and maintained by the Thruway Authority. Otherwise every single state highway is the Transportation.Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?Well you're referring to a one-off use case that I wasn't thinking of, so I disclaim any connection. But no, it's not part of the NJ Turnpike. It's maintained by the Turnpike Authority but I would say the Turnpike ends at 46 or no later than 80.Not quite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8401954,-74.0178984,3a,75y,17.03h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwgRdHjsOpl3FWoQrKk0eTA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D81.66843%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)States like to use their capitals as control cities. NJ Turnpike always used Trenton. Out in California, on I405 in the middle of Los Angeles the northbound pull-through signs originally said Bakersfield but were later changed to Sacramento, further north and 400 miles from L.A. vs. 110 miles for Bakersfield.NJ Turnpike has a lot of control cities that aren't quite on the route. Trenton, Camden, Wilmington spring to mind.
Though those are only used in one direction (southbound). Only one control city is used northbound of course...... which also isn't on the Turnpike :DEven though it's not part of the toll-ticketed system & wasn't originally(?); isn't the stretch of I-95 between I-80 and the G.W. Bridge presently part of the NJ Turnpike? If so, such indeed does go through Fort Lee.
Because one of NJ's Governor in the 90's needed revenue, so instead of raising taxes (or in addition to), he forced the Turnpike to "buy" the portion of I-95 between the NJ Tpk/I-80 and the PANYNJ maintained portion near the GWB for $400 million.
While a maintenance agreement between departments, authorities or agencies isn't terribly unusual, this deal was quite a bit unusual for its scope and cost.
If the Turnpike bought it, then it is theirs and it is the Turnpike.
I'm not disputing it was in their logo, but that doesn't make it the Thruway. The Thruway is the mainline and the Berkshire Extension. The PA Turnpike Commission maintains a bunch of roads like 66, 576, etc., but only 76-276 and northern 476 are the Turnpike. I wouldn't consider Turnpike 66 "the Turnpike." It's Turnpike 66. You could call 84 "Thruway 84" but it's not "The" Thruway. Anyway, I think we each know where we stand so no use belaboring, let's get back to NJ Turnpike.Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.I-84 was not the Thruway. It was I-84 and maintained by the Thruway Authority. Otherwise every single state highway is the Transportation.
If the Turnpike bought it, then it is theirs and it is the Turnpike.
Thruway added it to their logo.
Depends on how you define state highway when it comes to NYSDOT. Sections are certainly owned and maintained by other authorities (NYSBA comes to mind...).
This may be a bit of a dumb question, but I'm asking this for a friend who is planning to travel to NJ. For a 2-axle passenger vehicle with an out of state (non-NJ) E-ZPass travelling on the NJ Turnpike, do those drivers* pay the full cash rate or the peak E-ZPass rate at all times? I know that off-peak rates are only for NJ-issued E-ZPasses.
I wanted to assume peak rate since that is what the toll schedule below says, but the calculator doesn't make it clear the toll rate for out of state E-ZPasses. My friend thinks cash/pay by plate rates* because that is how the toll system works in ME, NH, RI (Newport Bridge), and PANYNJ/MTA crossings into NYC.
Toll Schedule:
https://www.njta.com/media/5550/njta_tpk_c1sched-2020.pdf
*For passenger cars, it looks like the peak rate is the same rate as if you paid cash. However, I found out that vehicle classes such as buses (https://www.njta.com/media/5549/njta_tpk_b3sched-2020.pdf) do pay a discounted rate if E-ZPass is used...
Peak E-ZPass rate which is the same as the cash rate for passenger cars. They took away the peak E-ZPass discount for passenger cars a few years back.
Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
And NY does follow the MUTCD. Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway. Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still. Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.
You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.
Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.
Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
And NY does follow the MUTCD. Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway. Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still. Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.
You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.
Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.
Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don’t exist.
Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike’s unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it’s just another white-circle in the crowd.
Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
And NY does follow the MUTCD. Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway. Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still. Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.
You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.
Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.
Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don’t exist.
Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike’s unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it’s just another white-circle in the crowd.
One would think there can be some sort of compromise with destinations. Why wouldn't "Lower Manhattan" be better for I-78 eastbound east of I-95, as opposed to the Holland Tunnel specifically? If you are a local then Holland Tunnel works fine, but if you aren't, you are probably more familiar with "Lower Manhattan" as a location as opposed to "Holland Tunnel". Same with the Lincoln ("Midtown Manhattan" might be better) and GWB ("Upper Manhattan" (is that a thing? I've been gone too long) or "The Bronx"). They have changed "Goethals Bridge" to "Staten Island" on the turnpike for the exit to I-278 (now signed as "Elizabeth/Staten Island").
As far as signage... the old squigglies and big numbers are still present south of Exit 9 on the turnpike, but will likely start to disappear with the next round of sign replacements in the next 10 years.
Also, NJDOT is notoriously slow at replacing signage, and a LOT of the back-plated signs are still out there... for now. Many are near or past end-of-life, however, so don't expect them to last much longer. Its one reason I went on a sign-photo spree this past summer... to catch as many as possible before they're gone.
I like the approach one poster suggested re: using "Lower", "Midtown" and "Upper" Manhattan as destination names. I'm not sure if using Borough names is MUTCD compliant but I would guess it would be acceptable given that NYC is such a huge place and the boroughs are like separate cities. Anyway NYSDOT is doing it so I guess they feel it's compliant.
That sign on the Pulaski Skyway spelling out the options to NYC is a good, logical approach too.
If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day.
I like the approach one poster suggested re: using "Lower", "Midtown" and "Upper" Manhattan as destination names. I'm not sure if using Borough names is MUTCD compliant but I would guess it would be acceptable given that NYC is such a huge place and the boroughs are like separate cities. Anyway NYSDOT is doing it so I guess they feel it's compliant.
That sign on the Pulaski Skyway spelling out the options to NYC is a good, logical approach too.
If I'm not from NYC and relying on these signs to get me somewhere, Upper, Midtown, and Lower Manhattan aren't going to mean anything to me. Hence why the crossing names make more sense.
If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day.
I'm not sure why people think the MUTCD says that.
1. The MUTCD recognizes that city limits are arbitrary, and that the signage to a destination should reflect navigation to the city center rather than the city limit.
2. New York would be a sufficient control city (although New York City is acceptable), because entire states are not generally appropriate control cities, and definitely from the NJTP New York State would not be an appropriate control destination.
3. I'm not aware of any MUTCD prohibition on using bridge/tunnel names? Or borough names for NYC considering how well-known they are
Some possible actual ways to comply with the MUTCD would be:
* Use route numbers only, as is done in Minnesota inside the I-494/694 beltway, except for the main routes themselves. So pick one route to list "New York City" on, and for the rest of them use route numbers only, or maybe crossing or borough names.
* Post "New York" or "New York City" along one route that is considered the best route to the point which most people would recognize as the center of the city. IMO that would be Midtown Manhattan although a case could be made for Downtown Manhattan. In either case, the New Jersey Turnpike would need a different control city for the parts leading north of the Lincoln Tunnel.
* Use a modified Community Interchanges sign, to list the exits for the Holland Tunnel and Lincoln Tunnel as well as one of the other crossings. I also considered using the "Next X Exits" sign but that doesn't work well on the NJ Turnpike because not all the exits to NYC are consecutive (e.g. exit 10 goes to Staten Island, but exits 11-12 don't go to NYC, exit 13 does, etc)
In any case, I think the northbound control city needs to change to New Haven once past the Lincoln Tunnel exit (as most of the NYC traffic would have already exited by then).
Well the MUTCD is generally not in favor of redundant control cities, and specifically bans the same destination for different routes from the same point. I would think traffic coming from I-80, whether going to Midtown or Downtown Manhattan, would use the Turnpike south rather than north.
Given that there are multiple crossings into Manhattan, I think using the crossing names makes the most sense. Drivers need to be directed to the crossing they need. If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day. Sometimes this makes more sense. If they wanted to make it more obvious, it would be very easy to erect a sign between 13A and 14 that looked like
New York City via
--------------------
Holland Tunnel 14C
Lincoln Tunnel 16E
Geo Wash Bridge 18E/W
In fact, this is basically what NJDOT did with this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/F6ESNWUxoD57E38K7) on the Pulaski Skyway, which tells motorists that they have multiple paths to NYC and which route to take to reach them. This is what makes sense for these destinations.
I've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.
Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.
A control city north of 16/18 for the NJ Tpke should be "Fort Lee/GW Bridge" as it is now on some signs. Once I-80 joins in, then NY City can be used again.
I've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.
Interestingly, original control cities on the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) were "NEW YORK AND WEST" and "RHODE ISLAND AND EAST".
QuoteGiven that there are multiple crossings into Manhattan, I think using the crossing names makes the most sense. Drivers need to be directed to the crossing they need. If they followed the letter of the MUTCD (and this is the Turnpike Authority, and they mostly follow it but still do their own things when they feel compelled) they would have to make the exits for all 3 crossings read "New York City" and call it a day. Sometimes this makes more sense. If they wanted to make it more obvious, it would be very easy to erect a sign between 13A and 14 that looked like
New York City via
--------------------
Holland Tunnel 14C
Lincoln Tunnel 16E
Geo Wash Bridge 18E/W
In fact, this is basically what NJDOT did with this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/F6ESNWUxoD57E38K7) on the Pulaski Skyway, which tells motorists that they have multiple paths to NYC and which route to take to reach them. This is what makes sense for these destinations.
Yes that kind of menu sign is a good idea, but I think that it is still less effective than signing the crossings as true “control cities” since it’s a one-off and motorists may miss it, or simply enter the highway beyond the location of the sign, necessitating additional copies. Plus I would still argue that the crossings are also more culturally relevant in the area – that is, more meaningful to the vast majority of motorists who are from NY/NJ/CT/PA and so do think of travel to NYC as a function of which crossing they will use more than which borough they wish to access. I think that the menu sign approach would make sense more for some of the crossings not directly accessible from the Turnpike, like the Outerbridge Crossing, Bayonne Bridge, Verrazano Bridge, and Tappan Zee Bridge (via GSP or PIP).QuoteI've never been a fan of seeing "New Haven" used on the Cross Bronx... I miss destinations such as "New England" and "Upstate", but yeah, I get it, MUTCD and such.
I agree! I know that this is me taking a NYC-centric view of the world, but I think of the regions of the NYC metropolitan area more as destinations in and of themselves rather than individual municipalities; getting to individual cities/towns within those regions is a secondary concern to be dealt with once you actually get out of the city. Thus, in my idealized non-MUTCD world, within NYC limits, "Albany" would be replaced by "Westchester" and/or "Upstate," "New Haven CT" by "Connecticut" or "New England," New Jersey by crossing name primarily with just "New Jersey" as needed for a second line, and keep "Eastern L I". I suppose this would be akin to the British system of signing destinations on their BGS/BBS first as "The NORTH," "SCOTLAND", etc. I realize that these are impractical in their way in that they are less discretely informative, but again they do have a cultural relevance for New Yorkers probably beyond the names of small cities (Albany, New Haven, Newark) that are not in themselves very meaningful to motorists originating in, and therefore with the mindset of, NYC. Thus there is an element of transportation "realpolitik" that ought not be discounted. After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.
Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.
While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.
Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.
While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.
People who have a poor sense of geography (probably the majority, actually, though I’m not going to bother to find social science data on it) will at least know what bridge or tunnel they usually use to get someplace (and therefore which crossing leads to what part of the city) since it tends to be a more singular driving experience than this or that surface highway. On the other hand, people who don’t already know where they’re going are probably then following some sort of directions, which in turn would call for a deliberately chosen crossing that would not be reflected in signing only a control city – particularly around NYC where even if using a GPS-based navigation system it can still be confusing to choose which series of ramps to take in short succession within this or that complex interchange. Similarly, at the NJT split into western and eastern spurs, both will go to the control city of New York or Manhattan, of course, but only one of them connects directly to the Lincoln Tunnel and midtown. Ditto for choosing Newark Bay Extension > Holland Tunnel vs continuing on the mainline to Lincoln/GWB. In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan would clearly be unhelpful, and relegating the crossing names to supplemental signage instead of the main gantries on principle would be a cut nose/spite face type situation. Thus signing the crossing will not only implicitly convey more targeted destination info than a broad control city/borough, but also help people avoid confusion while getting there.
But I reckon overall we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :D
Signs can only get you so far. At a certain point, you have to have your own knowledge of where you're going. I always hate it when people say New York City is different as if that excuses doing things in a non-standard way but in this case, I think it is. The geography (the rivers (er, tidal estuaries if you want to be technical) and the limited crossings of them) force the points where your own knowledge of where you're going has to take command much farther out than most, if not all, large U.S. cities. NYC has a much more spread out central business district and as a result, the decision of the correct way to the destination has to be made several miles out.
Example: For me in the Chicago area, if my destination in the city is the Loop or if it's the Mag Mile shopping area, my route is the same until I'm about a mile away. Until I'm that mile away, Chicago works fine as a control city. But if instead I'm approaching NYC from where I used to live in NJ approaching on I-78, the route decision between Midtown and Lower Manhattan has to be made several miles out (by Newark Airport). At that point, New York City is worthless as a control city and if I'm relying on signs, I need "Midtown Manhattan" and "Lower Manhattan" or "Lincoln Tunnel" and "Holland Tunnel" to know where to go. And at that point, if you're geographically challenged and all you know is you're going to New York City, you're already lost.
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.
Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.
While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.
People who have a poor sense of geography (probably the majority, actually, though I’m not going to bother to find social science data on it) will at least know what bridge or tunnel they usually use to get someplace (and therefore which crossing leads to what part of the city) since it tends to be a more singular driving experience than this or that surface highway. On the other hand, people who don’t already know where they’re going are probably then following some sort of directions, which in turn would call for a deliberately chosen crossing that would not be reflected in signing only a control city – particularly around NYC where even if using a GPS-based navigation system it can still be confusing to choose which series of ramps to take in short succession within this or that complex interchange. Similarly, at the NJT split into western and eastern spurs, both will go to the control city of New York or Manhattan, of course, but only one of them connects directly to the Lincoln Tunnel and midtown. Ditto for choosing Newark Bay Extension > Holland Tunnel vs continuing on the mainline to Lincoln/GWB. In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan would clearly be unhelpful, and relegating the crossing names to supplemental signage instead of the main gantries on principle would be a cut nose/spite face type situation. Thus signing the crossing will not only implicitly convey more targeted destination info than a broad control city/borough, but also help people avoid confusion while getting there.
But I reckon overall we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :D
Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.
One other thing: You mention a lot of examples, but the reality is that the road network is so interconnected that you can often just lose a relatively small amount of time making a wrong turn. For example, you can get to the Lincoln from the Western Spur, it just takes a few minutes longer. You can get to pretty much any point in the Bronx from LI using any of the bridges, one route may just be the fastest to your particular destination.
Also, the crossing names are (or should be) implicit if you routinely drive a certain way, since you should already associate your crossing with its route designation... Holland Tunnel with 78, Lincoln with 495, GWB with 95, Goethals/Verrazano/Triborough (RFK whatever) with 278, Whitestone with 678, Throgs Neck with 295.
> After all, what are the signs for if not to be of the best possible relevance and utility to the people who use them most?
But the MUTCD specifically addresses that. The signs are "for" travelers who may not be familiar with the area. Not the ones who use it the most. The ones who use it the most should learn the route designations for the routes they use, and then follow that (e.g. route X north to route X west, or whatever)
Bingo. The signs are for people who only know where they are going, not what the best way there is, so destinations are much more helpful than the structure taking them there.
Ideally that's true, but it's astonishing how poorly people who live in an area know their way around. My spouse is this way: he could drive a route 10 times and still not know where to go the next time. He's an attorney, so not exactly a simpleton, but a lot of people just have a poor sense of geography. I have several friends in the area who are just the same. So for the many people living in the area for which this is a way of life, it's very useful to note the crossing.
While I agree lots of people have a poor sense of geography, how is the crossing particularly more useful than the destination? Answer: Its not really. Most people just want to get there, they could care less how. Those who care, usually know what crossing to take already.
Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.
Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.
Not always. They also help confirm that you're taking the correct exit, etc. Just this morning, I was heading south on I-355 approaching I-55 southwest of Chicago. I forgot that the ramp order is backwards - the ramp to go "left" to North I-55 is before the one to go "right" to South I-55. I was cruising along in the right lane when all of a sudden seeing St. Louis on one sign and Chicago on the other made me realize I was about to take the wrong exit. I was familiar with the area but had forgotten (given it's once a year or so that I'm at that interchange) about the ramp order issue.
Again you are missing the point. The signs are for people not familiar with the area.
Not always. They also help confirm that you're taking the correct exit, etc. Just this morning, I was heading south on I-355 approaching I-55 southwest of Chicago. I forgot that the ramp order is backwards - the ramp to go "left" to North I-55 is before the one to go "right" to South I-55. I was cruising along in the right lane when all of a sudden seeing St. Louis on one sign and Chicago on the other made me realize I was about to take the wrong exit. I was familiar with the area but had forgotten (given it's once a year or so that I'm at that interchange) about the ramp order issue.
I'm talking about MUTCD guidelines.
Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.The MUTCD does not cover the case of a split roadway that then rejoins. I think you should reread the part about the meanings of Standard, Guidance, Option, Support, and the application of the MUTCD using engineering judgment.
For example: "In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan ..."
This would be an MUTCD violation. It specifically bans using the same destination for different routes from the same point.
An MUTCD-compliant sign would indicate a destination such as New York or Lincoln Tunnel for the Turnpike east branch and a different destination for the west branch (I suggest New Haven but many on here disagree).
VA Beach on Laskin Road had both Norfolk signed for local US 58 and for former Tolled VA 44 at the split for both routesActually, it still remains today and was carbon-copied from the old sign when replaced about a decade ago.
Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.The MUTCD does not cover the case of a split roadway that then rejoins. I think you should reread the part about the meanings of Standard, Guidance, Option, Support, and the application of the MUTCD using engineering judgment.
For example: "In either case, signing the destination of both spurs or mainline vs extension as New York or Manhattan ..."
This would be an MUTCD violation. It specifically bans using the same destination for different routes from the same point.
An MUTCD-compliant sign would indicate a destination such as New York or Lincoln Tunnel for the Turnpike east branch and a different destination for the west branch (I suggest New Haven but many on here disagree).
Another one: VA 123 at VA 267
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/2019-10-07_16_21_53_View_north_along_Virginia_State_Route_123_%28Dolly_Madison_Boulevard%29_at_the_exit_for_Virginia_State_Route_267_EAST_%28TO_Interstate_66_EAST%2C_Washington%29_in_Tysons_Corner%2C_Fairfax_County%2C_Virginia.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9260374,-77.2066568,3a,75y,56.97h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHRt1dY2U3DyhLH8Kg8oOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Another one: VA 123 at VA 267
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/2019-10-07_16_21_53_View_north_along_Virginia_State_Route_123_%28Dolly_Madison_Boulevard%29_at_the_exit_for_Virginia_State_Route_267_EAST_%28TO_Interstate_66_EAST%2C_Washington%29_in_Tysons_Corner%2C_Fairfax_County%2C_Virginia.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9260374,-77.2066568,3a,75y,56.97h,85.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYHRt1dY2U3DyhLH8Kg8oOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
This one is tricky because the intent is to give traffic a non-toll route to Washington during the times when I-66 is subject to toll. Those signs are already complicated enough as is.
In any case it is my opinion that it applies to the east/west split too, especially considering that the current signage directs Lincoln Tunnel traffic to the east branch and G.Washington Bridge traffic to the west, despite both of them having access to the G. Washington Bridge.
https://goo.gl/maps/EzvZgEHrhVpAUnYu5
See NB I-95 & NJ Turnpike get no control city from I-78.
Shore Points might make sense as a destination but isn't a valid destination as per the MUTCD. Needs to be a place name like Cape May or Atlantic City.
And NY does follow the MUTCD. Hence the Mario Cuomo Bridge on the Thruway. Or Eastern LI on the LIE in Queens still. Or New Jersey on some signs on Staten Island for the Goethals Bridge.
You make a valid point roadman65. NYSDOT has been just as non-compliant as New Jersey in past years. But they are slowly coming into compliance. In the NYC area, we're seeing Borough names replacing or supplementing bridge and tunnel names as destinations. And some approaches to the Geo. Washington Br. now read Newark, NJ instead of GWB.
Also I don't personally oppose using traditional destinations on the signs. I just point out as a factual matter that some types of destinations are non-compliant. I actually think some loosening and flexibility should be written into the MUTCD standards on this subject.
Although I do see the importance of standardization of road signs in general, I do think that the one-size-fits-all approach does a disservice to NYC area motorists. I do believe that the names of crossings should be used as destinations rather than only cities (1) to reduce ambiguity (given that multiple nearby routes may lead to the same borough or other control city); (2) to provide more precise information about the destination as making the crossing also in effect gives information about exactly where in a large borough the road leads given that neighborhood names such as Midtown Manhattan or Tottenville, SI are also not kosher to sign; (3) to explicitly recognize the presence of what often represents a major bottleneck in the route as well as a not-insignificant toll expense; and (4) to aid in route planning, as current traffic conditions often plays into the decision of which crossing to use to get to a common destination. In other words, merely implying (at best, in many cases) the presence of a crossing is to omit material information that would benefit motorists to know. This may not be the case in other metro areas such as Chicago or LA where such fixed bottlenecks (and attendant decision making challenges) don’t exist.
Also, I know that this is of course not a compelling argument but merely a point of personal preference, but I am really disappointed at the loss of the NJ Turnpike’s unique signage practices. The squiggly arrows and outsized exit numbers really gave the road a unique visual identity and, in the case of the latter, likely contributed significantly to the very NJ culture of identifying by exit number. I doubt my father – definitely not a road geek – would have crafted his mental map of NJ based on what the nearest Turnpike exit was were it not for those large exit signs. Now the Turnpike is starting to feel like just another highway. Ditto also for NJDOT losing the black shield background on BGSs – it was such a fun and inoffensive visual hallmark of NJ signage that gave the state some character of its own. Now it’s just another white-circle in the crowd.
Is the Garden State's "exit number" mentality" exclusive to the Turnpike, or are the exit numbers on the GSP, ACX, the non-tolled interstates, and NJ 55 "borrowed" in the same context as well?
The above's just another example of inconsistency with some recent NJTP signage with regards to control cities/points. IMHO, Fort Lee and/or George Washington* Bridge would be suitable northbound I-95/NJTP control points.https://goo.gl/maps/EzvZgEHrhVpAUnYu5
See NB I-95 & NJ Turnpike get no control city from I-78.
The opposite direction.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7037401,-74.1444273,3a,75y,305.2h,85.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Y5lNv7SXptL-zDMLgglxQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Newark Airport uses New York City for I-78 East along with Holland Tunnel that NJDOT also kept at the Express and Local split.
At one time the PANYNJ used it to give arriving passengers a choice leaving the Airport of the Skyway verses Turnpike. That might of changed during the lengthy Skyway rehabilitation and not be featured anymore.
Edit: Yes New York removed from Routes 1 & 9 exit from EWR. Modified for Turnpike only.
https://goo.gl/maps/bSqDDXkL7ofryzkh6
Growing up in New Jersey, I never understood the "what exit" thinking. We lived far too away from the Turnpike (I-78 at the far western edge of Union County) for it to have much meaning
Growing up in New Jersey, I never understood the "what exit" thinking. We lived far too away from the Turnpike (I-78 at the far western edge of Union County) for it to have much meaning
The "what exit" mentality didn't have much effect on me either, let alone my stepsister and stepbro-in-law, perhaps because I never took the toll roads to get to their homes (I would enter NJ via the DelMemBr).
ixnay
https://goo.gl/maps/rNQgxfTKZvNmjih47
Since when are there five exits on the Newark Bay Extension?
I-78 is the mainline that defaults into 12th Street. Exit 14C is the toll plaza as far as numbering goes and is the one exit for the Liberty Science Center, Columbus Drive, and straight through to the tunnel.
Growing up in New Jersey, I never understood the "what exit" thinking. We lived far too away from the Turnpike (I-78 at the far western edge of Union County) for it to have much meaning
The "what exit" mentality didn't have much effect on me either, let alone my stepsister and stepbro-in-law, perhaps because I never took the toll roads to get to their homes (I would enter NJ via the DelMemBr).
ixnay
?
Well, it's kinda impossible to take the NJ Turnpike to enter NJ.
11. The Turnpike is not for the weakIs it normal for people from outside of New Jersey not to be intimidated by any of these things?
In fact, if you’re not comfortable with weird traffic merges, circles, texters, those mufflers that make cars louder, and generally just people getting after it on the road, we simply ask that you stay in the right lane at all times, particularly when driving on the Turnpike, Parkway, or Expressway. It’s really in the best interest of all parties.
I enjoyed the map."Pretty much Alabama?" That's not so hard to believe... assuming you're talking about Alabama in the early-1960's. I thought it was pretty funny that they have a redneck bar at the south end of the Turnpike, but somebody told me that they had a giant swastika in a field in there somewhere.
(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/funny-new-jersey-area-map.jpg)
FWIW, the Cowtown Rodeo grounds are located in Woodstown along US 40. If one looks at the map; Woodstown is well inside the PRETTY MUCH ALABAMA section.I enjoyed the map."Pretty much Alabama?" That's not so hard to believe... assuming you're talking about Alabama in the early-1960's. I thought it was pretty funny that they have a redneck bar at the south end of the Turnpike, but somebody told me that they had a giant swastika in a field in there somewhere.
(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/funny-new-jersey-area-map.jpg)
FWIW, the Cowtown Rodeo grounds are located in Woodstown along US 40. If one looks at the map; Woodstown is well inside the PRETTY MUCH ALABAMA section.
Gloucester County voted for Biden.They've got a good amount of their population in the Happy White Families area.
Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Does anyone think the car and truck lanes will ever get extended in the future like on the western spur and all the way to the GWB or is it over for them?
Does anyone think the car and truck lanes will ever get extended in the future like on the western spur and all the way to the GWB or is it over for them?
I don't know that they've come out with exactly what is planned for widening the Westerly. We'll have to see what comes out in design and which alternatives are advanced for consideration. I doubt you'll ever see inner/outer extended past the Lombardi because the 4 carriageways north of there serve 80/95 and then upper/lower.Does anyone think the car and truck lanes will ever get extended in the future like on the western spur and all the way to the GWB or is it over for them?
While using the dual/dual, Car/Truck lanes is the Turnpike's preferred method of widening the roadway when necessary beyond 4 lanes wide, north of Exit 14, the Turnpike decided to use a spur rather than a single route. I believe they have plans to add an additional lane on the western spur, but aren't going wider than that for the foreseeable future.
There would also be an issue of how to merge so many lanes into I-80/95.
Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/work-to-widen-parts-of-the-turnpike-parkway-take-first-step-forward.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=nj_twitter_njdotcom&utm_campaign=njdotcom_sf&utm_medium=social)
Talks about two contract awards for environmental studies, permitting, and preliminary design work on the Turnpike:
1. Environmental studies and permitting contract to AECOM for the 1-4 additional lanes.
2. Preliminary design and environmental studies to Gannett Fleming for widening and rehab of the NBHCE.
Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/work-to-widen-parts-of-the-turnpike-parkway-take-first-step-forward.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=nj_twitter_njdotcom&utm_campaign=njdotcom_sf&utm_medium=social)
Talks about two contract awards for environmental studies, permitting, and preliminary design work on the Turnpike:
1. Environmental studies and permitting contract to AECOM for the 1-4 additional lanes.
2. Preliminary design and environmental studies to Gannett Fleming for widening and rehab of the NBHCE.
Didn't realize they planned to widen the 78 segment. Other than the short stretch north of 16W, it seems like these two projects would eliminate the remaining 4-lane sections of the Turnpike.
I don't think they're replacing east of 14C, so that would remain two lanes each way. The other wild card is what happens with the PA bridge.Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/work-to-widen-parts-of-the-turnpike-parkway-take-first-step-forward.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=nj_twitter_njdotcom&utm_campaign=njdotcom_sf&utm_medium=social)
Talks about two contract awards for environmental studies, permitting, and preliminary design work on the Turnpike:
1. Environmental studies and permitting contract to AECOM for the 1-4 additional lanes.
2. Preliminary design and environmental studies to Gannett Fleming for widening and rehab of the NBHCE.
Didn't realize they planned to widen the 78 segment. Other than the short stretch north of 16W, it seems like these two projects would eliminate the remaining 4-lane sections of the Turnpike.
Yes. It's in the 2020 Capital Plan, and includes a replacement for the Newark Bay Bridge. They want to make one with four lanes in each direction, which is smart.
I don't think they're replacing east of 14C, so that would remain two lanes each way. The other wild card is what happens with the PA bridge.Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/work-to-widen-parts-of-the-turnpike-parkway-take-first-step-forward.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=nj_twitter_njdotcom&utm_campaign=njdotcom_sf&utm_medium=social)
Talks about two contract awards for environmental studies, permitting, and preliminary design work on the Turnpike:
1. Environmental studies and permitting contract to AECOM for the 1-4 additional lanes.
2. Preliminary design and environmental studies to Gannett Fleming for widening and rehab of the NBHCE.
Didn't realize they planned to widen the 78 segment. Other than the short stretch north of 16W, it seems like these two projects would eliminate the remaining 4-lane sections of the Turnpike.
Yes. It's in the 2020 Capital Plan, and includes a replacement for the Newark Bay Bridge. They want to make one with four lanes in each direction, which is smart.
I don't think they're replacing east of 14C, so that would remain two lanes each way. The other wild card is what happens with the PA bridge.Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/work-to-widen-parts-of-the-turnpike-parkway-take-first-step-forward.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=nj_twitter_njdotcom&utm_campaign=njdotcom_sf&utm_medium=social)
Talks about two contract awards for environmental studies, permitting, and preliminary design work on the Turnpike:
1. Environmental studies and permitting contract to AECOM for the 1-4 additional lanes.
2. Preliminary design and environmental studies to Gannett Fleming for widening and rehab of the NBHCE.
Didn't realize they planned to widen the 78 segment. Other than the short stretch north of 16W, it seems like these two projects would eliminate the remaining 4-lane sections of the Turnpike.
Yes. It's in the 2020 Capital Plan, and includes a replacement for the Newark Bay Bridge. They want to make one with four lanes in each direction, which is smart.
Yeah, pretty sure that the logistics of replacing that entire viaduct would be cost prohibitive even for the Turnpike Authority. Plus, it has to narrow to two lanes past the curve into the Holland Tunnel approach, as there is a rather large building that's pretty much butting up against the ROW at that spot.
As for P0.0, it's also in the long term capital plan, but given that I don't think they're going to move on it without the PTC getting on board for their share, unless something cracks on the bridge again and makes it too unsafe to remain in use, I don't think there's going to be any sort of quick movement on it. NJTA must figure moving the NBHCE makes more sense to tackle first since that's entirely in their jurisdiction.
I mean, at some point they'll have to replace them, or do a Pulaski and replace each element in place. I don't know what the remaining lifespan might be on those structures.I don't think they're replacing east of 14C, so that would remain two lanes each way. The other wild card is what happens with the PA bridge.Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/work-to-widen-parts-of-the-turnpike-parkway-take-first-step-forward.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=nj_twitter_njdotcom&utm_campaign=njdotcom_sf&utm_medium=social)
Talks about two contract awards for environmental studies, permitting, and preliminary design work on the Turnpike:
1. Environmental studies and permitting contract to AECOM for the 1-4 additional lanes.
2. Preliminary design and environmental studies to Gannett Fleming for widening and rehab of the NBHCE.
Didn't realize they planned to widen the 78 segment. Other than the short stretch north of 16W, it seems like these two projects would eliminate the remaining 4-lane sections of the Turnpike.
Yes. It's in the 2020 Capital Plan, and includes a replacement for the Newark Bay Bridge. They want to make one with four lanes in each direction, which is smart.
Yeah, pretty sure that the logistics of replacing that entire viaduct would be cost prohibitive even for the Turnpike Authority. Plus, it has to narrow to two lanes past the curve into the Holland Tunnel approach, as there is a rather large building that's pretty much butting up against the ROW at that spot.
Traffic sign engineer breaking in for a moment: If you have multiple options leading to a single destination city, it is appropriate to differentiate between them. For example, you will commonly see "Bridgeport next 7 exits" and then the next 7 exits are just street names. Or maybe 1-2 of them are route names with other destinations. The intrigue comes when not every exit leads to the city in question. You can take 14, 16E, or 18W/18E to the city. 15E, 15W, and 16W are not preferred and you wouldn't really list NYC as destinations for those. 15X won't get you there at all. This does pop up from time to time, and since it's a unique edge case, it is not fully covered by the MUTCD, and this is when to use engineering judgment. Fun fact about engineering judgment, no two engineers will see it the same way - I'll ask 1-2 others who I trust and go for a general consensus on what the "likely best way" is.
In this case, in a vacuum, I would probably have a sign south of 14:
NEW YORK CITY
Holland Tun.......Exit 14C
Lincoln Tun.......Exit 16E
G W Br.....Exits 18W/18E
Exit 14 I would sign I-78 Newark / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Holland Tun Exit 14C".
Exit 16E I would sign NJ 495 Weehawken / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Lincoln Tun Exit 16E".
Exit 16W I would sign NJ 3 Clifton / Secaucus, with supplemental sign "Lincoln Tun Exit 16W".
Exits 16E/18E I would sign I-95 TO I-80 Paterson / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "G W Br follow NORTH (95)"
Off each interchange, I would make sure to point people down the correct ramp to head east, and that's that.
Your mileage may vary.
Exactly. I do not get why they use Newburgh for one road and not the other.Newburgh does have one thing going for it that Dunkirk doesn't, at least as far as potential control city status goes - I-84 (and I-84 uses it as a control city).I'm not sure why Newburgh would need to be signed at all. Those coming from NJ on I-287 get auxillary signs that say "To New England, Use I-87 North to I-84 East". Outside of that, I can't imagine too many people who would need a sign to get them to Newburgh. Most know that Albany is to the north. But Newburgh?
Newburgh is not, IMHO, well enough known. Thruway control cities should be the major ones along the road: NYC, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo. From what I can see, the Thruway uses Erie west of Buffalo, passing on using Dunkirk, which along with adjacent Fredonia, is of comparable size to Newburgh.
EDIT: Maybe this needs to move to the Thruway topic, not here under NJ Turnpike
I can't. The Turnpike Authority is responsible for destinations on their facility. The FHWA is responsible for approved destinations along Interstate highways. Where or if the two of them disagree... that's between them.Traffic sign engineer breaking in for a moment: If you have multiple options leading to a single destination city, it is appropriate to differentiate between them. For example, you will commonly see "Bridgeport next 7 exits" and then the next 7 exits are just street names. Or maybe 1-2 of them are route names with other destinations. The intrigue comes when not every exit leads to the city in question. You can take 14, 16E, or 18W/18E to the city. 15E, 15W, and 16W are not preferred and you wouldn't really list NYC as destinations for those. 15X won't get you there at all. This does pop up from time to time, and since it's a unique edge case, it is not fully covered by the MUTCD, and this is when to use engineering judgment. Fun fact about engineering judgment, no two engineers will see it the same way - I'll ask 1-2 others who I trust and go for a general consensus on what the "likely best way" is.
In this case, in a vacuum, I would probably have a sign south of 14:
NEW YORK CITY
Holland Tun.......Exit 14C
Lincoln Tun.......Exit 16E
G W Br.....Exits 18W/18E
Exit 14 I would sign I-78 Newark / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Holland Tun Exit 14C".
Exit 16E I would sign NJ 495 Weehawken / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Lincoln Tun Exit 16E".
Exit 16W I would sign NJ 3 Clifton / Secaucus, with supplemental sign "Lincoln Tun Exit 16W".
Exits 16E/18E I would sign I-95 TO I-80 Paterson / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "G W Br follow NORTH (95)"
Off each interchange, I would make sure to point people down the correct ramp to head east, and that's that.
Your mileage may vary.
Can you please weigh in on the NJTP SB and the idiotic use of Trenton not Philadelphia?
Do you agree Philadelphia should be the control city on the NJTP south?I can't. The Turnpike Authority is responsible for destinations on their facility. The FHWA is responsible for approved destinations along Interstate highways. Where or if the two of them disagree... that's between them.Traffic sign engineer breaking in for a moment: If you have multiple options leading to a single destination city, it is appropriate to differentiate between them. For example, you will commonly see "Bridgeport next 7 exits" and then the next 7 exits are just street names. Or maybe 1-2 of them are route names with other destinations. The intrigue comes when not every exit leads to the city in question. You can take 14, 16E, or 18W/18E to the city. 15E, 15W, and 16W are not preferred and you wouldn't really list NYC as destinations for those. 15X won't get you there at all. This does pop up from time to time, and since it's a unique edge case, it is not fully covered by the MUTCD, and this is when to use engineering judgment. Fun fact about engineering judgment, no two engineers will see it the same way - I'll ask 1-2 others who I trust and go for a general consensus on what the "likely best way" is.
In this case, in a vacuum, I would probably have a sign south of 14:
NEW YORK CITY
Holland Tun.......Exit 14C
Lincoln Tun.......Exit 16E
G W Br.....Exits 18W/18E
Exit 14 I would sign I-78 Newark / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Holland Tun Exit 14C".
Exit 16E I would sign NJ 495 Weehawken / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Lincoln Tun Exit 16E".
Exit 16W I would sign NJ 3 Clifton / Secaucus, with supplemental sign "Lincoln Tun Exit 16W".
Exits 16E/18E I would sign I-95 TO I-80 Paterson / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "G W Br follow NORTH (95)"
Off each interchange, I would make sure to point people down the correct ramp to head east, and that's that.
Your mileage may vary.
Can you please weigh in on the NJTP SB and the idiotic use of Trenton not Philadelphia?
Do you agree Philadelphia should be the control city on the NJTP south?I can't. The Turnpike Authority is responsible for destinations on their facility. The FHWA is responsible for approved destinations along Interstate highways. Where or if the two of them disagree... that's between them.Traffic sign engineer breaking in for a moment: If you have multiple options leading to a single destination city, it is appropriate to differentiate between them. For example, you will commonly see "Bridgeport next 7 exits" and then the next 7 exits are just street names. Or maybe 1-2 of them are route names with other destinations. The intrigue comes when not every exit leads to the city in question. You can take 14, 16E, or 18W/18E to the city. 15E, 15W, and 16W are not preferred and you wouldn't really list NYC as destinations for those. 15X won't get you there at all. This does pop up from time to time, and since it's a unique edge case, it is not fully covered by the MUTCD, and this is when to use engineering judgment. Fun fact about engineering judgment, no two engineers will see it the same way - I'll ask 1-2 others who I trust and go for a general consensus on what the "likely best way" is.
In this case, in a vacuum, I would probably have a sign south of 14:
NEW YORK CITY
Holland Tun.......Exit 14C
Lincoln Tun.......Exit 16E
G W Br.....Exits 18W/18E
Exit 14 I would sign I-78 Newark / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Holland Tun Exit 14C".
Exit 16E I would sign NJ 495 Weehawken / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Lincoln Tun Exit 16E".
Exit 16W I would sign NJ 3 Clifton / Secaucus, with supplemental sign "Lincoln Tun Exit 16W".
Exits 16E/18E I would sign I-95 TO I-80 Paterson / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "G W Br follow NORTH (95)"
Off each interchange, I would make sure to point people down the correct ramp to head east, and that's that.
Your mileage may vary.
Can you please weigh in on the NJTP SB and the idiotic use of Trenton not Philadelphia?
Good point Alps. But on I-80, what city in Pa. could you even use? There are hardly any major cities in Pa. along I-80, unless you'd simply use Stroudsburg right across the river.
Good point Alps. But on I-80, what city in Pa. could you even use? There are hardly any major cities in Pa. along I-80, unless you'd simply use Stroudsburg right across the river.
Exit 8A in Jamesburg uses Trenton when locals there would more likely use CR 535. At that point it should be Camden or a Philly now. Even from NJ 18 in New Brunswick it seems strange to use Trenton there, but it is.
As far as I-80 I think Stroudsburg, Hazleton, and Williamsport to be used for lack of major point of interest. I-70 runs into that same scenario in Kansas as west of Topeka you have Denver as the next major city too far still to use. However Texas uses El Paso from San Antonio a good nine hours away and also plenty of open space between as well. So TexDOT would gladly use Cleveland or Youngstown for sure.
If IDOT had control it would be Cleveland at I-95 and I-287. Paterson (as it is now) from local roads east of that city. Dover from Paterson to Dover. Then Stroudsburg west of Dover they would use.If ISTHA had control...
Eastbound Dover, Paterson, and Fort Lee ( maybe New York, as on I-70 IDOT did drop East St. Louis for St. Louis on local ramps).
The Turnpike is an odd beast because it splits from I-95. So which do you sign? I understand why the Turnpike is signed to Camden and then Wilmington. I'm fine with that approach. North of I-95... I know traffic uses 7A to Trenton but I'm not sure how much. Again, I don't really have an opinion here. In general, as long as you don't pull a Pennsylvania and sign every podunk city in your own state instead of the major ones in the neighboring states, you're fine in my book. (Which is why I love how I-80 is signed to DWG in New Jersey as a "fuck you".)What also does not help here is that the "official" control cities for I-95, as published by AASHTO, may not have been updated since the I-95 re-routing in 2018. The control cities through this region are Wilmington, Chester, Philadelphia, Trenton, New York City, and have been for a long time. With the change, Trenton is probably the only one that now becomes questionable. NB north of Exit 9 becomes tricky because of how large NYC is and all the different ways to get there.
NB north of Exit 9 becomes tricky because of how large NYC is and all the different ways to get there.Such is probably one reason why the current northbound I-95/NJTP pull-through signage at Exits 10 through 13A do not list any control city/point on them. Personally, I don't fully agree with such an approach but it is what it is.
In any case, the discontinuity of using "1 South/Trenton" from the Parkway southbound is nuts... most people would probably take 95 or 95 to 18 to 1. So, theoretically, if they had signed US 1 from the parkway properly in the first place (Metuchen or New Brunswick are better), they'd have never done the right thing at 129 southbound by signing Philly... it would've and still would say "Trenton", just as northbound says.FWIW, prior to the ramp from the GSP southbound to US 1 northbound being built; the GSP southbound Exit 130 ramp signage featured a New Brunswick/Trenton pairing for US 1 southbound. After the interchange was modified, the primary signs for the US 1 South ramp simply listed Trenton with New Brunswick being relegated to supplemental sign status.
That is asinine.Do you agree Philadelphia should be the control city on the NJTP south?I can't. The Turnpike Authority is responsible for destinations on their facility. The FHWA is responsible for approved destinations along Interstate highways. Where or if the two of them disagree... that's between them.Traffic sign engineer breaking in for a moment: If you have multiple options leading to a single destination city, it is appropriate to differentiate between them. For example, you will commonly see "Bridgeport next 7 exits" and then the next 7 exits are just street names. Or maybe 1-2 of them are route names with other destinations. The intrigue comes when not every exit leads to the city in question. You can take 14, 16E, or 18W/18E to the city. 15E, 15W, and 16W are not preferred and you wouldn't really list NYC as destinations for those. 15X won't get you there at all. This does pop up from time to time, and since it's a unique edge case, it is not fully covered by the MUTCD, and this is when to use engineering judgment. Fun fact about engineering judgment, no two engineers will see it the same way - I'll ask 1-2 others who I trust and go for a general consensus on what the "likely best way" is.
In this case, in a vacuum, I would probably have a sign south of 14:
NEW YORK CITY
Holland Tun.......Exit 14C
Lincoln Tun.......Exit 16E
G W Br.....Exits 18W/18E
Exit 14 I would sign I-78 Newark / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Holland Tun Exit 14C".
Exit 16E I would sign NJ 495 Weehawken / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "Lincoln Tun Exit 16E".
Exit 16W I would sign NJ 3 Clifton / Secaucus, with supplemental sign "Lincoln Tun Exit 16W".
Exits 16E/18E I would sign I-95 TO I-80 Paterson / New York, with supplemental sign(s) "G W Br follow NORTH (95)"
Off each interchange, I would make sure to point people down the correct ramp to head east, and that's that.
Your mileage may vary.
Can you please weigh in on the NJTP SB and the idiotic use of Trenton not Philadelphia?
No. It should be Baltimore.
That is asinine.Be nice.
-NJTP should be Philadelphia past the GWB to exit 6.
-South of exit 6 it should be Wilmington
-NB NJTP should be NYC until 14
14-Holland/Lower Manhattan
16-Lincoln-Midtown
18-GWB-Bronx
-80 W should be Paterson, then WB/S
I don't see how you can argue for Wilmington (a small city situated a few miles off the highway) and argue against Trenton (a small city that happens to be the state capitol, situated a few miles off the highway).
-NJTP should be Philadelphia past the GWB to exit 6.
-South of exit 6 it should be Wilmington
-NB NJTP should be NYC until 14
14-Holland/Lower Manhattan
16-Lincoln-Midtown
18-GWB-Bronx
-80 W should be Paterson, then WB/S
I don't see how you can argue for Wilmington (a small city situated a few miles off the highway) and argue against Trenton (a small city that happens to be the state capitol, situated a few miles off the highway).
-NJTP should be Philadelphia past the GWB to exit 6.
-South of exit 6 it should be Wilmington
-NB NJTP should be NYC until 14
14-Holland/Lower Manhattan
16-Lincoln-Midtown
18-GWB-Bronx
-80 W should be Paterson, then WB/S
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
I don't see how you can argue for Wilmington (a small city situated a few miles off the highway) and argue against Trenton (a small city that happens to be the state capitol, situated a few miles off the highway).
-NJTP should be Philadelphia past the GWB to exit 6.
-South of exit 6 it should be Wilmington
-NB NJTP should be NYC until 14
14-Holland/Lower Manhattan
16-Lincoln-Midtown
18-GWB-Bronx
-80 W should be Paterson, then WB/S
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
New Castle County's size is more than twice of that of Mercer County, yet doesn't have twice the population, if that counts for anything.
(it doesn't)
Personally, if it were up to me (it isn't), I would use a destination that is significant to most motorists. Wilmington isn't it. Baltimore is. The Maryland House is more meaningful to motorists on the NJ Turnpike than Wilmington is, based on the questions I was asked sitting in a toll booth. Hell, I was probably asked more how to get to Dover for the NASCAR races twice a year than I was asked how to get to Wilmington over an entire year.
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
You are making my argument for me. By engaging in the argument of how far from the highway (2 miles to the edge of the corporate limits versus 5 miles), or the size of the county, you acknowledge the difference between Wilmington and Trenton is small enough to engage in a reasonable debate.
All I am saying is that we can debate the merits of Philadelphia - Baltimore versus Trenton - Wilmington. I don't think you can justify Trenton - Baltimore or Philadelphia - Wilmington.
I know this control city debate is pertinent to the Turnpike, but it'd be better if this thread was for actual developments occurring on the Turnpike rather than opinions on what should be done on it that are essentially fictional.I am not sure what here is fictional - the Turnpike or Philadelphia?
neither, it's NJTA changing the control cities.I know this control city debate is pertinent to the Turnpike, but it'd be better if this thread was for actual developments occurring on the Turnpike rather than opinions on what should be done on it that are essentially fictional.I am not sure what here is fictional - the Turnpike or Philadelphia?
I don't think criticism of current control cities (or lack thereof), and voicing an opinion about what should be installed on the signs, would seem to be on topic,neither, it's NJTA changing the control cities.I know this control city debate is pertinent to the Turnpike, but it'd be better if this thread was for actual developments occurring on the Turnpike rather than opinions on what should be done on it that are essentially fictional.I am not sure what here is fictional - the Turnpike or Philadelphia?
It is. We're debating the merits of what's signed vs. what could be.I don't think criticism of current control cities (or lack thereof), and voicing an opinion about what should be installed on the signs, would seem to be on topic,neither, it's NJTA changing the control cities.I know this control city debate is pertinent to the Turnpike, but it'd be better if this thread was for actual developments occurring on the Turnpike rather than opinions on what should be done on it that are essentially fictional.I am not sure what here is fictional - the Turnpike or Philadelphia?
Sounds like it's more appropriate for the Control Cities thread. It's speculation and opinion more than based upon any real proposal.It is. We're debating the merits of what's signed vs. what could be.I don't think criticism of current control cities (or lack thereof), and voicing an opinion about what should be installed on the signs, would seem to be on topic,neither, it's NJTA changing the control cities.I know this control city debate is pertinent to the Turnpike, but it'd be better if this thread was for actual developments occurring on the Turnpike rather than opinions on what should be done on it that are essentially fictional.I am not sure what here is fictional - the Turnpike or Philadelphia?
I don't think criticism of current control cities (or lack thereof), and voicing an opinion about what should be installed on the signs, would seem to be on topic,neither, it's NJTA changing the control cities.I know this control city debate is pertinent to the Turnpike, but it'd be better if this thread was for actual developments occurring on the Turnpike rather than opinions on what should be done on it that are essentially fictional.I am not sure what here is fictional - the Turnpike or Philadelphia?
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
You are making my argument for me. By engaging in the argument of how far from the highway (2 miles to the edge of the corporate limits versus 5 miles), or the size of the county, you acknowledge the difference between Wilmington and Trenton is small enough to engage in a reasonable debate.
All I am saying is that we can debate the merits of Philadelphia - Baltimore versus Trenton - Wilmington. I don't think you can justify Trenton - Baltimore or Philadelphia - Wilmington.
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
You are making my argument for me. By engaging in the argument of how far from the highway (2 miles to the edge of the corporate limits versus 5 miles), or the size of the county, you acknowledge the difference between Wilmington and Trenton is small enough to engage in a reasonable debate.
All I am saying is that we can debate the merits of Philadelphia - Baltimore versus Trenton - Wilmington. I don't think you can justify Trenton - Baltimore or Philadelphia - Wilmington.
Trenton is a minor city, Wilmington is a pretty big city right off I-95, and 65 miles from Baltimore.
It does not make sense to sign Baltimore in New Jersey before Wilmington.
Makes much sense to sign Baltimore after Wilmington, especially given the 65 mile gap.
Just want to say, driving the NJTP every month, I impressed with how smooth and free flowing it is.
Is it really the 6 to 9 widening that did the job?
Just make I-75 South Miami south of Tampa and call it a day, vice versa with Tampa out of Miami.
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
You are making my argument for me. By engaging in the argument of how far from the highway (2 miles to the edge of the corporate limits versus 5 miles), or the size of the county, you acknowledge the difference between Wilmington and Trenton is small enough to engage in a reasonable debate.
All I am saying is that we can debate the merits of Philadelphia - Baltimore versus Trenton - Wilmington. I don't think you can justify Trenton - Baltimore or Philadelphia - Wilmington.
Trenton is a minor city, Wilmington is a pretty big city right off I-95, and 65 miles from Baltimore.
It does not make sense to sign Baltimore in New Jersey before Wilmington.
Makes much sense to sign Baltimore after Wilmington, especially given the 65 mile gap.
The NJTA is not the first to use minor cities over bigger ones. Benson is popular on I-95 in NC and so is using Naples on I-75 south in all ramps south of Wesley Chapel. The latter is a minor one compared to previous Fort Myers which is a major one in SW Florida.
Wilmington is prominent as it’s the crossroads to the Delmarva and I-95 heading south. Trenton is the capital of the state. Sign it with Philly out of North Jersey. Leave Wilmington south of Mansfield.Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York City are much more prominent, well known cities and more proper long distance control cities than the others.
Wilmington is prominent as it’s the crossroads to the Delmarva and I-95 heading south. Trenton is the capital of the state. Sign it with Philly out of North Jersey. Leave Wilmington south of Mansfield.
Wilmington is prominent as it’s the crossroads to the Delmarva and I-95 heading south. Trenton is the capital of the state. Sign it with Philly out of North Jersey. Leave Wilmington south of Mansfield.The NJ Turnpike goes through neither Wilmington nor Trenton and unlike Baltimore they are not big enough to justify signed them indirectly (Trenton you even have to leave freeways to get there).
Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not enough for it to matter
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Wilmington,+DE/@40.2042072,-75.340863,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!2m2!1d-75.5483909!2d39.744655!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1619488800!3e0
Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not enough for it to matter
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Wilmington,+DE/@40.2042072,-75.340863,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!2m2!1d-75.5483909!2d39.744655!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1619488800!3e0
Further south. Some of it may exit onto US-13 / DE-1 South, but I'd estimate the vast majority are staying on I-95 South into Maryland towards Baltimore / DC.Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not enough for it to matter
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Wilmington,+DE/@40.2042072,-75.340863,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!2m2!1d-75.5483909!2d39.744655!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1619488800!3e0
And I agree with that. Control Cities on major routes like the NJ Turnpike should be large, nationally know cities.Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not enough for it to matter
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Wilmington,+DE/@40.2042072,-75.340863,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!2m2!1d-75.5483909!2d39.744655!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1619488800!3e0
I wasn't arguing that point. Just stating a fact, that the fastest way to Wilmington from points north is the turnpike.
If we cared enough to think regionally, the four bold cities on this map are the only ones that should be used for control cities on the major highways connecting points in this corridor.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8787644,-76.5012695,8z
Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not enough for it to matter
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Wilmington,+DE/@40.2042072,-75.340863,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!2m2!1d-75.5483909!2d39.744655!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1619488800!3e0
I wasn't arguing that point. Just stating a fact, that the fastest way to Wilmington from points north is the turnpike.
Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Further south. Some of it may exit onto US-13 / DE-1 South, but I'd estimate the vast majority are staying on I-95 South into Maryland towards Baltimore / DC.
It don’t have to be a capital. It’s metro area goes south of I-295. Most people consider New Castle to be Wilmington as much as people consider Miami Beach to be Miami. Again two different cities, but assumed to be coterminous by many.
Poor Dover doesn't even have an Interstate.Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Not the point. A state capital should be known to drivers even if it is 6 miles off the beaten path. For Wilmington drivers who stay on the Turnpike to the end either use US 13 south or continue on I-95. Wilmington is the perfect place to describe that. Before it was Del. Mem. Br. as many were familiar with that bridge as the link from the north to the south.Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Nobody ever heard of Farnhurst where Route 13 meets I-295. New Castle is too small to denote, but everyone considers the area around Wilmington to be Wilmington so being the turnpike sort of ends there ( however NJDOT wants you to think it crosses the Delaware Memorial Bridge hence I-295 ramp signs on Route 140 considering the Turnpike continuing over the bridge into Delaware) so Wilmington is fine.
Not enough for it to matter
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York/Wilmington,+DE/@40.2042072,-75.340863,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m18!4m17!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059728!2d40.7127753!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c70f185c46af6f:0x8516da5077308c00!2m2!1d-75.5483909!2d39.744655!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1619488800!3e0
I wasn't arguing that point. Just stating a fact, that the fastest way to Wilmington from points north is the turnpike.
Google tends to give some odd routing from points far away. It doesn't make too much sense to exit the NJ Turnpike at Exit 9, then take US 1 to 295 to 95 thru PA to get to Wilmington. However, if you were to exit the Turnpike at Exits 4, 3 or even 2 to cross over into PA to 95 South, the time and distance difference is much more marginal.
Remember, the long, never ending, ongoing argument is using Wilmington as a control city south of Interchange 6. By exiting at Interchange 9, the argument is moot.
That said, there tends to be a cutoff point for the fastest way to Wilmington, which is around Delaware Ave (DE 52). If you're going to points north of that, exiting the NJ Turnpike and taking the Commodore Barry Bridge is generally the fastest. South of that, staying on the Turnpike is fastest.Is most traffic going south on the NJ Turnpike going to Wilmington or further on to Maryland/DC?Further south. Some of it may exit onto US-13 / DE-1 South, but I'd estimate the vast majority are staying on I-95 South into Maryland towards Baltimore / DC.
Generally speaking, most of it will continue onto 95 South (although I would also say the vast majority may exit 95 before reaching Baltimore). At least after crossing the Del Mem Bridge, the lane configuration bears that out: After 295 narrows down to 4 lanes after the bridge's toll plaza, there's 1 lane for 13/40, leaving 3 lanes for 295. The 4th lane reappears after the ramp from US 13 South merges into 295 South. That lane is now for both Northbound 495 and 95. Of the other 3 lanes, 2 lanes merge into 95 South, with the far left lane exiting for 141 North. And the way this is all configured kinda details the future for 295 South: That left lane can also easily become a 3rd lane to continue onto 95 South as well.
The is a departure from the past, where after the toll plaza, the 2 right lanes exited for 13/40, the 2 left lanes remained for 95 South. The ramp from 13 North became a 3rd 295 lane on the left, and the ramp from 13 South became a 4th 295 lane on the right. That lane exited for 495 North. The right-center lane was the Exit Only lane for 95 North. The left 2 lanes merged into 95 South, which also included the ramp for 141 North breaking off from the left lane.
So...all of that to say, traffic patterns bear out that most traffic crossing the Bridge eventually do head for 95 South. 141 North sees a decent amount of traffic, but traffic going north on 495 & 95 is mostly light enough that it actually lost a lane.It don’t have to be a capital. It’s metro area goes south of I-295. Most people consider New Castle to be Wilmington as much as people consider Miami Beach to be Miami. Again two different cities, but assumed to be coterminous by many.
I think it's worth repeating: Wilmington. Is. Not. The. Capital. Of. Delaware.
It's a pity this thread is being cluttered up with this control city baloney.I like control city discussion when Highwaystar is not involved.
It's a pity this thread is being cluttered up with this control city baloney.
I've noticed a lot of quite energetic new users lately... reminds me of 2017 when I first joined.It's a pity this thread is being cluttered up with this control city baloney.
Yeah its a shame. Just like another thread on here where some newby cluttered up another thread to say Baltimore should not be mentioned on I-70 because it don't go there.
I am playing my violin right now.
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
You are making my argument for me. By engaging in the argument of how far from the highway (2 miles to the edge of the corporate limits versus 5 miles), or the size of the county, you acknowledge the difference between Wilmington and Trenton is small enough to engage in a reasonable debate.
All I am saying is that we can debate the merits of Philadelphia - Baltimore versus Trenton - Wilmington. I don't think you can justify Trenton - Baltimore or Philadelphia - Wilmington.
Trenton is a minor city, Wilmington is a pretty big city right off I-95, and 65 miles from Baltimore.
It does not make sense to sign Baltimore in New Jersey before Wilmington.
Makes much sense to sign Baltimore after Wilmington, especially given the 65 mile gap.
The NJTA is not the first to use minor cities over bigger ones. Benson is popular on I-95 in NC and so is using Naples on I-75 south in all ramps south of Wesley Chapel. The latter is a minor one compared to previous Fort Myers which is a major one in SW Florida.
Wilmington is prominent as it’s the crossroads to the Delmarva and I-95 heading south. Trenton is the capital of the state. Sign it with Philly out of North Jersey. Leave Wilmington south of Mansfield.
Wilmington is bypassed by 295 to 95 on the south side.
Non-stop arguments are made on these forums that 95 shouldn't even go thru Wilmington, and should be switched to the faster bypass. This is probably one of the most common contradictions I see written - people want to use Wilmington as a control city, cities should be used only on highways that go thru cities, but then route its only 2 di interstate highway around the city (yes, sure, it will still 'touch' the city, but only because the city's borders extend into the river).
On Northbound 95, no one ever makes the argument that Wilmington should be signed in Maryland, and even Delaware doesn't sign 95 for Wilmington until you're north of DE 1.
If Wilmington was nearly any place else in the country, it would be of greater importance. And if we were talking about other subjects, it would be of greater importance. But in terms of roads and highways and destinations, Wilmington as a control city doesn't "drive" people to the city, and more often than not people look for highways to avoid the city.
But most traffic is going to Baltimore/Washington.
Wilmington metro (New Castle County) has almost double the population of Trenton metro (Mercer County), if that counts for anything.
Also, Trenton is now about 5 miles from I-95's closest approach to the city limits. By comparison, the end of the NJ Turnpike is only 2 miles from the Wilmington land limits (closer if you include what is the Delaware River portion of the city).
You are making my argument for me. By engaging in the argument of how far from the highway (2 miles to the edge of the corporate limits versus 5 miles), or the size of the county, you acknowledge the difference between Wilmington and Trenton is small enough to engage in a reasonable debate.
All I am saying is that we can debate the merits of Philadelphia - Baltimore versus Trenton - Wilmington. I don't think you can justify Trenton - Baltimore or Philadelphia - Wilmington.
Trenton is a minor city, Wilmington is a pretty big city right off I-95, and 65 miles from Baltimore.
It does not make sense to sign Baltimore in New Jersey before Wilmington.
Makes much sense to sign Baltimore after Wilmington, especially given the 65 mile gap.
The NJTA is not the first to use minor cities over bigger ones. Benson is popular on I-95 in NC and so is using Naples on I-75 south in all ramps south of Wesley Chapel. The latter is a minor one compared to previous Fort Myers which is a major one in SW Florida.
Seriously, you are comparing I-95 in NC?
Philly is not Fayettville or Raleigh, it is the 4th largest city or close to it in the US, it deserves to be the control city.Wilmington is prominent as it’s the crossroads to the Delmarva and I-95 heading south. Trenton is the capital of the state. Sign it with Philly out of North Jersey. Leave Wilmington south of Mansfield.
Wilmington is bypassed by 295 to 95 on the south side.
Non-stop arguments are made on these forums that 95 shouldn't even go thru Wilmington, and should be switched to the faster bypass. This is probably one of the most common contradictions I see written - people want to use Wilmington as a control city, cities should be used only on highways that go thru cities, but then route its only 2 di interstate highway around the city (yes, sure, it will still 'touch' the city, but only because the city's borders extend into the river).
On Northbound 95, no one ever makes the argument that Wilmington should be signed in Maryland, and even Delaware doesn't sign 95 for Wilmington until you're north of DE 1.
If Wilmington was nearly any place else in the country, it would be of greater importance. And if we were talking about other subjects, it would be of greater importance. But in terms of roads and highways and destinations, Wilmington as a control city doesn't "drive" people to the city, and more often than not people look for highways to avoid the city.
Wilmington is RIGHT off the DEMB, you can see it clearly from the bridge.
Unlike Trenton which is maybe 35 miles from Philly, Wilmington is 65 miles from Baltimore.
It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
I'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
They should use Philadelphia.I'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
Don't they also use Camden on the NJ Turnpike at times?It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
Don't they also use Camden on the NJ Turnpike at times?It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
I'm surprised Camden is a dump and right across from Philladelphia.Don't they also use Camden on the NJ Turnpike at times?It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
Guess on my part, but the answers/speculations to J&N's question has, no doubt, been discussed more than once in either the Delaware or Maryland threads.Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
I'm surprised Camden is a dump and right across from Philladelphia.Don't they also use Camden on the NJ Turnpike at times?It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
I'm not surprised that Camden is a dump, I'm surprised that they use it on signs.I'm surprised Camden is a dump and right across from Philladelphia.Don't they also use Camden on the NJ Turnpike at times?It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
I suspect Camden is a dump *because* it's right across from Philadelphia. Just too many cities in too close of an area. When companies are looking at places to move and grow, Philly continually won out. And Camden isn't even the only city on the NJ side of the river in this area. The much less known Gloucester City which borders Camden is also fighting for employers and employees. Go along the river north and south, and there's numerous other towns and cities that are fighting for businesses, especially in relation to jobs along the water.
I think it's worth repeating: Wilmington. Is. Not. The. Capital. Of. Delaware.
They should use Philadelphia.I'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
Wilmington is nearby Philly, so it would make sense to sign it on I-95 south from Philly, but signing it northbound would be like signing Anaheim on I-5 north in San Diego.They should use Philadelphia.I'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
And why? The argument is that Wilmington should be used on the NJ Turnpike because it's the next major city going south (and it's not really a major city, but I digress...), even though it's not really along the route. So, why going north from Maryland would you not use Wilmington, even though not only is it the next major city, but it's directly on the highway?
Let's say the argument is that since Philly should be used on the Turnpike Southbound to Exit 6, it wouldn't make practical sense to sign Philly going NB on the Turnpike to Exit 6 as you've already passed the city. I would get that argument, and agree that Philly shouldn't be signed going NB.
But when Wilmington IS the next city going both North and South, why wouldn't you sign it both North and South?
And FWIW, I'd bet that if Baltimore was the control city used, and Wilmington was never signed as the control city on the Turnpike Southbound, very few people would have an issue with that, especially seeing most people appear they don't have any issue with Wilmington not being signed as the control city in Maryland on 95 North.
And why? The argument is that Wilmington should be used on the NJ Turnpike because it's the next major city going south (and it's not really a major city, but I digress...), even though it's not really along the route. So, why going north from Maryland would you not use Wilmington, even though not only is it the next major city, but it's directly on the highway?Wilmington is nearby Philly, so it would make sense to sign it on I-95 south from Philly, but signing it northbound would be like signing Anaheim on I-5 north in San Diego.
Let's say the argument is that since Philly should be used on the Turnpike Southbound to Exit 6, it wouldn't make practical sense to sign Philly going NB on the Turnpike to Exit 6 as you've already passed the city. I would get that argument, and agree that Philly shouldn't be signed going NB.
But when Wilmington IS the next city going both North and South, why wouldn't you sign it both North and South?
And FWIW, I'd bet that if Baltimore was the control city used, and Wilmington was never signed as the control city on the Turnpike Southbound, very few people would have an issue with that, especially seeing most people appear they don't have any issue with Wilmington not being signed as the control city in Maryland on 95 North.
Yes, I-5 in San Diego is signed as Santa Ana (I didn't know which one they used). They use LA in San Diego just like they should use Philly in Baltimore. Once you enter Delaware then using Wilmington could work.And why? The argument is that Wilmington should be used on the NJ Turnpike because it's the next major city going south (and it's not really a major city, but I digress...), even though it's not really along the route. So, why going north from Maryland would you not use Wilmington, even though not only is it the next major city, but it's directly on the highway?Wilmington is nearby Philly, so it would make sense to sign it on I-95 south from Philly, but signing it northbound would be like signing Anaheim on I-5 north in San Diego.
Let's say the argument is that since Philly should be used on the Turnpike Southbound to Exit 6, it wouldn't make practical sense to sign Philly going NB on the Turnpike to Exit 6 as you've already passed the city. I would get that argument, and agree that Philly shouldn't be signed going NB.
But when Wilmington IS the next city going both North and South, why wouldn't you sign it both North and South?
And FWIW, I'd bet that if Baltimore was the control city used, and Wilmington was never signed as the control city on the Turnpike Southbound, very few people would have an issue with that, especially seeing most people appear they don't have any issue with Wilmington not being signed as the control city in Maryland on 95 North.
A quick review of I-5 in LA appears that Anaheim isn't the preferred control city of I-5 South either. Santa Ana is. And while leaving the San Diego area Los Angeles is often the control city, as you drive further north Santa Ana becomes the control city before switching back to LA.
So, your example doesn't pan out, since Anaheim isn't the main control city in either direction of I-5, and Santa Ana, just south of LA, *IS* the control city in both directions.
...They use LA in San Diego just like they should use Philly in Baltimore. Once you enter Delaware then using Wilmington could work.
Well using Wilmington/Philadelphia is good as it has a smaller closer by city and a larger more distant one....They use LA in San Diego just like they should use Philly in Baltimore. Once you enter Delaware then using Wilmington could work.
In Delaware on 95 North, any full width overhead sign structure south of DE 1 uses the "Next 3 Exit" signage or other advanded exit notice sign; no pull thru signs for 95 or control city. At DE 1 and points north, the signs are more for the highway split at 95/295, and the 95 signs are all for Wilmington & Philadelphia. Only approaching the 95/495 split is Wilmington used singularly as a control city.
So the reality is, Delaware doesn't even use Wilmington as a sole control city. The NJ Turnpike gives Wilmington a lot more highway recognition than Delaware does!
I see there is an Exit 19W now on the western spur.
What is the brown out on the sign covering up?
What is the brown out on the sign covering up?
GSV indicates it is an "EZPASS ONLY" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8167637,-74.046466,3a,75y,291.2h,81.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxuXQJpsHN-jd5vi696vww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) banner.
What is the brown out on the sign covering up?
GSV indicates it is an "EZPASS ONLY" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8167637,-74.046466,3a,75y,291.2h,81.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxuXQJpsHN-jd5vi696vww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) banner.
Thought that ramp is free.
Well it was free to motorists until opened full time.What is the brown out on the sign covering up?
GSV indicates it is an "EZPASS ONLY" (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8167637,-74.046466,3a,75y,291.2h,81.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snxuXQJpsHN-jd5vi696vww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) banner.
Thought that ramp is free.
No. Never was. The Meadowlands Sports & Expo Authority would pay the Turnpike Authority a flat rate per car for years when the ramp was used during sporting events or concerts. Now that they've redeveloped it into a ramp that's always open to allow traffic to move to and from the mall more easily, they erected an EZ-Pass gantry and charge a flat rate toll for every vehicle that exits there.
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?I do recall some areas of the Turnpike closer to NYC where you can get a nice shot of the NYC skyline.
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?
If memory serves, there had been toll gantries up on the exit ramp for some time, but they were not in operation. Not sure if they were replaced for the current use.Nothing within my memory.
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1938095,-74.6070459,3a,15.5y,112.55h,92.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2FcF6PiImPKOSK9Tr93Fcg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2FcF6PiImPKOSK9Tr93Fcg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D122.407776%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Camden? Why not Philly? And why hasn't NJDOT added I-95 to the signs?
NJDOT seems to love Camden and hate Philadelphia.https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1938095,-74.6070459,3a,15.5y,112.55h,92.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2FcF6PiImPKOSK9Tr93Fcg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D2FcF6PiImPKOSK9Tr93Fcg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D122.407776%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Camden? Why not Philly? And why hasn't NJDOT added I-95 to the signs?
Out of date, 95 shields are up now. But still says Camden.
NJDOT seems to love Camden and hate Philadelphia.
They sign NYC however.NJDOT seems to love Camden and hate Philadelphia.
Of course they do. Part of living in NJ is hating on PA and NY. And vice versa.
Heh. Although NJ gets roasted, thinking of them hating on other states is like the slob roommate telling his fellow tenants to get off their back.NJDOT seems to love Camden and hate Philadelphia.
Of course they do. Part of living in NJ is hating on PA and NY. And vice versa.
They sign NYC however.NJDOT seems to love Camden and hate Philadelphia.
Of course they do. Part of living in NJ is hating on PA and NY. And vice versa.
Camden isn't super important. That's like Indiana signing Gary on the Indiana Toll Road and I-65.They sign NYC however.NJDOT seems to love Camden and hate Philadelphia.
Of course they do. Part of living in NJ is hating on PA and NY. And vice versa.
There's not exactly one NJ destination directly across the river from NYC. At the GWB, it's Fort Lee. At the Lincoln Tunnel, its Weehawken. At the Holland Tunnel, it's Jersey City. etc.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority has monthly board meetings which are open to the public. At the beginning of each meeting they offer a comment period for any issues, concerns or compliments you wish to bring up. Sometimes they may offer discussion in return; other times they may simply thank you for your statement.Yeah I don't care that much about Camden being signed to go to one of those. For the record, I do think Camden is the right city to be posted on I-295.
The next meeting is May 25th. Log in info and past meeting agendas and minutes are here: https://www.njta.com/board-agendas-minutes/agenda-center . This is how this issue needs to be addressed.
We can't continually go on about the subject, because it ain't going to get resolved on these forums.
There's some sort of interchange construction happening at both 5 and 4. Not sure the details of it, but saw some construction fencing up at both interchanges.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
i could be wrong but it could be that there tapers are long to allow people to slow down and speed up to merge better but this doesnt work if there is congestion as long as its free flowing it functions well they also close off ramps to congested roadwayscan anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
Yeah that's an oddity considering the NJTA tends to usually overperform on following specs.
There's some sort of interchange construction happening at both 5 and 4. Not sure the details of it, but saw some construction fencing up at both interchanges.
I believe this is for a roadway lighting upgrade project for Interchanges 2 - 5.
There's some sort of interchange construction happening at both 5 and 4. Not sure the details of it, but saw some construction fencing up at both interchanges.
I believe this is for a roadway lighting upgrade project for Interchanges 2 - 5.
No, they break out lighting projects into an entirely different section of the capital plan. So this is definitely for sign structures only.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
Citation needed. Especially when you said *most* drivers....followed by *the average driver*.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
Citation needed. Especially when you said *most* drivers....followed by *the average driver*.
Fine, "In Our Opinion", Mr. Turnpike Lover. :-D
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
Citation needed. Especially when you said *most* drivers....followed by *the average driver*.
Fine, "In Our Opinion", Mr. Turnpike Lover. :-D
"Mr. Turnpike Lover" rarely uses the Turnpike. And who is "our"? Stats would show if they're truly more dangerous...or less dangerous.
We could start by using your observations...how many accidents have you seen at the on ramps?
That explains why there are so many idiots who merge onto the interstate at 40 and make no attempt to slip into a natural gap. Perhaps they need to learn how to drive properly.can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
I'm as curious as everyone else about why NJTA uses tapered acceleration lanes instead of the more common parallel acceleration lanes, which I think are safer. I don't think I've ever seen this on any other highway built to modern standards.https://goo.gl/maps/95HJXBK4chRdmPjf9
Thanks vdeane. LOL First time I've ever seen NYSDOT do that with an acceleration lane. Though I have seen them use tapered deceleration lanes in a few places on Long Island which interestingly NJTA does not do.Call me crazy, but tapered deceleration lanes seem to make way more sense and feel much safer.
I'm as curious as everyone else about why NJTA uses tapered acceleration lanes instead of the more common parallel acceleration lanes, which I think are safer. I don't think I've ever seen this on any other highway built to modern standards.It's not the only place, but both are actually still supported in engineering standards that I've seen.
I'm as curious as everyone else about why NJTA uses tapered acceleration lanes instead of the more common parallel acceleration lanes, which I think are safer. I don't think I've ever seen this on any other highway built to modern standards.I’m pretty sure ISTHA commonly uses tapered acceleration lanes - the Sat views on Google of NJTP Entrance Ramps looks just like ISTHA Entrance Ramps, unless I’m missing something
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
Citation needed. Especially when you said *most* drivers....followed by *the average driver*.
Fine, "In Our Opinion", Mr. Turnpike Lover. :-D
"Mr. Turnpike Lover" rarely uses the Turnpike. And who is "our"? Stats would show if they're truly more dangerous...or less dangerous.
We could start by using your observations...how many accidents have you seen at the on ramps?
Yes, but "Mr. Turnpike Lover" did used to work as a toll taker on the turnpike. So, just perhaps, not a completely unbiased opinion.
"Our" would be me, SignBridge and fmendes, since we all seemed to be on the same page in this thread.
I generally don't see accidents at onramps, period, on or off the turnpike, so I can't say either way. I just know what feels comfortable, and as the turnpike method is not commonly used elsewhere, its unusual, and therefore uncomfortable. I suppose if you drove the turnpike all the time and were used to its ramp config, then it wouldn't feel so uncomfortable.
Don't get me wrong, NJTA does a hell of a job overall, especially compared to a certain PTC just across the state line, but they're not perfect. No one is.
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet longThey are 1200 feet long, actually. The taper starts before the gore lines end but when you have a view of what you're merging into. About 600 feet of the taper is at least 10' wide and then the rest of the taper gradually feeds you into traffic.
That's an error in their perception of how drivers think. Most people aren't thinking about merging until the gore line ends, especially since they are the extra wide ones of the Turnpike. The average driver wants to be parallel to the next lane before judging their ability to merge.
Citation needed. Especially when you said *most* drivers....followed by *the average driver*.
Fine, "In Our Opinion", Mr. Turnpike Lover. :-D
"Mr. Turnpike Lover" rarely uses the Turnpike. And who is "our"? Stats would show if they're truly more dangerous...or less dangerous.
We could start by using your observations...how many accidents have you seen at the on ramps?
Yes, but "Mr. Turnpike Lover" did used to work as a toll taker on the turnpike. So, just perhaps, not a completely unbiased opinion.
"Our" would be me, SignBridge and fmendes, since we all seemed to be on the same page in this thread.
I generally don't see accidents at onramps, period, on or off the turnpike, so I can't say either way. I just know what feels comfortable, and as the turnpike method is not commonly used elsewhere, its unusual, and therefore uncomfortable. I suppose if you drove the turnpike all the time and were used to its ramp config, then it wouldn't feel so uncomfortable.
Don't get me wrong, NJTA does a hell of a job overall, especially compared to a certain PTC just across the state line, but they're not perfect. No one is.
However, deep in some public comment section of the widening study, you'll find that I actually talked about this very subject, and discussed my belief that they should use the more standardized accel lane.
Thanks for admitting that you were arguing for no point than to argue.
Thanks for admitting that you were arguing for no point than to argue.
Big difference between me discussing it, and you proclaiming you know what everyone likes.
Thanks for admitting that you were arguing for no point than to argue.
Big difference between me discussing it, and you proclaiming you know what everyone likes.
You agree with my perception but still argue it. What is wrong with you old man? Seriously... Instead of demanding some kind of statistics, deliberately making a fuss, you could've just said "Yeah I've argued the NJTA should adopt standard merge lanes too".
You used to be a nice guy 20 years ago, man you've changed...
Whatever, I'm done.
Thanks for admitting that you were arguing for no point than to argue.
Big difference between me discussing it, and you proclaiming you know what everyone likes.
You agree with my perception but still argue it. What is wrong with you old man? Seriously... Instead of demanding some kind of statistics, deliberately making a fuss, you could've just said "Yeah I've argued the NJTA should adopt standard merge lanes too".
I didn't say I agreed with you. I said I discussed my belief with them. They responded in a manner that swayed my opinion to a more neutral stance on their usage.
All I asked for was some stats. You deflected every time.You used to be a nice guy 20 years ago, man you've changed...
Nice guy = I agree with you.Whatever, I'm done.
Cool.
People who say they're done when they're not are silly people.Thanks for admitting that you were arguing for no point than to argue.
Big difference between me discussing it, and you proclaiming you know what everyone likes.
You agree with my perception but still argue it. What is wrong with you old man? Seriously... Instead of demanding some kind of statistics, deliberately making a fuss, you could've just said "Yeah I've argued the NJTA should adopt standard merge lanes too".
I didn't say I agreed with you. I said I discussed my belief with them. They responded in a manner that swayed my opinion to a more neutral stance on their usage.
All I asked for was some stats. You deflected every time.You used to be a nice guy 20 years ago, man you've changed...
Nice guy = I agree with you.Whatever, I'm done.
Cool.
Oh? So what were those arguments that your masters st the NJTA used which led you to a more neutral stance? You have yet to share them, as far as I can see. Maybe you could’ve led with them instead of demanding stats from me.
Am I the only one who thinks that the NJ Turnpike needs more exits?
Perhaps north of I-195, along with maybe a connection at NJ-42. Otherwise, I-295 provides the mainly local interstate highway route while the Turnpike is exclusively through traffic. I suggest NJ-42 because it serves as a connection for long distance traffic to the Atlantic City Expressway heading east.That will probably be served adequately by the missing moves project, since long distance traffic heading east towards AC can generally take I-295 just as easily. I'm not sure exactly why NJDOT and NJTA never built an interchange when the 42 freeway was constructed back in the 50s, but since they intersect in the middle of a wetland, it seems highly unlikely an interchange can be built now, given the regulations.
Admittedly I rarely go south of woodbridge, but I think the exit spacing on the turnpike is fine. The NY thruway is an example of a toll road with too few exits.
That said, and as already mentioned, there has always been a strong desire for there to be an interchange with the Turnpike and NJ 42.
If I were to add more, placing one on [...] NJ 38 would be nice.
There's also a surprising distance between 8A and 9, but not familiar with that area enough to know if one would be useful or where it could go.
Quote from: jeffandnicoleIf I were to add more, placing one on [...] NJ 38 would be nice.
there wasn't enough room for the I-295/NJ 38 interchange back when, and (especially with Bishop's Gate and now Topgolf built out) there's no room on the east side for a Turnpike interchange.
would've been great when I lived in that area, though!
Quote from: jeffandnicoleIf I were to add more, placing one on [...] NJ 38 would be nice.
there wasn't enough room for the I-295/NJ 38 interchange back when, and (especially with Bishop's Gate and now Topgolf built out) there's no room on the east side for a Turnpike interchange.
would've been great when I lived in that area, though!
NJDOT is still pushing plans for those missing moves. Bishop Gate and Top Golf doesn't interfere. I believe there's an old house on the SW corner that will need to be taken . The biggest issue is cost. Their preliminary estimates had the 2 ramps costing over $100 million! They dropped the project from the TIP at one point but i don't believe it's a dead project yet.
If I had my way, freeway driving would be on the road test, and improper merging would be an automatic fail (just like rolling through a stop sign is here in NY).Funny you should mention that, because when I was getting my driving lessons, my instructor lead me to the Long Island Expressway. I believe I may have passed, but either way, I was disappointed she didn't let me drive on more of it.
Quote from: jeffandnicoleIf I were to add more, placing one on [...] NJ 38 would be nice.
there wasn't enough room for the I-295/NJ 38 interchange back when, and (especially with Bishop's Gate and now Topgolf built out) there's no room on the east side for a Turnpike interchange.
would've been great when I lived in that area, though!
NJDOT is still pushing plans for those missing moves. Bishop Gate and Top Golf doesn't interfere. I believe there's an old house on the SW corner that will need to be taken . The biggest issue is cost. Their preliminary estimates had the 2 ramps costing over $100 million! They dropped the project from the TIP at one point but i don't believe it's a dead project yet.
would the WB-NB ramp cross over the Turnpike? that would help account for the high price tag (if the property acquisitions for SB-EB and EB-SB didn't already).
Looks like they're trying way too hard to avoid any weaves whatsoever at what would have been a plain cloverleaf if done originally. Just tie it into Marter.Quote from: jeffandnicoleIf I were to add more, placing one on [...] NJ 38 would be nice.
there wasn't enough room for the I-295/NJ 38 interchange back when, and (especially with Bishop's Gate and now Topgolf built out) there's no room on the east side for a Turnpike interchange.
would've been great when I lived in that area, though!
NJDOT is still pushing plans for those missing moves. Bishop Gate and Top Golf doesn't interfere. I believe there's an old house on the SW corner that will need to be taken . The biggest issue is cost. Their preliminary estimates had the 2 ramps costing over $100 million! They dropped the project from the TIP at one point but i don't believe it's a dead project yet.
would the WB-NB ramp cross over the Turnpike? that would help account for the high price tag (if the property acquisitions for SB-EB and EB-SB didn't already).
It would, but that's the cheaper of the 2 ramps! I know I've seen the design somewhere, but can't find it. If I recall, the 295 South to 38 East ramp was designed to take off near the same location of the current 295 South to 38 West ramp (with that ramp designed to be moved further north). It would go high over NJ 38 parallel to 295, then on the south side of Route 38 make a U-turn over 295 to the Northbound side and touch down to meet the existing 295 North to 38 East ramp!
I did find this news story though. Apparently the project was dropped when the estimated price tag ballooned to nearly $200 million! https://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/20190825/will-nj-ever-add-missing-ramps-on-and-off-i-295-in-mount-laurel
I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
It is so stupid how the NJTP just refuses to use Philly.Don't they also use Camden on the NJ Turnpike at times?It makes more sense to have Wilmington/Wash-Bal as the control cities then just Baltimore.
Then why isn't Wilmington used on Northbound 95 out of Baltimore?
I always figured the thinking is that the majority of the traffic on that stretch of 95 out of Baltimore is headed to the NJ/NYC area, and that's why they do that.
Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
Anyone live in Delaware and work in New Jersey?I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
Anyone live in Delaware and work in New Jersey?I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
From exit 3 southward it seems to be pretty rural with open fields in Salem and Gloucester County which again I never understood given it is sandwiched between Wilmington and Philly.I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
Did people just not want to settle there?From exit 3 southward it seems to be pretty rural with open fields in Salem and Gloucester County which again I never understood given it is sandwiched between Wilmington and Philly.I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
From exit 3 southward it seems to be pretty rural with open fields in Salem and Gloucester County which again I never understood given it is sandwiched between Wilmington and Philly.I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
Did people just not want to settle there?
Does the turnpike just not go through the populated areas?From exit 3 southward it seems to be pretty rural with open fields in Salem and Gloucester County which again I never understood given it is sandwiched between Wilmington and Philly.I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
I thought I just answered that question.Did people just not want to settle there?
I live between Exits 3 & 2. I don't know how to stress this otherwise, but the area, especially in the northern section of Gloucester County, is very crowded for a suburban area. NJ 42 is in this stretch, and is one of the most congested highways in NJ, serving the hundreds of thousands of people that settled here.
Does the turnpike just not go through the populated areas?From exit 3 southward it seems to be pretty rural with open fields in Salem and Gloucester County which again I never understood given it is sandwiched between Wilmington and Philly.I NEVER understood why the southernmost portions of the NJTP are so rural given they are within an easy 30 miles or less of Philly and near Wilmington.Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
If you're traveling along the Turnpike, it may appear that way due to the mature tree growth along the roadway. However, it's anything but rural in much of that area. The traffic and housing on the other side of those trees is quite dense.
The southernmost 10 miles or so of the Turnpike is in Salem County, which is more rural in nature.
There are plenty of people in Jersey commuting to Philly...I think Jersey accounts for nearly 30% of the Philly workforce.
There may not be as many people living in NJ that work in Wilmington simply due to it being so much cheaper to live in DE. No sales tax, property taxes only about a quarter of what you would pay in NJ, and the toll to cross the bridge are all disincentives to living in NJ and working in Delaware.
I thought I just answered that question.Did people just not want to settle there?
I live between Exits 3 & 2. I don't know how to stress this otherwise, but the area, especially in the northern section of Gloucester County, is very crowded for a suburban area. NJ 42 is in this stretch, and is one of the most congested highways in NJ, serving the hundreds of thousands of people that settled here.
Does the turnpike just not go through the populated areas?
Does the turnpike just not go through the populated areas?
Just look at Google aerial maps (may need to zoom out or switch to satellite view).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2kcFYZbNLDJq5cpM8
Then look at the same area on Google Street View.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/WxB5V2G9xa5jbroF7
Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
Philly is not as big/important?Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
Yes, like Dover.Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
You don't have to go too far south of Boston to find open areas.
Farm protection and lack of crossings.Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
Exit 8A isn't anywhere close to the Trenton Metro area.
Land between 1 & 2 is owned by farmers. It's not vacant land.
For a better comparison, look at how Metro Atlanta becomes rural once you get 20 ,- 30 miles away from the city in some areas.
NYC is 3 times larger than Philly and isn't a fair comparison.
Boston...well, look at aerial photos. It starts getting faurly rural just 10 miles to the west.
Not exactly as big as the aforementioned metros, but Hampton Roads gets quite rural immediately west of “proper” Suffolk (pretty much west of the bypass, because, technically, city limits spread all the way out to Franklin). Same with even the northern parts of Suffolk west of I-664, though that area has been growing. Chesapeake and Virginia Beach is still largely rural in the southern part of the cities.
Between Exit 1 and 2 is very rural. North of there, suburbanization increases steadily, peaking between 3 and 4. It declines north of there, probably minimizing near 6 but only increasing slowly north of there to 8A. After 8A, it increases rapidly.Why is that, given it is right next to a top 10 city?
I can't imagine NY, DC, or BOS having this much vacant land as there is in Metro Philly between exit 1-2 then north of 4.
By the time you get to 8A it is really Metro Trenton.
Exit 8A isn't anywhere close to the Trenton Metro area.
Land between 1 & 2 is owned by farmers. It's not vacant land.
For a better comparison, look at how Metro Atlanta becomes rural once you get 20 ,- 30 miles away from the city in some areas.
NYC is 3 times larger than Philly and isn't a fair comparison.
Boston...well, look at aerial photos. It starts getting faurly rural just 10 miles to the west.
No Boston really doesn't.
There is a difference between low density rich estates (Boston) vs undeveloped land (South Jersey).
One other thing to consider is that generally, you only see evidence of the suburbs where they were built before or shortly after the Turnpike was. Newer suburbs deliberately are built out of view for the most part, since most people don’t like to live near a superhighway.I'd like to live next to a superhighway.
My friend, the housing market will be very kind to you.One other thing to consider is that generally, you only see evidence of the suburbs where they were built before or shortly after the Turnpike was. Newer suburbs deliberately are built out of view for the most part, since most people don’t like to live near a superhighway.I'd like to live next to a superhighway.
TBH background noise doesn't really bother me.My friend, the housing market will be very kind to you.One other thing to consider is that generally, you only see evidence of the suburbs where they were built before or shortly after the Turnpike was. Newer suburbs deliberately are built out of view for the most part, since most people don’t like to live near a superhighway.I'd like to live next to a superhighway.
Oh please Suffolk, Chesey, and even VA Beach are hardly cities.Virginia Beach is the most populated city in the state of Virginia, and 44th in the nation. 450,000 people.
The only real cities in Hampton Roads are Norfolk and Hampton.Norfolk has a population of around 250,000, slighter smaller than Chesapeake.
Boston...well, look at aerial photos. It starts getting faurly rural just 10 miles to the west.
No Boston really doesn't.
There is a difference between low density rich estates (Boston) vs undeveloped land (South Jersey).
Boston...well, look at aerial photos. It starts getting faurly rural just 10 miles to the west.
No Boston really doesn't.
There is a difference between low density rich estates (Boston) vs undeveloped land (South Jersey).
Correct. Ten miles out you hit strictly zoned towns like Lincoln, where the wealthy get to pretend they live in some semi-rural New England paradise that is conveniently located right off I-95 (aka Route 128). Lincoln also appears to be very rural if you travel along Route 2A, which has been cleared of buildings constructed after 1775 as it is part of the Minute Man National Park.
As a transplanted native New Yorker, who lived in Brooklyn, Queens, and Essex County NJ, I find joy in the fact that I live six miles from downtown Boston (fifteen minute drive with normal traffic) and fifteen minutes from cows. Never mind the cows are on make believe farms of wealthy landowners or are grazing on national parkland; the fact that I can access both environments in a few minutes is a real benefit of living here.
You need to make a significant effort to travel far enough from Boston to find real working farms, without some sort of open space preservation restriction on the deed, where a farmer is using the land for agricultural purposes without significant pressure to sell to a developer.
Boston...well, look at aerial photos. It starts getting faurly rural just 10 miles to the west.
No Boston really doesn't.
There is a difference between low density rich estates (Boston) vs undeveloped land (South Jersey).
Correct. Ten miles out you hit strictly zoned towns like Lincoln, where the wealthy get to pretend they live in some semi-rural New England paradise that is conveniently located right off I-95 (aka Route 128). Lincoln also appears to be very rural if you travel along Route 2A, which has been cleared of buildings constructed after 1775 as it is part of the Minute Man National Park.
As a transplanted native New Yorker, who lived in Brooklyn, Queens, and Essex County NJ, I find joy in the fact that I live six miles from downtown Boston (fifteen minute drive with normal traffic) and fifteen minutes from cows. Never mind the cows are on make believe farms of wealthy landowners or are grazing on national parkland; the fact that I can access both environments in a few minutes is a real benefit of living here.
You need to make a significant effort to travel far enough from Boston to find real working farms, without some sort of open space preservation restriction on the deed, where a farmer is using the land for agricultural purposes without significant pressure to sell to a developer.
Thanks vdeane. LOL First time I've ever seen NYSDOT do that with an acceleration lane. Though I have seen them use tapered deceleration lanes in a few places on Long Island which interestingly NJTA does not do.tapered lanes are tricky where to place because u cant put them lets Say on the BQE because theres just to much congestion and it wont be operationaly sound being that New Yorkers drive like assholes
Are you serious?Oh please Suffolk, Chesey, and even VA Beach are hardly cities.Virginia Beach is the most populated city in the state of Virginia, and 44th in the nation. 450,000 people.
Chesapeake is right behind at 2nd in the state, and 91st in the nation. 250,000 people.
Suffolk is slightly smaller with only 90,000 people.
But sure, "not cities". Just nearly a million population combined that make up the bulk of the Southside population.The only real cities in Hampton Roads are Norfolk and Hampton.Norfolk has a population of around 250,000, slighter smaller than Chesapeake.
Hampton has a population of around 130,000, less than half of Virginia Beach.
But the "only" "real cities"... :sleep:
Newport News has a population of nearly 180,000... bigger than the city of Hampton.
Portsmouth nearly 100,000...
But again, "not real cities"...
Either way, whatever you dispute is "real" or "fake" cities... the overall Hampton Roads metropolitan area, including the Peninsula and Southside, has a combined population of over 1.7 million. It's certainly not something small.
Based on NJDOT interchange diagrams and some enlarged views showing the jurisdictional responsibilities, usually the entity who had jurisdiction of the road behind you (assuming you're looking forward) has maintenance of the ramp until the gore point at which point the other entity takes over.
In your example, if you check GSV, the Turnpike lane markings ends right under the bridge where you're standing on the westbound ramp, the eastbound ramp has NJDOT markings until the I-95 NB road comes in.
The image below was taken from the last overpass over I-80 just before the I-95 junction, which is visible. The question: Did the eastbound express lanes get striped by NJTA using GSP standards, or was it striped by NJDOT? The westbound lanes were clearly NJTA, but both directions appear to have been paved recently. Follow on question: If the eastbound was indeed NJDOT vs the westbound being NJTA, why does the jurisdiction differ in each direction? I'm surprised both don't have a definite change point for both directions.
The image below was taken from the last overpass over I-80 just before the I-95 junction, which is visible. The question: Did the eastbound express lanes get striped by NJTA using GSP standards, or was it striped by NJDOT? The westbound lanes were clearly NJTA, but both directions appear to have been paved recently. Follow on question: If the eastbound was indeed NJDOT vs the westbound being NJTA, why does the jurisdiction differ in each direction? I'm surprised both don't have a definite change point for both directions.
Another equally unusual setup is at the southern end of the Turnpike and 295. The Turnpike apparently has jurisdiction where 295 comes in on the SB side, and after a recent repaving project, the Turnpike painted Turnpike spec skip lines across the entire roadway. On the Northbound side, 295 in the same vicinity, has NJDOT spec skip lines and is fully under NJDOT jurisdiction.
Another equally unusual setup is at the southern end of the Turnpike and 295. The Turnpike apparently has jurisdiction where 295 comes in on the SB side, and after a recent repaving project, the Turnpike painted Turnpike spec skip lines across the entire roadway. On the Northbound side, 295 in the same vicinity, has NJDOT spec skip lines and is fully under NJDOT jurisdiction.
This one is interesting in that there are clear markers for NJTA jurisdiction ending/beginning at the overpass (the mile zero markers are attached to the overpass structure), but their paving project clearly went "just a little farther" to the last exit for 49 here.
Another equally unusual setup is at the southern end of the Turnpike and 295. The Turnpike apparently has jurisdiction where 295 comes in on the SB side, and after a recent repaving project, the Turnpike painted Turnpike spec skip lines across the entire roadway. On the Northbound side, 295 in the same vicinity, has NJDOT spec skip lines and is fully under NJDOT jurisdiction.
Not only that, but this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6793617,-75.48909,3a,75y,300.09h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfZqHquHQnTOJaXYh6R85OQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the referenced stretch looks like a DRBA install over NJTA pavement (and to complete the trifecta, a NJDOT-spec mile marker for I-295 is here as well)!
As for 295, I presume the difference between directions has to do with the different locations where it merges/separates from the Turnpike. As famartin noted, Mile 0 of the NJTP is right at the NJ 49/US 130 overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6800975,-75.4930426,3a,75y,108.13h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4O2M7Ql0uUkV_QH15tgrXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) - 295 NB has just separated to the right at this point, but 295 SB merges in well before this point. (So my interpretation is that 295 SB technically "overlaps" with the Turnpike SB up to NJ 49/US 130, where the Turnpike officially hits mile 0 & ends.)
This one is interesting in that there are clear markers for NJTA jurisdiction ending/beginning at the overpass (the mile zero markers are attached to the overpass structure), but their paving project clearly went "just a little farther" to the last exit for 49 here.
I recall that the original concrete pavement was still in use beneath the overpass with transition back to asphalt overlay on either side, so it probably made more sense for NJTA to include that short piece with their longer resurfacing project rather than stop right at the overpass and make DRBA do the rest themselves.
Kinda like this assembly in Greenwich, CT, except it's a NYSTA truss holding up a ConnDOT sign.Another equally unusual setup is at the southern end of the Turnpike and 295. The Turnpike apparently has jurisdiction where 295 comes in on the SB side, and after a recent repaving project, the Turnpike painted Turnpike spec skip lines across the entire roadway. On the Northbound side, 295 in the same vicinity, has NJDOT spec skip lines and is fully under NJDOT jurisdiction.
Not only that, but this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6793617,-75.48909,3a,75y,300.09h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfZqHquHQnTOJaXYh6R85OQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the referenced stretch looks like a DRBA install over NJTA pavement (and to complete the trifecta, a NJDOT-spec mile marker for I-295 is here as well)!
As for 295, I presume the difference between directions has to do with the different locations where it merges/separates from the Turnpike. As famartin noted, Mile 0 of the NJTP is right at the NJ 49/US 130 overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6800975,-75.4930426,3a,75y,108.13h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4O2M7Ql0uUkV_QH15tgrXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) - 295 NB has just separated to the right at this point, but 295 SB merges in well before this point. (So my interpretation is that 295 SB technically "overlaps" with the Turnpike SB up to NJ 49/US 130, where the Turnpike officially hits mile 0 & ends.)This one is interesting in that there are clear markers for NJTA jurisdiction ending/beginning at the overpass (the mile zero markers are attached to the overpass structure), but their paving project clearly went "just a little farther" to the last exit for 49 here.
I recall that the original concrete pavement was still in use beneath the overpass with transition back to asphalt overlay on either side, so it probably made more sense for NJTA to include that short piece with their longer resurfacing project rather than stop right at the overpass and make DRBA do the rest themselves.
Kinda like this assembly in Greenwich, CT, except it's a NYSTA truss holding up a ConnDOT sign.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.999494,-73.6542841,3a,75y,228.58h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssTuD7cElRXYhkJr21O8Ygw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.999494,-73.6542841,3a,75y,228.58h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssTuD7cElRXYhkJr21O8Ygw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
Kinda like this assembly in Greenwich, CT, except it's a NYSTA truss holding up a ConnDOT sign.Another equally unusual setup is at the southern end of the Turnpike and 295. The Turnpike apparently has jurisdiction where 295 comes in on the SB side, and after a recent repaving project, the Turnpike painted Turnpike spec skip lines across the entire roadway. On the Northbound side, 295 in the same vicinity, has NJDOT spec skip lines and is fully under NJDOT jurisdiction.
Not only that, but this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6793617,-75.48909,3a,75y,300.09h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfZqHquHQnTOJaXYh6R85OQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the referenced stretch looks like a DRBA install over NJTA pavement (and to complete the trifecta, a NJDOT-spec mile marker for I-295 is here as well)!
As for 295, I presume the difference between directions has to do with the different locations where it merges/separates from the Turnpike. As famartin noted, Mile 0 of the NJTP is right at the NJ 49/US 130 overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6800975,-75.4930426,3a,75y,108.13h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4O2M7Ql0uUkV_QH15tgrXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) - 295 NB has just separated to the right at this point, but 295 SB merges in well before this point. (So my interpretation is that 295 SB technically "overlaps" with the Turnpike SB up to NJ 49/US 130, where the Turnpike officially hits mile 0 & ends.)This one is interesting in that there are clear markers for NJTA jurisdiction ending/beginning at the overpass (the mile zero markers are attached to the overpass structure), but their paving project clearly went "just a little farther" to the last exit for 49 here.
I recall that the original concrete pavement was still in use beneath the overpass with transition back to asphalt overlay on either side, so it probably made more sense for NJTA to include that short piece with their longer resurfacing project rather than stop right at the overpass and make DRBA do the rest themselves.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.999494,-73.6542841,3a,75y,228.58h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssTuD7cElRXYhkJr21O8Ygw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.999494,-73.6542841,3a,75y,228.58h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssTuD7cElRXYhkJr21O8Ygw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
Kinda like this assembly in Greenwich, CT, except it's a NYSTA truss holding up a ConnDOT sign.Another equally unusual setup is at the southern end of the Turnpike and 295. The Turnpike apparently has jurisdiction where 295 comes in on the SB side, and after a recent repaving project, the Turnpike painted Turnpike spec skip lines across the entire roadway. On the Northbound side, 295 in the same vicinity, has NJDOT spec skip lines and is fully under NJDOT jurisdiction.
Not only that, but this overhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6793617,-75.48909,3a,75y,300.09h,87.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfZqHquHQnTOJaXYh6R85OQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) on the referenced stretch looks like a DRBA install over NJTA pavement (and to complete the trifecta, a NJDOT-spec mile marker for I-295 is here as well)!
As for 295, I presume the difference between directions has to do with the different locations where it merges/separates from the Turnpike. As famartin noted, Mile 0 of the NJTP is right at the NJ 49/US 130 overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6800975,-75.4930426,3a,75y,108.13h,87.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4O2M7Ql0uUkV_QH15tgrXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) - 295 NB has just separated to the right at this point, but 295 SB merges in well before this point. (So my interpretation is that 295 SB technically "overlaps" with the Turnpike SB up to NJ 49/US 130, where the Turnpike officially hits mile 0 & ends.)This one is interesting in that there are clear markers for NJTA jurisdiction ending/beginning at the overpass (the mile zero markers are attached to the overpass structure), but their paving project clearly went "just a little farther" to the last exit for 49 here.
I recall that the original concrete pavement was still in use beneath the overpass with transition back to asphalt overlay on either side, so it probably made more sense for NJTA to include that short piece with their longer resurfacing project rather than stop right at the overpass and make DRBA do the rest themselves.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.999494,-73.6542841,3a,75y,228.58h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssTuD7cElRXYhkJr21O8Ygw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.999494,-73.6542841,3a,75y,228.58h,89.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssTuD7cElRXYhkJr21O8Ygw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en)
Yeah, jurisdictional responsibilities get intertwined here, maintenance, ownership, and otherwise. Below is attempt to clarify by NJDOT, but probably not as official as the signed/sealed jurisdictional mapping that NJTA has on file.
Straight Line Diagram (https://njsld.org/NJDOT/SLD/SheetViewer/api/Sheet/AuxFile/enlarged_view_26.pdf?path=Enlarged%20Views)
What time do those closures begin?
Couple of random pics from the NBHCE approaching Interchange 14 and the connections back to the mainline Turnpike.Thanks for the excellent photos.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567906_393bb3530b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567896_59acca02de_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51310822592_b76643c75f_c.jpg)
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Not more a part of the Turnpike, but completely a part of the Turnpike. The NBHCE was built by the Turnpike Authority and resides within its closed ticket system, hence the sign numbering. And I doubt that the Turnpike Authority will ever deviate from its numbering standards to adopt mileage based numbers. There's no real pressure the FHWA could put on them since the roadway takes no tax funds for construction or maintenance (in fact, some of the toll money is sent to NJDOT for various projects) nor has NJDOT shown any desire to force the issue, which if you think about it, would have happened by now as NJDOT has been using mileage based exit numbers for decades at this point.
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Not more a part of the Turnpike, but completely a part of the Turnpike. The NBHCE was built by the Turnpike Authority and resides within its closed ticket system, hence the sign numbering.
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Not more a part of the Turnpike, but completely a part of the Turnpike. The NBHCE was built by the Turnpike Authority and resides within its closed ticket system, hence the sign numbering. And I doubt that the Turnpike Authority will ever deviate from its numbering standards to adopt mileage based numbers. There's no real pressure the FHWA could put on them since the roadway takes no tax funds for construction or maintenance (in fact, some of the toll money is sent to NJDOT for various projects) nor has NJDOT shown any desire to force the issue, which if you think about it, would have happened by now as NJDOT has been using mileage based exit numbers for decades at this point.
The closed ticket system is not a barrier to renumbering the exits. The Pennsylvania Turnpike renumbered exits on the Northeast Extension to align with the numbering of the Blue Route (I-476) when they converted the mainline turnpike to mileage-based numbering. That said, one needs to question how long the ticket system will be in place. Tickets are dinosaurs, as other agencies are moving into all-electronic tolling.
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Not more a part of the Turnpike, but completely a part of the Turnpike. The NBHCE was built by the Turnpike Authority and resides within its closed ticket system, hence the sign numbering.
You mis-understand. Its part of both the turnpike and I-78, but to NJTA, it being part of the turnpike takes precedence. Hence, "more part of the turnpike".
Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Not more a part of the Turnpike, but completely a part of the Turnpike. The NBHCE was built by the Turnpike Authority and resides within its closed ticket system, hence the sign numbering.
You mis-understand. Its part of both the turnpike and I-78, but to NJTA, it being part of the turnpike takes precedence. Hence, "more part of the turnpike".
I am well aware that it's signed as 78 the same way that a large part of the mainline roadway is signed as 95, but it's a part of the Turnpike. That's how the NJTA treats its roads, thus so shall I. And their desire is to keep their traditional exit numbering place, and there's very little I've seen that suggests they'll ever change that.
Couple of random pics from the NBHCE approaching Interchange 14 and the connections back to the mainline Turnpike.Thanks for the excellent photos.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567906_393bb3530b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567896_59acca02de_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51310822592_b76643c75f_c.jpg)
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
When AET finally comes to New Jersey I hope that it is done correctly so as to fix the tolling inconsistencies on the GSP and ACE and tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike.Would you clarify what you mean by "tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike?"
And the NE Extension's sequence-based numbers were 31-39, so when they went to mileage-based numbers, it was only too convenient that the Lansdale exit (#31) was at I-476's Milepost 31.Thanks for the excellent photos.
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
They seem inconsistent because they still look at the system as being more part of the turnpike, instead of more part of I-78, so the turnpike numbering scheme takes precedence.
Ideally, one day the NJTA will change the I-95 exits to follow I-95 mileage, the I-78 exits to do likewise, and so on. But that day is likely a LONG way off.
Not more a part of the Turnpike, but completely a part of the Turnpike. The NBHCE was built by the Turnpike Authority and resides within its closed ticket system, hence the sign numbering. And I doubt that the Turnpike Authority will ever deviate from its numbering standards to adopt mileage based numbers. There's no real pressure the FHWA could put on them since the roadway takes no tax funds for construction or maintenance (in fact, some of the toll money is sent to NJDOT for various projects) nor has NJDOT shown any desire to force the issue, which if you think about it, would have happened by now as NJDOT has been using mileage based exit numbers for decades at this point.
The closed ticket system is not a barrier to renumbering the exits. The Pennsylvania Turnpike renumbered exits on the Northeast Extension to align with the numbering of the Blue Route (I-476) when they converted the mainline turnpike to mileage-based numbering. That said, one needs to question how long the ticket system will be in place. Tickets are dinosaurs, as other agencies are moving into all-electronic tolling.
Bingo. The need for tickets diminishes every day, especially with other systems starting to just go to billing by mail based on license plate if you don't have EZ-Pass. The need for the Turnpike's exit scheme is far, far lower than it used to be. At this point, keeping it around has the same value as keeping "New York" as the northbound control on I-95 in Maryland... "its just how its always been, so why change it?"
Bingo. The need for tickets diminishes every day, especially with other systems starting to just go to billing by mail based on license plate if you don't have EZ-Pass. The need for the Turnpike's exit scheme is far, far lower than it used to be. At this point, keeping it around has the same value as keeping "New York" as the northbound control on I-95 in Maryland... "its just how its always been, so why change it?"
I have two gripes regarding exit numbers on the New Jersey Turnpike, and they are
not about Exit 14 and its "child" exits on I-78. The big one is about the "free"
turnpike north of Exit 18:
These should get exit numbers consistent with the Turnpike exit numbers.
Exit 68 Challenger Road
I-80 West no exit number - should get one.
Exit 70B Teaneck and Exit 70A Leonia
Exit 71 Englewood
Exit 72 U.S. 46 and NJ-4
Exit 73 Fort Lee, NJ-67
And at the other end of I-95 in New Jersey the U.S. 130 exit at Florence should be signed as Exit 6A.
Totally agree that exit numbers between Exit 18 and the GWB should be continuous. Either continue the sequential system, or go to mileage based exits; either use Turnpike mileage up to the GWB (73 would be 122), or use I-95 mileage north of current Exit 6 (US 130 in Florence would be 3 in this case). The unnumbered portion south of Exit 6 would use Turnpike mileage. Only difference would be current Exit 6 southbound. If Turnpike mileage is used, I-95 (PATP Extension) gets numbered as 51 in both directions. If I-95 mileage is used, the northbound Turnpike exit to 95 South is 51, but the mainline Turnpike gets the exit number instead of 95/PATP extension (a la 95/128 North from 93 South in Canton, MA). Funny thing is the number would still be 6 (either way, the exit to the Turnpike south from 95 North should get the 6 number).
The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
The Turnpike really blew it with the Sports Complex number. Historically, from before the US46 to I-80 section was built, US46 was Exit 18 (as well as the end of the road). As with many other toll roads, toll plaza numbers took the number of the first exit you could exit after the plaza so the corresponding toll plaza was also, 18, later 18E with 18W on the western route. But they seem to have forgotten that US46 was 18 when they gave the 19W number to the Sports Complex exit.
The Turnpike really blew it with the Sports Complex number. Historically, from before the US46 to I-80 section was built, US46 was Exit 18 (as well as the end of the road). As with many other toll roads, toll plaza numbers took the number of the first exit you could exit after the plaza so the corresponding toll plaza was also, 18, later 18E with 18W on the western route. But they seem to have forgotten that US46 was 18 when they gave the 19W number to the Sports Complex exit.
You are not considering that the 18W plaza is still south of 19W, so in that regard, 19W is correct. That said, it probably should be 17W, with 17 becoming 17E.
Remember, historical precedent/momentum are strong with the NJTA. Getting them to change anything is remarkable (which is why their new signage style is such a shock)
When AET finally comes to New Jersey I hope that it is done correctly so as to fix the tolling inconsistencies on the GSP and ACE and tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike.Would you clarify what you mean by "tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike?"
Fair points all. Thanks for the history lesson -- I knew some of it, but not the timing of the moving parts.The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
Most if not all the oddities you mention are matters of historical precedent and momentum. 80 exits off the original turnpike NB, but the NJDOT-built Bergen-Passaic Expressway SB (actually it’s 95 that exits the BPE, which continues as 80). So, southbound, NJDOT gave it the number 69, but NB, it was always NJTA, and since it’s beyond their original ticket system, it was unnumbered. Same reason 46 has no number NB… NJTA is responsible and it’s beyond their ticket system, so no number. SB, it was near the very end of the connector from the BPE and the turnpike, so NJDOT gave it the number 68.
Fair points all. Thanks for the history lesson -- I knew some of it, but not the timing of the moving parts.The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
Most if not all the oddities you mention are matters of historical precedent and momentum. 80 exits off the original turnpike NB, but the NJDOT-built Bergen-Passaic Expressway SB (actually it’s 95 that exits the BPE, which continues as 80). So, southbound, NJDOT gave it the number 69, but NB, it was always NJTA, and since it’s beyond their original ticket system, it was unnumbered. Same reason 46 has no number NB… NJTA is responsible and it’s beyond their ticket system, so no number. SB, it was near the very end of the connector from the BPE and the turnpike, so NJDOT gave it the number 68.
I recommended 19W be numbered as such based on task order work I did for NJTA -- once the Sports Complex ramp transitioned to full-time use with American Dream, it made sense. The number was specifically due to its location north of 18W toll plaza. Pleased to see it posted as such in the field.
The Eastern Spur numbering is a byproduct of moving the barrier plaza from U.S. 46 to I/NJ-495 long ago.
Of note as well is that NJDOT used to number the I-95 interchange on I-80 EB as Exits 68A-B based on I-80 mileage, with (I-95) Exit 70 following shortly after in the local lanes. Presumably to avoid confusion with I-95 SB Exit 68 (U.S. 46), the terminal exit numbers were removed. I want to say this was 20 years or so ago.
When AET finally comes to New Jersey I hope that it is done correctly so as to fix the tolling inconsistencies on the GSP and ACE and tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike.Would you clarify what you mean by "tolling inaccuracies on the Turnpike?"
Here is an example of what I mean as a tolling inaccuracy on the Turnpike:
The difference in the toll one would pay at Exit 11 compared to the toll one would pay exiting at Exit 10 varies depending upon where one entered the Turnpike. The toll one would pay exiting at Exit 10 would obviously reflect the distance traveled from one's entry point to Exit 10. You would think that the toll at Exit 11 would be a fixed amount more for having traveled 2.5 miles beyond Exit 10. But it isn't a fixed amount. The difference in the toll varies from 10¢ to 90¢ for traveling the same distance!
Here is a table listing the difference in the toll charged, based upon Peak Rates for autos, at Exit 11 compared to that charged at Exit 10 depending on entrance point:
Exit Difference
1 +0.80
2 +0.90
3 +0.20
4 +0.45
5 +0.80
6 +0.35
7 +0.60
7A +0.45
8 +0.30
8A +0.10
How was the toll schedule for the Turnpike calculated? You would assume on a per mile basis but obviously it wasn't.
So when they go to AET I would hope that they put a gantry between each exit and charge all vehicles traveling through that section a per mile fee. That would correct the inaccuracies in tolling that now exist.
So I’ve noticed that between about Exit 12 and Exit 14, the speed limit signs haven’t worked for at least a year. Is there something preventing their repair?
Fair point 😂So I’ve noticed that between about Exit 12 and Exit 14, the speed limit signs haven’t worked for at least a year. Is there something preventing their repair?
When they are working, they still aren't working :-D hardly anyone goes under 70 there.
It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
Fair point 😂So I’ve noticed that between about Exit 12 and Exit 14, the speed limit signs haven’t worked for at least a year. Is there something preventing their repair?When they are working, they still aren't working :-D hardly anyone goes under 70 there.
Yes, but theyve been there at least a year now.Fair point 😂So I’ve noticed that between about Exit 12 and Exit 14, the speed limit signs haven’t worked for at least a year. Is there something preventing their repair?When they are working, they still aren't working :-D hardly anyone goes under 70 there.
Did they still have the temporary electronic speed limit signs in use; the type normally used in construction zones?
Actually it does, ending at the state line on the connector bridge. In contrast, it never gets closer than, say, a mile from the NY state line :evilgrin:It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.Actually it does, ending at the state line on the connector bridge. In contrast, it never gets closer than, say, a mile from the NY state line :evilgrin:It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
I’m being a smart ass. I know what you really mean, but let’s face it: the turnpike is the main connector between two of the biggest cities in the country… yet somehow pretends one of them hardly exists.
Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.
I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
I-287 does not go to Albany.And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
White Plains would be most appropriate, I think.I-287 does not go to Albany.And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)No, I'm implying PA always signs PA destinations even when they're East Stroudsburg.Look at the control cities PA uses and you'll understand my lack of sympathy.I assume you're implying that PA signs I-95 North for New York and not some place in NJ, but the NJ Turnpike itself does the same thing Northbound, so it makes sense.
Fair points all. Thanks for the history lesson -- I knew some of it, but not the timing of the moving parts.The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
Most if not all the oddities you mention are matters of historical precedent and momentum. 80 exits off the original turnpike NB, but the NJDOT-built Bergen-Passaic Expressway SB (actually it’s 95 that exits the BPE, which continues as 80). So, southbound, NJDOT gave it the number 69, but NB, it was always NJTA, and since it’s beyond their original ticket system, it was unnumbered. Same reason 46 has no number NB… NJTA is responsible and it’s beyond their ticket system, so no number. SB, it was near the very end of the connector from the BPE and the turnpike, so NJDOT gave it the number 68.
I recommended 19W be numbered as such based on task order work I did for NJTA -- once the Sports Complex ramp transitioned to full-time use with American Dream, it made sense. The number was specifically due to its location north of 18W toll plaza. Pleased to see it posted as such in the field.
The Eastern Spur numbering is a byproduct of moving the barrier plaza from U.S. 46 to I/NJ-495 long ago.
Of note as well is that NJDOT used to number the I-95 interchange on I-80 EB as Exits 68A-B based on I-80 mileage, with (I-95) Exit 70 following shortly after in the local lanes. Presumably to avoid confusion with I-95 SB Exit 68 (U.S. 46), the terminal exit numbers were removed. I want to say this was 20 years or so ago.
Yes, I believe that was in 2000 or so when the last of the legacy NJDOT non-reflectorized button copy was removed north of the northern mixing bowl and the Lombardi Service Area and replaced with then current NJTA style signage. Some of that signage lasted long past when NJTA took over jurisdiction of the 95 stretch to the GWB, which I believe was in 1992.
Also, it should be noted that the milemarkers along that stretch continue the Turnpike's mainline mileage. The last one is like 121 or 122, even though they left the original NJDOT exit numbers (which were based on the original 95 mileage following its original planned route over Scudders Falls then up the Somerset Freeway) which just happened to dovetail nicely with 80's exit numbers.
Fair points all. Thanks for the history lesson -- I knew some of it, but not the timing of the moving parts.The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
Most if not all the oddities you mention are matters of historical precedent and momentum. 80 exits off the original turnpike NB, but the NJDOT-built Bergen-Passaic Expressway SB (actually it’s 95 that exits the BPE, which continues as 80). So, southbound, NJDOT gave it the number 69, but NB, it was always NJTA, and since it’s beyond their original ticket system, it was unnumbered. Same reason 46 has no number NB… NJTA is responsible and it’s beyond their ticket system, so no number. SB, it was near the very end of the connector from the BPE and the turnpike, so NJDOT gave it the number 68.
I recommended 19W be numbered as such based on task order work I did for NJTA -- once the Sports Complex ramp transitioned to full-time use with American Dream, it made sense. The number was specifically due to its location north of 18W toll plaza. Pleased to see it posted as such in the field.
The Eastern Spur numbering is a byproduct of moving the barrier plaza from U.S. 46 to I/NJ-495 long ago.
Of note as well is that NJDOT used to number the I-95 interchange on I-80 EB as Exits 68A-B based on I-80 mileage, with (I-95) Exit 70 following shortly after in the local lanes. Presumably to avoid confusion with I-95 SB Exit 68 (U.S. 46), the terminal exit numbers were removed. I want to say this was 20 years or so ago.
Yes, I believe that was in 2000 or so when the last of the legacy NJDOT non-reflectorized button copy was removed north of the northern mixing bowl and the Lombardi Service Area and replaced with then current NJTA style signage. Some of that signage lasted long past when NJTA took over jurisdiction of the 95 stretch to the GWB, which I believe was in 1992.
Also, it should be noted that the milemarkers along that stretch continue the Turnpike's mainline mileage. The last one is like 121 or 122, even though they left the original NJDOT exit numbers (which were based on the original 95 mileage following its original planned route over Scudders Falls then up the Somerset Freeway) which just happened to dovetail nicely with 80's exit numbers.
It's I-95 and not I-80, and in a perfect world, the New Jersey Turnpike exit numbering would continue all the way to the New Jersey landing of the GWB (from memory, I think that would result in new numbers (or maybe Exit 18A for Challenger Road); then Exit 19 for I-80, Exit 20 for Leonia and Teaneck; Exit 20A for Englewood; Exit 21A for NJ-67; Exit 21B for the Pallisades Interstate Parkway and U.S. 9W (this is northbound, might be and probably is different for southbound).
Fair points all. Thanks for the history lesson -- I knew some of it, but not the timing of the moving parts.The I-80 exit is numbered 69 southbound, but unnumbered northbound. Since there is a large distance between the SB and NB accesses, would the northbound exit get a different number, like 67?
Also, for some reason, the U.S. 46 exit is also unnumbered northbound -- Exit 68 is only for Challenger Road -- but numbered as 68 southbound. It is also unnumbered from the I-80 EB ramps (which become the SB outer roadway).
If continuing from Turnpike exit numbering. the numbering would have to start from 20, since 19W was added to the Sports Complex/American Dream ramp on the Western Spur.
Most if not all the oddities you mention are matters of historical precedent and momentum. 80 exits off the original turnpike NB, but the NJDOT-built Bergen-Passaic Expressway SB (actually it’s 95 that exits the BPE, which continues as 80). So, southbound, NJDOT gave it the number 69, but NB, it was always NJTA, and since it’s beyond their original ticket system, it was unnumbered. Same reason 46 has no number NB… NJTA is responsible and it’s beyond their ticket system, so no number. SB, it was near the very end of the connector from the BPE and the turnpike, so NJDOT gave it the number 68.
I recommended 19W be numbered as such based on task order work I did for NJTA -- once the Sports Complex ramp transitioned to full-time use with American Dream, it made sense. The number was specifically due to its location north of 18W toll plaza. Pleased to see it posted as such in the field.
The Eastern Spur numbering is a byproduct of moving the barrier plaza from U.S. 46 to I/NJ-495 long ago.
Of note as well is that NJDOT used to number the I-95 interchange on I-80 EB as Exits 68A-B based on I-80 mileage, with (I-95) Exit 70 following shortly after in the local lanes. Presumably to avoid confusion with I-95 SB Exit 68 (U.S. 46), the terminal exit numbers were removed. I want to say this was 20 years or so ago.
Yes, I believe that was in 2000 or so when the last of the legacy NJDOT non-reflectorized button copy was removed north of the northern mixing bowl and the Lombardi Service Area and replaced with then current NJTA style signage. Some of that signage lasted long past when NJTA took over jurisdiction of the 95 stretch to the GWB, which I believe was in 1992.
Also, it should be noted that the milemarkers along that stretch continue the Turnpike's mainline mileage. The last one is like 121 or 122, even though they left the original NJDOT exit numbers (which were based on the original 95 mileage following its original planned route over Scudders Falls then up the Somerset Freeway) which just happened to dovetail nicely with 80's exit numbers.
It's I-95 and not I-80, and in a perfect world, the New Jersey Turnpike exit numbering would continue all the way to the New Jersey landing of the GWB (from memory, I think that would result in new numbers (or maybe Exit 18A for Challenger Road); then Exit 19 for I-80, Exit 20 for Leonia and Teaneck; Exit 20A for Englewood; Exit 21A for NJ-67; Exit 21B for the Pallisades Interstate Parkway and U.S. 9W (this is northbound, might be and probably is different for southbound).
I stated very clearly that it's 95 there. The numbers just happen to line up with 80's exit numbering as well. Also, there's never been a solid reason to change the numbering. It's north of the ticket system and toll free (as this was a condition of the NJTA taking the roadway over from NJDOT) and those numbers are pretty ingrained in people's minds. It's not signed as part of the Turnpike either there, just as 95. So there's no reason whatsoever to change what already works.
I see that the Indiana Toll Road copies the NJ Turnpike in regards to lane stripping.
I see that the Indiana Toll Road copies the NJ Turnpike in regards to lane stripping.
So does ISTHA. All the toll roads use the 12ft long thick stripes on their roadways.
I see that the Indiana Toll Road copies the NJ Turnpike in regards to lane stripping.
So does ISTHA. All the toll roads use the 12ft long thick stripes on their roadways.
And (not original, someone else thought of this): at the Bon Jovi service center, whoooah, you're halfway there!You're not! Cheesequake isn't even 1/3 of the way there.
I preferred the practice of naming the service areas for the towns they were in or near. I wish NJ Turnpike would have done that. At least then you'd have some sense of where they were located .Agreed. Why do decision makers hate geographically-based names so much these days?
I preferred the practice of naming the service areas for the towns they were in or near. I wish NJ Turnpike would have done that. At least then you'd have some sense of where they were located .
The Garden State Parkway always used local areas to name their areas hence Cheesequake, Monmouth, Forked River, etc. The NJ Turnpike on the other hand used the fact that NJ being crossroads to the Revolution tried something new in naming that only so far they have been successful in use. I always thought that when living there it was neat as many do not realize NJ did have many famous people coming from our soil.
I am though surprised that Sinatra didn’t make the list but the fact was when the Turnpike opened to traffic it was long before he died. So it kind of makes sense there.
I preferred the practice of naming the service areas for the towns they were in or near. I wish NJ Turnpike would have done that. At least then you'd have some sense of where they were located .
The Garden State Parkway always used local areas to name their areas hence Cheesequake, Monmouth, Forked River, etc. The NJ Turnpike on the other hand used the fact that NJ being crossroads to the Revolution tried something new in naming that only so far they have been successful in use. I always thought that when living there it was neat as many do not realize NJ did have many famous people coming from our soil.
I am though surprised that Sinatra didn’t make the list but the fact was when the Turnpike opened to traffic it was long before he died. So it kind of makes sense there.
The Garden State Parkway always used local areas to name their areas hence Cheesequake, Monmouth, Forked River, etc. The NJ Turnpike on the other hand used the fact that NJ being crossroads to the Revolution tried something new in naming that only so far they have been successful in use. I always thought that when living there it was neat as many do not realize NJ did have many famous people coming from our soil.
I am though surprised that Sinatra didn’t make the original list but the fact was when the Turnpike opened to traffic it was long before he died. So it kind of makes sense there.
It also makes sense for the Turnpike service areas not to be associated with towns they're in because the exits are relatively far apart, and there may not be direct access from the Turnpike to the town a service area is in (take the town I live in, Cherry Hill. Walt Whitman Service Area is located there, but the closest exit, Exit 4, is in Mount Laurel). This isn't as true on the Parkway.I preferred the practice of naming the service areas for the towns they were in or near. I wish NJ Turnpike would have done that. At least then you'd have some sense of where they were located .
The Garden State Parkway always used local areas to name their areas hence Cheesequake, Monmouth, Forked River, etc. The NJ Turnpike on the other hand used the fact that NJ being crossroads to the Revolution tried something new in naming that only so far they have been successful in use. I always thought that when living there it was neat as many do not realize NJ did have many famous people coming from our soil.
I am though surprised that Sinatra didn’t make the list but the fact was when the Turnpike opened to traffic it was long before he died. So it kind of makes sense there.
The Garden State Parkway always used local areas to name their areas hence Cheesequake, Monmouth, Forked River, etc. The NJ Turnpike on the other hand used the fact that NJ being crossroads to the Revolution tried something new in naming that only so far they have been successful in use. I always thought that when living there it was neat as many do not realize NJ did have many famous people coming from our soil.
I am though surprised that Sinatra didn’t make the original list but the fact was when the Turnpike opened to traffic it was long before he died. So it kind of makes sense there.
I don't.
I see that the Indiana Toll Road copies the NJ Turnpike in regards to lane stripping.
I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.
and if you read our rules, you'll see that pointing out typos is considered unproductive in a discussion so please don't (:I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.
Duh! It was still an amusing typo.
and if you read our rules, you'll see that pointing out typos is considered unproductive in a discussion so please don't (:I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.
Duh! It was still an amusing typo.
I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.. Spell check and double key strokes. Annoying but funny sometimes.
I don't.
I suspect he was being sarcastic. I don't know who Larry Doby is.
You left out one. One notable person that has brought business and development to NJ for decades before he joined the ranks of politics.
Heck even Bill Clinton renamed Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan, who was no Democrat.
I wonder if this is an edge case that was acceptable but no longer is in regards to the new rules.and if you read our rules, you'll see that pointing out typos is considered unproductive in a discussion so please don't (:I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.
Duh! It was still an amusing typo.
I’m positive I remember at some point one of the moderators saying something along the lines of it being acceptable to joke about funny typos, but it would be too much of a nuisance to try to find that post now.
I wonder if this is an edge case that was acceptable but no longer is in regards to the new rules.and if you read our rules, you'll see that pointing out typos is considered unproductive in a discussion so please don't (:I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.
Duh! It was still an amusing typo.
I’m positive I remember at some point one of the moderators saying something along the lines of it being acceptable to joke about funny typos, but it would be too much of a nuisance to try to find that post now.
If a typo is legitimately funny, that's fine. "Stripping" instead of "striping" is common enough to be boring after awhile.Well, you make the rules. So let it be written, so let it be done.
If a typo is legitimately funny, that's fine. "Stripping" instead of "striping" is common enough to be boring after awhile.Well, you make the rules. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Precisely my point: Portraying the subjective as objective makes for mushy moderation practices.If a typo is legitimately funny, that's fine. "Stripping" instead of "striping" is common enough to be boring after awhile.Well, you make the rules. So let it be written, so let it be done.
I made the typo and I have to admit it’s funny.
Couple of random pics from the NBHCE approaching Interchange 14 and the connections back to the mainline Turnpike.Thanks for the excellent photos.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567906_393bb3530b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567896_59acca02de_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51310822592_b76643c75f_c.jpg)
The exit numbers are absurd and inconsistent across these signs. The Newark Bay Extension exit numbers should be renumbered to align to I-78:
Exit 14 becomes I-78 Exit 59
Exit 14A becomes I-78 Exit 62
Exit 14B becomes I-78 Exit 64
What about New York with three different schemes for both I-87 and I-90. That’s more confusing, but to understand it’s one mainline for the Thruway and The Berkshire Se Timon is its own before I-90 joins it.
Then why use ”˜New York’ on the NB NJTP from the beginning, and why use Wilmington?It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
Exactly.Actually it does, ending at the state line on the connector bridge. In contrast, it never gets closer than, say, a mile from the NY state line :evilgrin:It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
I’m being a smart ass. I know what you really mean, but let’s face it: the turnpike is the main connector between two of the biggest cities in the country… yet somehow pretends one of them hardly exists.
Couple of random pics from the NBHCE approaching Interchange 14 and the connections back to the mainline Turnpike.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567906_393bb3530b_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51311567896_59acca02de_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51310822592_b76643c75f_c.jpg)
Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Personally I like it, but the State and its agencies aren't consistent about it. You won't find anything regarding Trenton's airport with a brown background. And the SJTA doesn't do the same for ACY either on the ACX.
Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Personally I like it, but the State and its agencies aren't consistent about it. You won't find anything regarding Trenton's airport with a brown background. And the SJTA doesn't do the same for ACY either on the ACX.
The proper color should be white on blue though should it not?
EWR has always done white on brown for approach signing, with the special airport logo. NJTA ditched the logo, and maybe NJDOT will too someday. Most airports do not use any special background color, so it probably should be white on green (and you'll find a few signs like that off-airport).Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
EWR has always done white on brown for approach signing, with the special airport logo. NJTA ditched the logo, and maybe NJDOT will too someday. Most airports do not use any special background color, so it probably should be white on green (and you'll find a few signs like that off-airport).Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Personally I like it, but the State and its agencies aren't consistent about it. You won't find anything regarding Trenton's airport with a brown background. And the SJTA doesn't do the same for ACY either on the ACX.
The proper color should be white on blue though should it not?
Yes, and NJTA has never used the logo.EWR has always done white on brown for approach signing, with the special airport logo. NJTA ditched the logo, and maybe NJDOT will too someday. Most airports do not use any special background color, so it probably should be white on green (and you'll find a few signs like that off-airport).Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Didn’t the old signs for 13A used to be all green?
Newark Airport is white on brown because for many decades all of the airport signage--both terminal and road signage was white on brown with the four color EWR logo. Most of its key wayfinding from roads afar was therefore also white on brown. Kinda like this (https://goo.gl/maps/tRv8cErsYY3ctzLD8). It's something the Turnpike Authority never bought into until the MUTCD-like signage redesign. The only example I know where they used white on brown and the EWR logo was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/7yHj64Wb1mei556AA) past the 13A toll plaza. It has since been replaced. The funny thing is that it looks like NJDOT is moving away from the white on brown for Airport signage and just doing the wording with no background, but keeping the EWR logo in place of the standard MUTCD airport pictogram, which I'm 102% fine with.I can say this because new signs are now up, but EWR is rebranding with blue signs with a gold header and using a new torch logo instead of the tricolor airplane logo. So hopefully NJDOT moves away from that logo.
Newark Airport is white on brown because for many decades all of the airport signage--both terminal and road signage was white on brown with the four color EWR logo. Most of its key wayfinding from roads afar was therefore also white on brown. Kinda like this (https://goo.gl/maps/tRv8cErsYY3ctzLD8). It's something the Turnpike Authority never bought into until the MUTCD-like signage redesign. The only example I know where they used white on brown and the EWR logo was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/7yHj64Wb1mei556AA) past the 13A toll plaza. It has since been replaced. The funny thing is that it looks like NJDOT is moving away from the white on brown for Airport signage and just doing the wording with no background, but keeping the EWR logo in place of the standard MUTCD airport pictogram, which I'm 102% fine with.I can say this because new signs are now up, but EWR is rebranding with blue signs with a gold header and using a new torch logo instead of the tricolor airplane logo. So hopefully NJDOT moves away from that logo.
White on brown is also used for "Six Flags" on a sign approaching Exit 7A.That makes more sense, as I believe the white on brown is intended for recreational and cultural centers etc. Hence why it’s confusing for it to be used for EWR.
I suggest you pay a visit to EWR and see the new signs that are up!Newark Airport is white on brown because for many decades all of the airport signage--both terminal and road signage was white on brown with the four color EWR logo. Most of its key wayfinding from roads afar was therefore also white on brown. Kinda like this (https://goo.gl/maps/tRv8cErsYY3ctzLD8). It's something the Turnpike Authority never bought into until the MUTCD-like signage redesign. The only example I know where they used white on brown and the EWR logo was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/7yHj64Wb1mei556AA) past the 13A toll plaza. It has since been replaced. The funny thing is that it looks like NJDOT is moving away from the white on brown for Airport signage and just doing the wording with no background, but keeping the EWR logo in place of the standard MUTCD airport pictogram, which I'm 102% fine with.I can say this because new signs are now up, but EWR is rebranding with blue signs with a gold header and using a new torch logo instead of the tricolor airplane logo. So hopefully NJDOT moves away from that logo.
That is disappointing to me. EWR's colorful oval logo has always been a wonderfully unique identifier for the airport that also helped wayfinding from places near and far. Also, a move to blue signs is also disappointing to me. I've actually liked the signage system the airports have used for the last 20 or so years with the Frutiger font signage that I've always found mostly clean and more logically designed than the systems at a lot of other airports. I wonder if this heralds changes to the wayfinding system within the airport as well, since the BGS's at the airport are carefully tied to it.
White on brown is also used for "Six Flags" on a sign approaching Exit 7A.That makes more sense, as I believe the white on brown is intended for recreational and cultural centers etc. Hence why it’s confusing for it to be used for EWR.
White on brown is also used for "Six Flags" on a sign approaching Exit 7A.That makes more sense, as I believe the white on brown is intended for recreational and cultural centers etc. Hence why it’s confusing for it to be used for EWR.
It is also used at exit 14B for Liberty State Park. So it has more to do with "important places" (vs. a control city) than any legacy signage colors used at Newark Airport.
Yes, and NJTA has never used the logo.EWR has always done white on brown for approach signing, with the special airport logo. NJTA ditched the logo, and maybe NJDOT will too someday. Most airports do not use any special background color, so it probably should be white on green (and you'll find a few signs like that off-airport).Why is Newark Airport in white on brown?
Not entirely sure, but NJDOT has been doing that on its roads for a while now. I guess the NJTA decided to match them.
Didn’t the old signs for 13A used to be all green?
I still contend, making the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 4 to the DEMB is a mistake.
It would be better to:
-Be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4
-6 lanes from exit 4 to 3
-4 lanes from 3 onward
That would be a better investment.
bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity. Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.
Why isn't there an exit 17?
There is
Right, on both the E and W spurs?
Well obviously, his experience of driving the highway during off peak times only and never personally getting caught in congestion dictates it’s adequate at only 4 lanes.I still contend, making the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 4 to the DEMB is a mistake.
It would be better to:
-Be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4
-6 lanes from exit 4 to 3
-4 lanes from 3 onward
That would be a better investment.
You don't say.
Maybe you should've stood over the Turnpike between 2 & 3 yesterday around lunchtime and watched traffic creep along around 35 - 45 mph and tell us that there's no reason to widen the Turnpike there.
Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(To quote a post of mine from back in 2020 with relatively up-to-date volumes (from 2017). There is a definite need for widening here.
(slightly less vaguery: I have access to Turnpike volumes and need them for what I do. NJDOT volumes are all published on their "TMS2Go" site. put them together and you can figure out all of NJ. but since you don't see Turnpike volumes, you can't see what I see in terms of congestion hot spots now and in the future.)
https://www.njta.com/media/4280/os-2019a.pdf
PDF Page 231
2017 Traffic Volumes
Exits 1 to 2 - 48,800 - 12.4% truck
Exits 2 to 3 - 53,400 - 12.4% truck
Exits 3 to 4 - 63,300 - 12.3% truck
Warrants 6-lanes, especially when you consider peak travel period volumes that could easily bring these numbers to 70,000 or greater.
Actually, the report indicates between Exits 1 and 2, July volumes were 21% higher than the average month, meaning Exits 1 and 2 see up to 59,048 AADT during peak season, and this doesn't even factor weekends alone will see even more traffic than during the week. Using this 21% figure on the other exits too, assuming it's similar...
July Traffic Volumes 2017 (AADT x 1.21) -
Exits 1 to 2 - 59,048
Exits 2 to 3 - 64,614
Exits 3 to 4 - 76,593
Most certainly warrants 6-lanes throughout.
As for the rest of the Turnpike south of Exit 9...
Exits 4 to 5 - 84,000 - 12.3% truck
Exits 5 to 6 (I-95) - 89,900 - 12.2% truck
Should eventually be expanded to 8-lanes, especially as volumes will continue to rise.
Exits 6 (I-95) to 7 - 119,000 - 13.1% truck
Exits 7 to 7A - 132,300 - 14.1% truck
Exits 7A to 8 - 150,200 - 15.1% truck
Exits 8 to 8A - 155,600 - 14.7% truck
Exits 8A to 9 - 175,700 - 14.4% truck
The recent 12-lane expansion should be able to handle traffic volumes south of Exit 9 for years, if not decades, to come.
Why isn't there an exit 17?There isRight, on both the E and W spurs?
Some understanding of the history of the Turnpike will help you understand why 17 only exists as a half-interchange on the eastern route. As built (which was what is now the eastern route), 16 was a half-interchange (to/from the south just like 16E is today) to the Lincoln Tunnel, 17 was a full interchange at NJ 3, and 18 was US 46. Within a few years, 16 and 17 were reconfigured into what is there today with 17 becoming a half-interchange to/from the north. That was accompanied to the toll booth reconfigured that created the double-wide 16/18 toll booth just where it is today (now 16E/18E). Despite the 18 toll plaza being just before Exit 16, Exit 18 was still US 46.
When the western route was built, it made sense that the northern most toll plaza (in a conventional arrangement unlike 16E/18E), it made sense that it also carry the number 18 (18W since it was on the western route) as Exit 18 (no need for E or W) was still US 46. So it avoided confusion to have 18 on either route be the toll plaza that got you to US 46 since it was referred to as Exit 18 (I grew up in NJ in the late 60s), particularly before I-95 was completed between US 46 and I-80.
But, since the interchange on the western route at NJ 3 was a conventional interchange, one less exit number was needed. So they went with 16W for it and skipped 17W. And that’s why there’s no 17 on the western route.
Unfortunately, the NJTA muddled things by making the Meadowlands exit on the western route 19W (IMHO, it should be 17W). The argument for 19W is that heading south, it comes before the 18W plaza. But over on the eastern route, head south from US 46 and you have exit 17 (IMHO, it should be 17E to be consistent with the eastern route exits) followed by the 18E plaza. Further confused by both 15E and 15W being accessible from both routes to/from the north as well as added interchange 15X.
Oh well, most of it has been that way for about 50 years. It is what it is.
19W was the right call. It would have behooved the Turnpike Authority to either renumber the old Exit 17 to either be 19E or just no number since it's before the 16E/18E toll plaza, but they didn't and just left one of those weird quirks of original Turnpike exit design in place to confuse drivers. As I'm sure many were over the years why there was the toll plaza for 16E and 18E going north, but never an Exit 17. Honestly, when I stop to think about it, I don't know why they didn't just make it 16E and call it a day northbound and just have no more Exit 18. But who knows why they sometimes think the way they do.
So when are they planning to start the widening?
So when are they planning to start the widening?
Page 3 of this: https://www.njta.com/media/5833/2021-03-03-2021-capital-improvement-program-updated-with-highlighted-note.pdf indicates $80 million is being spent this year and $125 million spent next year, and roughly $680 million in 2024-2025.
Doing an ultra-quick read of recent Meeting Minutes, in https://www.njta.com/media/5848/final-agenda-bm-03-23-2021.pdf on Pages 5 - 6 they were to award a bid for "program management, preparation of preliminary design documents and comprehensive environmental services".
Elsewhere on the website, they also expect to be putting out to bid design contracts for each of the 3 sections of widening: From Interchanges 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. These are expected to be probably way more costly than anyone here expects. You'll find them in: https://www.njta.com/media/5718/rpt-ops-anticipated-advertisements.pdf
Based on this, the 2024/2025 years are when these widening projects would actually start to see shovels in the ground.
As for attention...
To be brutally honest, the newspapers in the state have consolidated, so South Jersey has lost a lot of their traditional news media. 3 papers in the south combined into 1, and are part of the state-wide nj.com, which heavily focuses their attention on North Jersey. A recent series of articles boasted the best thing about each town in the state. When they got to the southern NJ towns, they often made comparisons to similar things in North Jersey, which most Southern New Jersey people wouldn't give a damn about. The writer is a North Jersey guy...they couldn't even give the story to a Southern NJ reporter!
There's also something to be said that, of all the widening and road projects in the state, this one is actually non-controversial. It's rare when an environmental organization like the NJ Chapter of the Sierra Club all but gives this project their blessing.
So, the likelihood of nj.com giving much attention to a southern NJ Turnpike widening will be very diluted. For the other newspapers in the area, the Courier Post loves to run on controversy, and the overall lack of it for this project takes the wind of their sails. The Philadelphia Inquirer used to heavily cover the 3 counties on the Jersey side of the river, but has curtailed a lot of their press as well.
And the NJTA, to their credit, knows how to push thru projects they want done. They're not going to issue press releases to give people the opportunity to get riled up. They'll have the mandated public information sessions, and as shown in the minutes and on the website the project is public. They do what they need to do, and nothing more.
This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.That toll increase is paying for a lot more than just widening in South Jersey
I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced. Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.
The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced. It is a disaster. Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long. Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4.. Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?
What will Route 70 be like? Then there is the North-South Freeway. "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts. What a mess that will be.
And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.
This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.It’s a short term headache for a long term worth of drastically improved conditions along the Turnpike mainline, the biggest benefits of which will be released during peak travel periods and weekends.
I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced. Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.
The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced. It is a disaster. Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long. Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4.. Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?
What will Route 70 be like? Then there is the North-South Freeway. "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts. What a mess that will be.
And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.
This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.
I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced. Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.
The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced. It is a disaster. Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long. Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4.. Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?
What will Route 70 be like? Then there is the North-South Freeway. "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts. What a mess that will be.
And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.
I'm a little surprised that the Turnpike needs widening south of Exit 4 given that you have the closely parallel 6-lane I-295. You'd think between those two roads, there would be enough capacity. Or is the problem that too many Turnpike drivers are not even aware of I-295's existence and aren't wise enough to take the alternate route.
I myself have switched over from one to the other many times at Exit 4 though I haven't driven that far south in several years now.
This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.You do realize that these bridges are at the ends of their lifespans whether or not you widen them? If you're going to widen at all in the future, you would build the bridge wider now.
I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced. Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.
The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced. It is a disaster. Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long. Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4.. Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?
What will Route 70 be like? Then there is the North-South Freeway. "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts. What a mess that will be.
And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.
Wow, so 35-45 mph warrants widening?I still contend, making the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 4 to the DEMB is a mistake.
It would be better to:
-Be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4
-6 lanes from exit 4 to 3
-4 lanes from 3 onward
That would be a better investment.
You don't say.
Maybe you should've stood over the Turnpike between 2 & 3 yesterday around lunchtime and watched traffic creep along around 35 - 45 mph and tell us that there's no reason to widen the Turnpike there.
bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity. Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.
By that logic the road should be 20 lanes wide, and Wegmans should have 1 square miles of parking spots.bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity. Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.
...or Wednesdays before Thanksgiving.
I've gotten stuck in the backup at Exit 4 a few times, its really annoying and reduces the utility of using the NJTP as an express bypass of I-295. It just goes to show that the 6-9 widening really did uncork a pretty big bottleneck in the system. Now its moving the choke points further south and west. Has the PA Turnpike had similar increases in traffic congestion westbound from NJ?Disagree completely.
Of course once Exits 1-4 is widened, it only going to put more pressure on the mess at the Christina Marsh interchange in Delaware.
I'm a little surprised that the Turnpike needs widening south of Exit 4 given that you have the closely parallel 6-lane I-295. You'd think between those two roads, there would be enough capacity. Or is the problem that too many Turnpike drivers are not even aware of I-295's existence and aren't wise enough to take the alternate route.So am I, I think it is the wrong move.
I myself have switched over from one to the other many times at Exit 4 though I haven't driven that far south in several years now.
Yea, so you rehab them.This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.You do realize that these bridges are at the ends of their lifespans whether or not you widen them? If you're going to widen at all in the future, you would build the bridge wider now.
I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced. Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.
The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced. It is a disaster. Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long. Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4.. Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?
What will Route 70 be like? Then there is the North-South Freeway. "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts. What a mess that will be.
And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.
Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(Can you PLEASE tell me the traffic volumes and the choke points?
(slightly less vaguery: I have access to Turnpike volumes and need them for what I do. NJDOT volumes are all published on their "TMS2Go" site. put them together and you can figure out all of NJ. but since you don't see Turnpike volumes, you can't see what I see in terms of congestion hot spots now and in the future.)
Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(To quote a post of mine from back in 2020 with relatively up-to-date volumes (from 2017). There is a definite need for widening here.
(slightly less vaguery: I have access to Turnpike volumes and need them for what I do. NJDOT volumes are all published on their "TMS2Go" site. put them together and you can figure out all of NJ. but since you don't see Turnpike volumes, you can't see what I see in terms of congestion hot spots now and in the future.)https://www.njta.com/media/4280/os-2019a.pdf
PDF Page 231
2017 Traffic Volumes
Exits 1 to 2 - 48,800 - 12.4% truck
Exits 2 to 3 - 53,400 - 12.4% truck
Exits 3 to 4 - 63,300 - 12.3% truck
Warrants 6-lanes, especially when you consider peak travel period volumes that could easily bring these numbers to 70,000 or greater.
Actually, the report indicates between Exits 1 and 2, July volumes were 21% higher than the average month, meaning Exits 1 and 2 see up to 59,048 AADT during peak season, and this doesn't even factor weekends alone will see even more traffic than during the week. Using this 21% figure on the other exits too, assuming it's similar...
July Traffic Volumes 2017 (AADT x 1.21) -
Exits 1 to 2 - 59,048
Exits 2 to 3 - 64,614
Exits 3 to 4 - 76,593
Most certainly warrants 6-lanes throughout.
As for the rest of the Turnpike south of Exit 9...
Exits 4 to 5 - 84,000 - 12.3% truck
Exits 5 to 6 (I-95) - 89,900 - 12.2% truck
Should eventually be expanded to 8-lanes, especially as volumes will continue to rise.
Exits 6 (I-95) to 7 - 119,000 - 13.1% truck
Exits 7 to 7A - 132,300 - 14.1% truck
Exits 7A to 8 - 150,200 - 15.1% truck
Exits 8 to 8A - 155,600 - 14.7% truck
Exits 8A to 9 - 175,700 - 14.4% truck
The recent 12-lane expansion should be able to handle traffic volumes south of Exit 9 for years, if not decades, to come.
By that logic the road should be 20 lanes wide, and Wegmans should have 1 square miles of parking spots.bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity. Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.
...or Wednesdays before Thanksgiving.
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Are there really that many people still doing that? Surely by now, the smart GPS reigns supreme. It is, in fact, the main reason I use it most of the time.I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
Anecdotally, I haven’t seen backups at the merge south of 6, so that widening was correct… a lot exits onto 95 south. However, it does backup at 4 often enough, so additional lanes would help. Curious how they will handle merging 3 turnpike and two 295 lanes down to 4 for the bridge.
I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
Why I think it won't happen: Too many agencies involved that will need to agree. It hasn't been designed yet, but my completely uninformed guess (I'm not saying that ironically, I mean it) is that NJTA will want to end improvements within their jurisdiction to avoid that complication. (As much as having to rebuild various overpasses still involves other jurisdictions anyway.)Anecdotally, I haven’t seen backups at the merge south of 6, so that widening was correct… a lot exits onto 95 south. However, it does backup at 4 often enough, so additional lanes would help. Curious how they will handle merging 3 turnpike and two 295 lanes down to 4 for the bridge.
Waiting to see this also. My opinions:
Easiest:
Southbound: Merge it down from 3 lanes to 2 between the existing toll plaza and NJ 140.
Northbound: Add in a 3rd lane starting at the US 40 to NJ Tpk Ramp North of NJ 140.
In this scenario, everything south of NJ 140 will remain as is.
What they could do:
Southbound - same as above.
Northbound - Knock out the ramp from Old Pennsville-Auburn Road to the NJ Turnpike Northbound. (If I were to take a guess, this is probably the least used ramp on the Turnpike). And widen the NJ 140 Overpass. This will allow for a continuous 3 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge 295/NJ Tpk split by utilizing the existing auxiliary lane just prior to the exit for US 40, and add a new decel lane for the US 40 exit.
What they could do at a much greater expense...
It's a fairly involved cluster of highways, roads and waterways around where I-295 North crosses over the NJ Turnpike. https://goo.gl/maps/psnRN7bgDQD5dbVy5 (Google Maps has an error there - 551 isn't duplexed with 295 South). In order to widen the Turnpike to 3 lanes each way, with full shoulders, and leaving the ramp mentioned above in place, they would need to rebuild the I-295 North Overpass, along with the CR 551 South Overpass. Here's a view from GSV... https://goo.gl/maps/UyC6W4RC7pFXHrRV7 . It's actually quite an involved project just in this area alone - that's a long overpass over the water and Turnpike there. If that were to happen, on the Southbound side there would be 5 lanes just south of here - 3 NJ Turnpike SB lanes, and 2, 295 SB lanes. Less than 1/4 mile away to the south is the interchange for 130/49. The Turnpike could eliminate the 49 WB to 295 SB ramp by creating a left turn from 49 WB onto the existing 130 SB to 295 SB ramp. But...that overpass would need to be replaced as well, as there wouldn't be sufficient room to properly lose a lane in that area. At some point, either the left or right lane will need to end before the Del. Mem. Bridge. And if they're doing all of this, they should take the opportunity to increase the radii and rebuild the 295 South curve just before it meets up with the Turnpike. Not as notorious as the 35 mph Aljo curve at the 25/76/42 interchange, it's still an advisory-signed 35 mph that has taken out many a truck. And for good measure, redo 295 Northbound here too. It's unsigned at 55 mph without a posted advisory speed, but it's almost impossible to drive at 55 due to the sharpness of the curve.
Why I think this expensive option will happen: As we've mentioned above, many of the bridges in this area are already 70 years old. They are going to need to be replaced at some point. And it will allow the Turnpike to be 3 lanes all the way to its end.
Why I think this expensive option won't happen: It's more complicated than the complex description I described above. NJDOT just replaced the deck on 295 North going over the NJ Turnpike; by the time they get around to working in this area the new deck will probably be 10 years old so not a total waste of money, but I would be a little surprised NJDOT would've taken that project on if the overpass's lifespan was limited.
It's also worth noting that even "smart" GPS services will sometimes default to a shorter but more time-consuming route. There have been times when I've dragged the path of Google directions off of whatever local route it wants to take onto the interstate and had the drive time shorten by a couple minutes.I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
Millions sounds like too many….. that seems like it is the same crowd that is still using flip phones
It's also worth noting that even "smart" GPS services will sometimes default to a shorter but more time-consuming route. There have been times when I've dragged the path of Google directions off of whatever local route it wants to take onto the interstate and had the drive time shorten by a couple minutes.I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
Millions sounds like too many….. that seems like it is the same crowd that is still using flip phones
And also worth noting that, in the map era, people might encounter congestion and divert, even if the diversion was longer than sitting in the congestion, either because they didn't know that the congestion was still shorter, or because the increased time was considered worth it to not sit in traffic.
It's also worth noting that even "smart" GPS services will sometimes default to a shorter but more time-consuming route. There have been times when I've dragged the path of Google directions off of whatever local route it wants to take onto the interstate and had the drive time shorten by a couple minutes.
Why I think it won't happen: Too many agencies involved that will need to agree. It hasn't been designed yet, but my completely uninformed guess (I'm not saying that ironically, I mean it) is that NJTA will want to end improvements within their jurisdiction to avoid that complication. (As much as having to rebuild various overpasses still involves other jurisdictions anyway.)
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
And also worth noting that, in the map era, people might encounter congestion and divert, even if the diversion was longer than sitting in the congestion, either because they didn't know that the congestion was still shorter, or because the increased time was considered worth it to not sit in traffic.
Are there really that many people still doing that? Surely by now, the smart GPS reigns supreme. It is, in fact, the main reason I use it most of the time.
I’ve sometimes wondered when a nav app takes me on some bizarre back street route if it’s because it’s determined that on average, it’s a couple of seconds faster. But, even though it’s faster on average, it’s far more variable so it could well take me longer. I frequently want to arrive at a certain time - early is almost as bad as late so I’d rather have the very slightly slower but much less variable route.
iPad
Or is the GPS doing what it's supposed to be doing...taking you away from a bad jam that you're not aware of.
To tie together both discussions...a few months ago I was on the Turnpike's outer roadway, and the GPS desperately wanted me to use the inner roadway. It's routing wanted me to exit at Exit 12, make a u-turn on the ramp by going over the concrete curbing, and then take the ramp for the car lanes to get back on the Turnpike.
It was nice that it could tell I was literally 24 feet over from the lanes it wanted me to use, but it gave me a horrid, under carriage damaging, illegal way to get there.
To tie together both discussions...a few months ago I was on the Turnpike's outer roadway, and the GPS desperately wanted me to use the inner roadway. It's routing wanted me to exit at Exit 12, make a u-turn on the ramp by going over the concrete curbing, and then take the ramp for the car lanes to get back on the Turnpike.I mean, you could hang a Uey at the toll plaza without a curb couldn't you? Or is 12 "special"?
It was nice that it could tell I was literally 24 feet over from the lanes it wanted me to use, but it gave me a horrid, under carriage damaging, illegal way to get there.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
NJTP Authority disagrees with you, given they’ve funded the widening of Exits 1-3 from 4 to 6 lanes.There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
I haven't seen an truly smart GPSs. When I first plot a route, sure, it will take traffic into account, but if congestion comes up that didn't exist at the start of the trip (this happens during long commutes, and even longer trips almost regularly), it will almost never re-route me without manual intervention (not very safe while driving).Are there really that many people still doing that? Surely by now, the smart GPS reigns supreme. It is, in fact, the main reason I use it most of the time.I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
I haven't seen an truly smart GPSs. When I first plot a route, sure, it will take traffic into account, but if congestion comes up that didn't exist at the start of the trip (this happens during long commutes, and even longer trips almost regularly), it will almost never re-route me without manual intervention (not very safe while driving).Are there really that many people still doing that? Surely by now, the smart GPS reigns supreme. It is, in fact, the main reason I use it most of the time.I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic. Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map. Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.
GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.
Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings). These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.
Not sure about others, but Google Maps uses its traffic data to guess (usually correctly) what the traffic will be like at any given point on a trip and route/calculate trip time accordingly. That said, I'm not sure what it will do for unexpected congestion (such as from a crash).
I vehemently disagree. I drive this all the time.There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
Disagree, 8 lanes is not as necessary from 6 to 4 as 6 lanes is from 1 to 4. The location of backups makes this obvious.
I vehemently disagree. I drive this all the time.There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
Disagree, 8 lanes is not as necessary from 6 to 4 as 6 lanes is from 1 to 4. The location of backups makes this obvious.
I just do not see the need for 6 lanes south of exit 3.
Sorry, I am not in traffic jams, I am 65+.
Drive I-95 in northern MD, or between DC/BAL, or VA from Richmond to Springfield, THAT requires expansion...this...no...
Or what?I vehemently disagree. I drive this all the time.There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA. THAT is where a road needs widened.I have, and it's torture. It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere. By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
Disagree, 8 lanes is not as necessary from 6 to 4 as 6 lanes is from 1 to 4. The location of backups makes this obvious.
I just do not see the need for 6 lanes south of exit 3.
Sorry, I am not in traffic jams, I am 65+.
Drive I-95 in northern MD, or between DC/BAL, or VA from Richmond to Springfield, THAT requires expansion...this...no...
You're outnumbered here. Give up.
MA uses green for Six Flags New England.White on brown is also used for "Six Flags" on a sign approaching Exit 7A.That makes more sense, as I believe the white on brown is intended for recreational and cultural centers etc. Hence why it’s confusing for it to be used for EWR.
The Woodrow Wilson Service Area on the northbound Turnpike between interchanges 7 and 7A closed last week.
The Molly Pitcher Service Area on the southbound Turnpike between interchanges 8A and 8 is scheduled to close this week.
HMS Host, which operates the 20 Turnpike and Parkway areas, is selling its American toll road business for $375 million to Iris Buyer, LLC, a consortium of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners, an investment firm, and Dublin based Applegreen LTD, which operates highway service areas in Europe and the U.S., and B&J Holdings LTD, according a statement from Autogrill, HMS Host parent company.
From https://www.nj.com/news/2021/05/company-that-runs-turnpike-parkway-service-areas-to-be-sold-for-375m.htmlQuoteHMS Host, which operates the 20 Turnpike and Parkway areas, is selling its American toll road business for $375 million to Iris Buyer, LLC, a consortium of Blackstone Infrastructure Partners, an investment firm, and Dublin based Applegreen LTD, which operates highway service areas in Europe and the U.S., and B&J Holdings LTD, according a statement from Autogrill, HMS Host parent company.
How feasible would it be to introduce variable pricing across the turnpike?
How feasible would it be to introduce variable pricing across the turnpike?
The have a very basic form of variable pricing. EZ Pass off-peak for EZ Pass NJ account holders save roughly 20% or so. Peak hours are 7-9am, 4-6pm and weekends.
The concept of more variable pricing was discussed in the past, but I think the Turnpike didn't want to push too much on the idea.
I don't know what you're talking about. They know the volumes. They know where things are congested.How feasible would it be to introduce variable pricing across the turnpike?
The have a very basic form of variable pricing. EZ Pass off-peak for EZ Pass NJ account holders save roughly 20% or so. Peak hours are 7-9am, 4-6pm and weekends.
The concept of more variable pricing was discussed in the past, but I think the Turnpike didn't want to push too much on the idea.
It would give accurate pricing signals that would guide expansion projects.
Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:Projects need to be designed...
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
A little surprised that this is the first I'm hearing about a replacement of the Newark Bay Bridge, but I guess its still at least 5 years before they start that work, so maybe not.
Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
A little surprised that this is the first I'm hearing about a replacement of the Newark Bay Bridge, but I guess its still at least 5 years before they start that work, so maybe not.
It's been in their long term plans for a while. They want to make the NBHCE 3 lanes each direction between the mainline and 14C, plus add an aux lane eastbound to allow traffic exiting at 14A to have a place to queue up without spilling onto the main road. The bridge will need to be replaced to make that a reality.
Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
A little surprised that this is the first I'm hearing about a replacement of the Newark Bay Bridge, but I guess its still at least 5 years before they start that work, so maybe not.
It's been in their long term plans for a while. They want to make the NBHCE 3 lanes each direction between the mainline and 14C, plus add an aux lane eastbound to allow traffic exiting at 14A to have a place to queue up without spilling onto the main road. The bridge will need to be replaced to make that a reality.
Well, naturally. Though they could twin it if they thought it was more cost effective. I'm guessing not.
Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
A little surprised that this is the first I'm hearing about a replacement of the Newark Bay Bridge, but I guess its still at least 5 years before they start that work, so maybe not.
It's been in their long term plans for a while. They want to make the NBHCE 3 lanes each direction between the mainline and 14C, plus add an aux lane eastbound to allow traffic exiting at 14A to have a place to queue up without spilling onto the main road. The bridge will need to be replaced to make that a reality.
Well, naturally. Though they could twin it if they thought it was more cost effective. I'm guessing not.
I imagine that they decided that the cost to build a second bridge and then rehab the original was higher than just building a new bridge that handles both directions of traffic.
Or building 1 new and then replacing existing. I don't know if they've decided on the final structural design.Looking through the NJTA website, I noticed the exit 4-1 widening project is published in the capitol projects list:
https://www.njta.com/our-projects/new-jersey-turnpike
I wonder why they are waiting until 2025 to start construction.
A little surprised that this is the first I'm hearing about a replacement of the Newark Bay Bridge, but I guess its still at least 5 years before they start that work, so maybe not.
It's been in their long term plans for a while. They want to make the NBHCE 3 lanes each direction between the mainline and 14C, plus add an aux lane eastbound to allow traffic exiting at 14A to have a place to queue up without spilling onto the main road. The bridge will need to be replaced to make that a reality.
Well, naturally. Though they could twin it if they thought it was more cost effective. I'm guessing not.
I imagine that they decided that the cost to build a second bridge and then rehab the original was higher than just building a new bridge that handles both directions of traffic.
https://goo.gl/maps/xXA3nAaYpP8AnG2L9It’s also in contradiction to what is used on the mainline in this area, which is either GWB or nothing.
I see New York is used here on I-78 west FDOT I-95 and The Turnpike Mainline. Considering you just left New York it seems odd to use it coming from this direction.
https://goo.gl/maps/xXA3nAaYpP8AnG2L9It’s also in contradiction to what is used on the mainline in this area, which is either GWB or nothing.
I see New York is used here on I-78 west FDOT I-95 and The Turnpike Mainline. Considering you just left New York it seems odd to use it coming from this direction.
https://goo.gl/maps/xXA3nAaYpP8AnG2L9
I see New York is used here on I-78 west for I-95 and The Turnpike Mainline. Considering you just left New York it seems odd to use it coming from this direction.
What would you guys have them sign the NJT northbound at this location? Maybe Teaneck or Fort Lee?
What would you guys have them sign the NJT northbound at this location? Maybe Teaneck or Fort Lee?Fort Lee is used at 19W
The MUTCD screwed up everything saying it’s a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.
same thing with me and train tracks. i've slept through all sorts of railroad noises when i was sleeping in my car in wyoming... didn't faze me in the least.TBH background noise doesn't really bother me.My friend, the housing market will be very kind to you.One other thing to consider is that generally, you only see evidence of the suburbs where they were built before or shortly after the Turnpike was. Newer suburbs deliberately are built out of view for the most part, since most people don’t like to live near a superhighway.I'd like to live next to a superhighway.
same thing with me and train tracks. i've slept through all sorts of railroad noises when i was sleeping in my car in wyoming... didn't faze me in the least.TBH background noise doesn't really bother me.My friend, the housing market will be very kind to you.One other thing to consider is that generally, you only see evidence of the suburbs where they were built before or shortly after the Turnpike was. Newer suburbs deliberately are built out of view for the most part, since most people don’t like to live near a superhighway.I'd like to live next to a superhighway.
New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine it’s awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound it’s blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.
The MUTCD screwed up everything saying it’s a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.
New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine it’s awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound it’s blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.
The MUTCD screwed up everything saying it’s a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.
Such is true, in the NYC area, the bridges make real sense as controls becasue they are landmarks in their own right and mark the points of division between different jurisdictions. It is a city of islands and the bridges/tunnels are key connections.
That being said, from NJ, there are good substitutes for the bridges that can be used.
Staten Island in place of Outerbridge crossing, Goethals Bridge, or Bayonne Bridge
Lower Manhattan in place of Holland Tunnel
Midtown Manhattan in place of Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan in place of GWB
"New York" is not a good control to be used from exit 14 northward, from any vantage point. Arguably, heading east on I-78 or staying north on I-95 can both get you to New York. Using Lower Manhattan for i-78 east and Upper Manhttan for I-95 north helps to distinguish between the two locations.
New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine it’s awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound it’s blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.
The MUTCD screwed up everything saying it’s a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.
Such is true, in the NYC area, the bridges make real sense as controls becasue they are landmarks in their own right and mark the points of division between different jurisdictions. It is a city of islands and the bridges/tunnels are key connections.
That being said, from NJ, there are good substitutes for the bridges that can be used.
Staten Island in place of Outerbridge crossing, Goethals Bridge, or Bayonne Bridge
Lower Manhattan in place of Holland Tunnel
Midtown Manhattan in place of Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan in place of GWB
"New York" is not a good control to be used from exit 14 northward, from any vantage point. Arguably, heading east on I-78 or staying north on I-95 can both get you to New York. Using Lower Manhattan for i-78 east and Upper Manhttan for I-95 north helps to distinguish between the two locations.
Lower and Upper Manhattan do not mean anything to a lot of drivers. New York City (which they should be using over just generic New York) does. I actually prefer they include both the tunnel/bridge name and New York City. NJDOT has started embracing that (see the new signs on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy), NJTA should as well.
New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine it’s awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound it’s blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.
The MUTCD screwed up everything saying it’s a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.
Such is true, in the NYC area, the bridges make real sense as controls becasue they are landmarks in their own right and mark the points of division between different jurisdictions. It is a city of islands and the bridges/tunnels are key connections.
That being said, from NJ, there are good substitutes for the bridges that can be used.
Staten Island in place of Outerbridge crossing, Goethals Bridge, or Bayonne Bridge
Lower Manhattan in place of Holland Tunnel
Midtown Manhattan in place of Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan in place of GWB
"New York" is not a good control to be used from exit 14 northward, from any vantage point. Arguably, heading east on I-78 or staying north on I-95 can both get you to New York. Using Lower Manhattan for i-78 east and Upper Manhttan for I-95 north helps to distinguish between the two locations.
Lower and Upper Manhattan do not mean anything to a lot of drivers. New York City (which they should be using over just generic New York) does. I actually prefer they include both the tunnel/bridge name and New York City. NJDOT has started embracing that (see the new signs on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy), NJTA should as well.
NJDOT is signing Staten Island, not New York City, on 440, though both would technically be fine. I don’t see why people would have trouble with upper/midtown/lower Manhattan on signs vs NYC. NYC can mean the five boroughs (tho yes, I know most people only think of Manhattan when they say nyc). Most people do know Manhattan is the center of NYC, so signing that definitely shouldn’t be a problem.
Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.
Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.
QuoteQuote
That being said, it is curious that the I-80/US 46 decision point is signed as I-80 toward GWB and New York with US 46 (to NJ-3) being signed as to Wayne, Clifton, and Lincoln Tunnel. Why should "New York" bound traffic take the GWB instead of the Lincoln Tunnel?
(If it were up to me, I would not use "New York" on any panel for that interchange and would distinguish between Midtown Manhattan and Upper Manhattan. Once past the interchange, both roads can be signed for New York.)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8948482,-74.2609072,3a,15y,73.94h,96.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8YfHB0nO8Qqf2nWDJ6nQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Because the GWB route provides expressway / highway access to Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn past the GWB. The Lincoln Tunnel route drops you off on the streets in midtown Manhattan. So IMO, appropriately signed. Those specifically wanting the tunnel (for the midtown streets) go one way, everyone else for all other points in NY, use the GWB.
Not Staten Island though. To use the GWB for that is way out. :bigass:
Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.
It is too restrictive. The 80/46 interchange is a major decision point for travel along the I-80 corridor. It is also more than 15 miles away from either GWB or Lincoln Tunnel. For those coming from far west, they can decide to take 46 to Lincoln Tunnel for Midtown Manhattan or take 80 to GWB for Upper Manhattan and Bronx. (For Queens, Brooklyn, or Staten Island, depending on ultimate location, one could take GWB or likely take 46 to 3 to NJTP south to the Goethals.) But once the decision point is passed on either 80 or US 46-NJ 3, there is no reason that you can't keep signing toward New York. Certainly for anyone still on the highway, they need guidance to actually get them to the city. Plus, for those who entered to the east of the 80/46 decision point, it would absolutely be helpful to be guided there on the guide signs.Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.
We’re probably getting too deep in the weeds here. You can’t sign every location a road connects you to, there are too many. You need to pick the best one or two. An argument could be made that since I-95 forms a bit of a loop around the core of the city (diverting northward near Elizabeth and westward in the Bronx), anywhere between those points could be signed with the next control city beyond NYC. Most northbound traffic that follows 95 beyond Route 3 probably isn’t going to Manhattan at all. Most southbound traffic heading to Manhattan probably doesn’t go beyond 278, I’d guess. The main problem with this is when the 80 traffic merges in to 95 northbound, as some of that probably is going to Manhattan (though even in that case, a fair chunk probably heads towards the Lincoln Tunnel instead).
MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.
That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions.
MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.
That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions.
MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.
That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions.
Airports are the worst violators with ten airlines on one panel. Airlines are like cities and the same as driving directions. If they can do it, why not public freeways.
As for what I-95's control city should be for the northbound entrance from westbound I-78 - I wouldn't use NYC at all because that traffic is either coming from NYC or coming from a point where, if they wanted to go to NYC, they should have entered I-78 east instead of west. Thus, it would be appropriate to use the next control city for I-95, which is New Haven.
Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
Neither is US 40 at the other end, but the ramp from NJ 140 to I-295 S Bound still refers to the small NJTA part under Route 49 as "Turnpike South" and that also is not part of the ticket system.Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
It is officially the Turnpike up to US 46, the original end. I don't know whether the stretch from US 46 to I-80 is officially Turnpike or not. I think the shield was consciously omitted here because people equate NJTP with tolls.Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
Neither is US 40 at the other end, but the ramp from NJ 140 to I-295 S Bound still refers to the small NJTA part under Route 49 as "Turnpike South" and that also is not part of the ticket system.Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
They both are part of the system. I can see north of US 46, but the part up to US 46 is still as much turnpike as the rest. It has a service area and at one time was ticketed even though that was 57 years ago when the Secaucus plaza was converted to the endpoint in 1964.
It is officially the Turnpike up to US 46, the original end. I don't know whether the stretch from US 46 to I-80 is officially Turnpike or not. I think the shield was consciously omitted here because people equate NJTP with tolls.Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
All but the outer roadway southbound, where the I-80 local/express ramps come together -- that is still NJDOT's.It is officially the Turnpike up to US 46, the original end. I don't know whether the stretch from US 46 to I-80 is officially Turnpike or not. I think the shield was consciously omitted here because people equate NJTP with tolls.Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96
Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
A mainline plaza is just at the locations they are at for constructability; it doesn't officially mark the end of the Turnpike.
Also to point out, the mainline toll plazas have even moved. The original Interchange 1 was at MP 1.2; it's now at MP 2.4. The Turnpike still owns and maintains everything down to 0.0. Same thing with the PA Turnpike Spur. That toll plaza was move eastward, but the Turnpike still owns the roadway to the west of it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the "Turnpike South" signs for I-295 or US 40 are NJTA or NJDOT installs. The most "official" looking I can find is at https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6826694,-75.479803,3a,75y,285.78h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN3BWJbfXA1kll7Enf-lraQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's on NJ 140, but doesn't look very NJDOT to me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the "Turnpike South" signs for I-295 or US 40 are NJTA or NJDOT installs. The most "official" looking I can find is at https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6826694,-75.479803,3a,75y,285.78h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN3BWJbfXA1kll7Enf-lraQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's on NJ 140, but doesn't look very NJDOT to me.
Even this isn't accurate:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5w151tsru2yzxPXaA . "SOUTH" are accurate for both routes. 551 South is a hidden, unsigned overlay with 140 here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the "Turnpike South" signs for I-295 or US 40 are NJTA or NJDOT installs. The most "official" looking I can find is at https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6826694,-75.479803,3a,75y,285.78h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sN3BWJbfXA1kll7Enf-lraQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It's on NJ 140, but doesn't look very NJDOT to me.
Even this isn't accurate:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5w151tsru2yzxPXaA . "SOUTH" are accurate for both routes. 551 South is a hidden, unsigned overlay with 140 here.
Yes, that sign is for the SB I-295 and not for a ramp leading to both directions of I-295. Should be South for both routes and only the Delaware Memorial Bridge as a control as the turnpike south ends at the I-295 merge or shortly afterwards. So to mention the Turnpike here is not worth it at this point. Yes, I see the mentality of people thinking the NJ Turnpike ends in Delaware at the I-95 merge, or even some consider the whole turnpike in NJ to be I-95. Remember signs and maps do not mean much to people and no one pays attention to them even when looking at them since time began.
In Orlando, we have people who refer to South Orange Blossom Trail as US 441 or Four Forty One even though the shields for US 17 & 92 stand out more than the US 441 shield when all three routes are posted along the three route concurrency. So some folks still will drive past I-95 now on Exit 6 guides, and still believe in the fact I-95 is with them on the Turnpike even though it's clear since 2018 ( or whatever year it was when the PA Turnpike and I-95 connection got completed).
You be a bit surprised how many people who I have met living in NJ long before the GPS came into our lives, really thought the Turnpike was I-95 when I lived there. Even back in the seventies and eighties the signs were clear at the 95 and 295 split then, yet people whom I worked with thought I-95 went over the Delaware Memorial Bridge instead of through Wilmington and Philadelphia.
You be a bit surprised how many people who I have met living in NJ long before the GPS came into our lives, really thought the Turnpike was I-95 when I lived there. Even back in the seventies and eighties the signs were clear at the 95 and 295 split then, yet people whom I worked with thought I-95 went over the Delaware Memorial Bridge instead of through Wilmington and Philadelphia.
Even In Orlando we had many people call the US 17/92/441 concurrency as Four Forty One and not even realize that US 17 & 92 were also present there. Yet the shields for all three routes features US 17/92 on top of US 441 which to first glance sees the two shields on top first over the not so conspicuous US 441 beneath it.
Bottom line people don’t comprehend what their eyes see when it comes to road signs as my experience dealing with motorists on toll roads who can even see a billboard size toll rate chart and then tell me the sign that they didn’t see needs changing as the price advertised was wrong.
When I was a kid, most people in New England and points to the northeast of NJ certainly thought of the Turnpike as I-95, while the stretch on the other side of the river was an afterthought, since regional and national traffic would just naturally use the Turnpike to move north or south along the coast.You be a bit surprised how many people who I have met living in NJ long before the GPS came into our lives, really thought the Turnpike was I-95 when I lived there. Even back in the seventies and eighties the signs were clear at the 95 and 295 split then, yet people whom I worked with thought I-95 went over the Delaware Memorial Bridge instead of through Wilmington and Philadelphia.
I'd bet most if not all of those people from NJ were from North Jersey, where the turnpike has been 95 more or less all along, and they just assumed it went straight down to the Del Mem Br. South Jersey people are highly unlikely to have such belief considering they know I-95 is in Philly.
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
Link requires a login.
I was reading the Capital Plan for the Turnpike which does include the six lane widening of the 37 miles that is still four lanes in South Jersey as well as making the entire Newark Bay Extension up to Columbus Drive six lanes as well. The latter includes all new elevated structures and the replacement of the Casciano Bridge over Newark Bay.At one point I'd heard that giant building between Monmouth and Coles Streets was going to be removed (not by NJTA, just in general). Maybe I'm confusing that with something else.
Big times ahead and a bigger mess on the Newark Bay Extension as well. Building all new viaducts especially at Jersey Avenue where the roadway is up against a cold food storage facility will create a long nightmare. Though not adding lanes to this, the viaduct replacement will be more of a challenge being NJ 139 runs next to it also.
Here's a couple of pictures of new signs approaching 16E/18E that were recently replaced with the completion of the express E-ZPass lanes. I like these signs more than what was there before.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205692_7d7340b1f6_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205717_2d79049751_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205727_943282cec7_c.jpg)
Here's a couple of pictures of new signs approaching 16E/18E that were recently replaced with the completion of the express E-ZPass lanes. I like these signs more than what was there before.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205692_7d7340b1f6_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205717_2d79049751_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205727_943282cec7_c.jpg)
Do users heading for 3 now pay the 18E toll? That seems to be what the signs suggest. I don’t recall if there was much difference between the 16E and 18E tolls.
Why doesn't Route 3 appear on the first sign in the series? The MUTCD encourages consistent message through the series of advance signs for an exit.
Plus now with express lanes you will get cash users in those lanes as well. Believe it or not people out there panic and minds go onto Auto Pilot mode and will make that wrong move. That was one of the things I found hard to believe when I first started to work at the tolls is how people really behave on new roads they never been on, especially tolled facilities.
Plus now with express lanes you will get cash users in those lanes as well. Believe it or not people out there panic and minds go onto Auto Pilot mode and will make that wrong move. That was one of the things I found hard to believe when I first started to work at the tolls is how people really behave on new roads they never been on, especially tolled facilities.
The turnpike authority gets to charge a 50 dollar fee every time somebody makes that mistake. They're not gonna go out of their way to prevent it.
Oh, and "Pay Toll Ahead" is the completely wrong verbiage for this. This is a pick up a ticket point, not a pay toll point.
Oh, and "Pay Toll Ahead" is the completely wrong verbiage for this. This is a pick up a ticket point, not a pay toll point.
Also not a fan of Plaza Bypass because it implies you don't need to pay the toll if you go that way.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51748669637_c877eaa7d1_z.jpg)I'd like to survey what other agencies are doing. If they go all-electronic this goes away anyway.
This is straight from the MUTCD. The Turnpike Authority used to do this more or less. I wish they would go back to it.
Of course, the advantage DelDOT uses to ensure continued high speed travel is that they divide the lanes well before the plaza, which NJTA doesn't to (space limitations, I presume).
Of course, the advantage DelDOT uses to ensure continued high speed travel is that they divide the lanes well before the plaza, which NJTA doesn't to (space limitations, I presume).
Although that is showing its limitations now that nearly everyone has EZ Pass. Rough estimations are that 90% or greater of the traffic is merging into the 2 left lanes, bogging them down. The right 2 lanes are almost empty. The 5 toll lanes (SB) and 7 toll lanes (NB) sit nearly unused. And due to DelDOT's configuration, there's no easy way to add an additional express lane without tearing up a mile's worth of divided highway in each direction.
It also doesn't help that GPS directions take motorists thru those express lanes, so anyone that realizes they are in the wrong lanes slow down wondering what they can do, which they can't do anything about after the point of no return.
Of course, the advantage DelDOT uses to ensure continued high speed travel is that they divide the lanes well before the plaza, which NJTA doesn't to (space limitations, I presume).
Yes, those are quite valid points.
The merging of two thru express lanes down to 1 right before merging with the rest of the plaza traffic at the NJTP Exit 1 plaza is also rather annoying, speaking of bad configurations of express lanes.
At this point, express lanes should generally be as wide as the thru lanes given most traffic now uses EZPASS, as you mention.
Of course, the advantage DelDOT uses to ensure continued high speed travel is that they divide the lanes well before the plaza, which NJTA doesn't to (space limitations, I presume).
Although that is showing its limitations now that nearly everyone has EZ Pass. Rough estimations are that 90% or greater of the traffic is merging into the 2 left lanes, bogging them down. The right 2 lanes are almost empty. The 5 toll lanes (SB) and 7 toll lanes (NB) sit nearly unused. And due to DelDOT's configuration, there's no easy way to add an additional express lane without tearing up a mile's worth of divided highway in each direction.
It also doesn't help that GPS directions take motorists thru those express lanes, so anyone that realizes they are in the wrong lanes slow down wondering what they can do, which they can't do anything about after the point of no return.
Yes, those are quite valid points.
The merging of two thru express lanes down to 1 right before merging with the rest of the plaza traffic at the NJTP Exit 1 plaza is also rather annoying, speaking of bad configurations of express lanes.
At this point, express lanes should generally be as wide as the thru lanes given most traffic now uses EZPASS, as you mention.
Of course, the advantage DelDOT uses to ensure continued high speed travel is that they divide the lanes well before the plaza, which NJTA doesn't to (space limitations, I presume).
Although that is showing its limitations now that nearly everyone has EZ Pass. Rough estimations are that 90% or greater of the traffic is merging into the 2 left lanes, bogging them down. The right 2 lanes are almost empty. The 5 toll lanes (SB) and 7 toll lanes (NB) sit nearly unused. And due to DelDOT's configuration, there's no easy way to add an additional express lane without tearing up a mile's worth of divided highway in each direction.
It also doesn't help that GPS directions take motorists thru those express lanes, so anyone that realizes they are in the wrong lanes slow down wondering what they can do, which they can't do anything about after the point of no return.
Yes, those are quite valid points.
The merging of two thru express lanes down to 1 right before merging with the rest of the plaza traffic at the NJTP Exit 1 plaza is also rather annoying, speaking of bad configurations of express lanes.
At this point, express lanes should generally be as wide as the thru lanes given most traffic now uses EZPASS, as you mention.
While there's no lengthy barrier at Int. 1, they sloped and paved the roadway in such a way where water will drain into the gore area, where the drainage inlets are located. While it may seem like a quick and easy re-lining of the roadway, the reality is fixing this issue is rather complicated.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o33REnfoQ3ANUKqY7
Of course, the advantage DelDOT uses to ensure continued high speed travel is that they divide the lanes well before the plaza, which NJTA doesn't to (space limitations, I presume).
Although that is showing its limitations now that nearly everyone has EZ Pass. Rough estimations are that 90% or greater of the traffic is merging into the 2 left lanes, bogging them down. The right 2 lanes are almost empty. The 5 toll lanes (SB) and 7 toll lanes (NB) sit nearly unused. And due to DelDOT's configuration, there's no easy way to add an additional express lane without tearing up a mile's worth of divided highway in each direction.
It also doesn't help that GPS directions take motorists thru those express lanes, so anyone that realizes they are in the wrong lanes slow down wondering what they can do, which they can't do anything about after the point of no return.
Yes, those are quite valid points.
The merging of two thru express lanes down to 1 right before merging with the rest of the plaza traffic at the NJTP Exit 1 plaza is also rather annoying, speaking of bad configurations of express lanes.
At this point, express lanes should generally be as wide as the thru lanes given most traffic now uses EZPASS, as you mention.
While there's no lengthy barrier at Int. 1, they sloped and paved the roadway in such a way where water will drain into the gore area, where the drainage inlets are located. While it may seem like a quick and easy re-lining of the roadway, the reality is fixing this issue is rather complicated.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/o33REnfoQ3ANUKqY7
Almost realized that too late one day when I got caught behind a slow poke and tried to use the gore to cut around, then saw how badly the drain had slumped below the pavement grade and had to cut back in. Would've been a pricey short-cut, for sure. It was the northbound side shown here, but compared to the imagery, it looks like there's been considerable sinking of the drain recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.68565,-75.4464756,3a,75y,69.62h,94.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spuDAi7htILpMUtuazP1vKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The "Toll Plaza Bypass" is a bit misleading; kind of said this about the Raritan plaza on the GSP. You're bypassing the plaza, but not the toll (or ticket.)https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
Link requires a login.
You were asked to stop discussing your desired lane balances on the NJ Turnpike. Please heed moderator requests.Why? Nobody ever answered why the NJTP doesn't like doing 4 lanes in each direction.
Quote from: AARoads ForumYou were asked to stop discussing your desired lane balances on the NJ Turnpike. Please heed moderator requests.Why? Nobody ever answered why the NJTP doesn't like doing 4 lanes in each direction.
How are they going to add lanes over the Newark Bay Bridge?
But the twitter page doesn't, and thanks to this, I was able to get to their official page and found out they were auctioning off their old equipment the day after I used it to get to NYC.https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
Link requires a login.
But the twitter page doesn't, and thanks to this, I was able to get to their official page and found out they were auctioning off their old equipment the day after I used it to get to NYC.https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
Link requires a login.
https://www.njta.com/newsroom/njta-is-selling-surplus-equipment-vehicles-and-parts-sealed-bids-are-due-by-11-am-nov-22nd
I also used E-Z Pass for the first time with Sun Pass Pro that day, and not just on the New Jersey Turnpike.
The day after they used what? Most of their auction items are old vehicles and off-roadway maintenance equipment for grass and tree trimming.I said the day after I used it, and that's the Turnpike I was referring to. The auction was on November 22nd, I was on the turnpike on November 21st. I was hoping that besides the old vehicles, and maintenance equipment and such, there could've been some hope for the leftover neon VMS.
Yes but how come they do not have 4 lanes total in each direction on the mainline, it is just 2,3 or 3/3, 3/4?Quote from: AARoads ForumYou were asked to stop discussing your desired lane balances on the NJ Turnpike. Please heed moderator requests.Why? Nobody ever answered why the NJTP doesn't like doing 4 lanes in each direction.
To answer that very specific question: The NJ Turnpike does have 4 lanes in each direction in the outer (truck lanes) roadway between Interchange 11 & 14, except thru the Interchange 13 area where it remains 3 lanes. A project listed in their Capital Plan will widen the Turnpike to 4 lanes in that area, to allow for a continuous 4 lane outer roadway from 11 - 14.
Also listed is a project to widen the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension between Interchange 14 & 14A from 2 lanes per direction to 4 lanes per direction.
I sometimes wonder if the cars only lanes clog up more often.
Life is full of things we see that are odd out there to want to question. This is the same like why does the left lane use yellow lane striping for its border only on the inside lanes of the dual Turnpike Carriageways and not on the left of the outside lanes. It’s just happening.But they do use yellow on the outside lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.57476,-74.2480471,3a,75y,31.07h,82.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suuQL39CDsbqCEMJBNwuLuQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DuuQL39CDsbqCEMJBNwuLuQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D39.807926%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)? :confused:
Why worry about a 4-4 set up. To me I wonder why the Pearl Harbor Extension has different verbiage then the mainline does to keep trucks out of the left lane. However I am not going to keep asking over and over again if I don’t get the answer to it.
Why worry about a 4-4 set up. To me I wonder why the Pearl Harbor Extension has different verbiage then the mainline does to keep trucks out of the left lane. However I am not going to keep asking over and over again if I don’t get the answer to it.
I don't recall any such signs on the Penn Extension... and a (rather quick) trip thru GSV didn't reveal anything. It occurs to me that such signs would be rather ineffective considering the express lanes are the two left ones at the plaza and also that if the truck lanes are closed, they all have to stay in the two left lanes anyway as they close in on the mainline.
I sometimes wonder if the cars only lanes clog up more often.
Depends on time of day and year, but during rush hours in the peak direction, and busy holiday travel, I suspect this is indeed the case.
Why worry about a 4-4 set up. To me I wonder why the Pearl Harbor Extension has different verbiage then the mainline does to keep trucks out of the left lane. However I am not going to keep asking over and over again if I don’t get the answer to it.
I don't recall any such signs on the Penn Extension... and a (rather quick) trip thru GSV didn't reveal anything. It occurs to me that such signs would be rather ineffective considering the express lanes are the two left ones at the plaza and also that if the truck lanes are closed, they all have to stay in the two left lanes anyway as they close in on the mainline.
Going back further when there were no dual lanes thru Interchange 6, only 1 express lane, and before that, just an ordinary plaza for the Int. 6 toll plaza, there was at least 1 sign just east of where 295 crosses over the Extension. The sign was posted for both directions and stated "CARS USE LEFT LANE FOR PASSING ONLY". https://goo.gl/maps/GTRGiGTnogqVuSpu7
In 2014, near the opening of the dual lanes, the sign was taped up for EB traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/SqUJ7CCiVMtTBqfb9 , but not for WB traffic. About the time the dual-dual section opened on the mainline, the signs disappeared for both directions.
The Extension was kind of a forgotten stepchild to the Turnpike anyway. Even though the mainline got heavily reinforced jersey barriers back in the 1980's to keep traffic from crossing the median into each other, the Extension didn't even have so much as a guardrail within the narrow grassy median until around 2013 or so, except where it needed to protect bridges and signs. https://goo.gl/maps/fzARXmtrFuLiUqPM9 . The NJTA gives it a bit more respect now.I sometimes wonder if the cars only lanes clog up more often.
Depends on time of day and year, but during rush hours in the peak direction, and busy holiday travel, I suspect this is indeed the case.
I've learned to use those truck lanes during holidays and weekends when truck traffic is generally lighter, and motorists not as familiar with the Turnpike keep to the Car Only lanes, and drive a bit slower than the regular weekday traffic that zooms along the Turnpike. But on weekdays, especially weekday mornings after rush hours, those truck lanes are packed with truckers.
Overall, does one side congest more than the other? Not so much intentionally, but rather when there's a few left lane hogs that can quickly bottleneck traffic behind them.
I was referring to No Trucks In Left Lane of This Roadway signs on the Extension verses No Trucks and Busses In Left Lane on the mainline to warn trucks to stay out of the left lanes as an example to Blue Country. I don’t know now what white signs are used now and the verbiage on them presently, but the point was you can’t expect an answer to every question as Blue Country was demanding to know why the Turnpike has no eight lane segments.
There are more barriers now, so I think that they've really made it so you can't pay through the 16E lanes and then try to slide over towards 18E. Not that there were too many people doing that before, but it's definitely not really possible now. 18E is a greater toll than 16E even though the plaza is at the same point (given the further distance to the end of the official part of the Turnpike, even though they obviously own the 95 segment all the way to the GWB.
Why doesn't Route 3 appear on the first sign in the series? The MUTCD encourages consistent message through the series of advance signs for an exit.
Honestly, they could be fine with a "3 Secaucus Use Cash Lanes" aux sign to convey the message without much issue and just have that last sign ahead of the plaza area. That would get the job done.
That's an improvement. I can tell you that they did build a new jersey barrier past the plaza so that 16E and 18E traffic through the plaza is now physically segregated, so you do have to pay the 18E toll to exit to Patterson Plank Rd now.Current Google Maps aerials show the barrier configuration with all exits through the 16E side and only mainline as 18E. This would be a toll increase for PPR.
That's an improvement. I can tell you that they did build a new jersey barrier past the plaza so that 16E and 18E traffic through the plaza is now physically segregated, so you do have to pay the 18E toll to exit to Patterson Plank Rd now.Current Google Maps aerials show the barrier configuration with all exits through the 16E side and only mainline as 18E. This would be a toll increase for PPR.
This is all disappointing but not surprising. Gives me even more reason to shunpike when I'm in NJ...
Looks like residents of Secaucus and some other nearby towns will be getting a special discount where they pay the 16E rate at the reconfigured 16E/18E toll booth if they have EZ-Pass (assuming the NJTA approves it): https://hudsoncountyview.com/stack-sacco-negotiate-n-j-turnpike-toll-relief-for-north-hudson-secaucus-and-fairview-residents/Would not a better solution simply be to place an EZ-Pass gantry at this exit that used to charge the lower toll, and then use the EZ-Pass record to credit back the higher toll?
Looks like residents of Secaucus and some other nearby towns will be getting a special discount where they pay the 16E rate at the reconfigured 16E/18E toll booth if they have EZ-Pass (assuming the NJTA approves it): https://hudsoncountyview.com/stack-sacco-negotiate-n-j-turnpike-toll-relief-for-north-hudson-secaucus-and-fairview-residents/Would not a better solution simply be to place an EZ-Pass gantry at these other exits that used to charge the lower toll, and then use the EZ-Pass record to credit back the higher toll?
Sure, the discount is good, but it will also discount trips that should be at the higher toll
Building out another gantry and the telecom equipment to communicate costs a little more, but it would be a better solution
Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp. What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?
Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp. What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?
Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp. What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?
Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.
Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp. What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?
Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.
Does anyone have traffic counts for different Turnpike interchanges?
Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp. What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?
Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.
It appears they wanted to have the XBL toll booth be thru the left-most toll lane for the 16E side, rather than placing it within the interior of the 16E portion of the plaza.
I'm going to say the Turnpike is probably well aware of people going thru the 16E lanes, then quickly merging left into the 95 North lanes where they should've paid the 18E toll, avoiding the additional toll. It's probably been enough of an issue where crashes have occurred due to short, quick merges.
So to prevent this, they came up with the solution presented.
What I was suggesting was to have an additional barrier with a booth or two being set aside for only NJ 3 traffic. That way, you still fix the weave with the bus lane, but don't force NJ 3 traffic to arbitrarily pay a higher toll. The toll booths are already signed this way (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7770414,-74.058259,3a,25.9y,47.43h,95.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Yi8r9_Qat0EBn7FV3ETnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), so why they didn't go ahead and do it is beyond me.Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp. What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?
Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.
It appears they wanted to have the XBL toll booth be thru the left-most toll lane for the 16E side, rather than placing it within the interior of the 16E portion of the plaza.
I'm going to say the Turnpike is probably well aware of people going thru the 16E lanes, then quickly merging left into the 95 North lanes where they should've paid the 18E toll, avoiding the additional toll. It's probably been enough of an issue where crashes have occurred due to short, quick merges.
So to prevent this, they came up with the solution presented.
I think this will all be moot in about five years anyway. NJTA has conversion to AET in their 10 year plan right now. Every agency around them is doing it.
Once they do that, they can truly segregate the 16E ramp to be more in line with what it was when the Turnpike was originally built and that will be that. I'm pretty sure that paying the 18E toll for PPR/Rt 3 is here to stay.
I don't think there is anything publicly available. Google gave me one study that at least has some info:Does anyone have traffic counts for different Turnpike interchanges?
A great question. Are there any publicly available traffic counts for the turnpike, or do they keep that all to themselves?
or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
I think this will all be moot in about five years anyway. NJTA has conversion to AET in their 10 year plan right now. Every agency around them is doing it. Once they do that, they can truly segregate the 16E ramp to be more in line with what it was when the Turnpike was originally built and that will be that. I'm pretty sure that paying the 18E toll for PPR/Rt 3 is here to stay.
or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry. Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.
or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry. Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.
Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that.
My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry. Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.
Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that.
As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.
A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.
My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry. Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.
Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that.
As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.
A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.
My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry. Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.
Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that.
As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.
A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.
My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?
The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry. Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.
Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that.
As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.
A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.
I was surprised how far away Maryland put their open road tolling system from the existing plazas. On 95, it's about a mile away, closer to the river. On 50, it's several miles away, on the other fricking side of the river!
My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.
I was surprised how far away Maryland put their open road tolling system from the existing plazas. On 95, it's about a mile away, closer to the river. On 50, it's several miles away, on the other fricking side of the river!
Since they are single location tolls, instead of entry/exit points for ticket systems, perhaps they found it cheaper to build the completely separate gantry in a new location, then demolish the entire plaza. Or, possibly, it was better for traffic flow during the project? Dunno...
With US 50, it may be a case that the existing plaza did not really have the ITS infrastructure one would need for AET, so even if there was a convenient power drop and potentially a data supply, it would have to be completely redone anyway such that a new location was not at a significant disadvantage.My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.
I was surprised how far away Maryland put their open road tolling system from the existing plazas. On 95, it's about a mile away, closer to the river. On 50, it's several miles away, on the other fricking side of the river!
Since they are single location tolls, instead of entry/exit points for ticket systems, perhaps they found it cheaper to build the completely separate gantry in a new location, then demolish the entire plaza. Or, possibly, it was better for traffic flow during the project? Dunno...
The 95 gantry makes some sense. It's on a rise from the river, so traffic often goes a little slower, and reducing speeds to capture a tag read, or a license plate take, usually helps. It's not really done elsewhere so I'm not sure if it was truly needed, but it seems to be the only justification for where it's located.
The US 50 tolling point? Yeah, it's definitely well removed from the demolishing of the current plaza, that's for sure. That seems to be the only justification there.
Just noticed this new sign showing up on GSV...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8458195,-74.018014,3a,75y,180.4h,88.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSD739HnjKm5rp72ON4TlYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I get the point, I do... I just find it vaguely amusing that NJTA is going to pretend the Eastern Spur isn't 95 here by not even signing a route number with it.
If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
We're using the NJTA terminology, not NJDOT. NJDOT calls them alignments (since to them, it is exactly that) but NJTA refers to them as spurs (since they both feature separate termini of the ticket system). Though, you probably know that.
If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
We're using the NJTA terminology, not NJDOT. NJDOT calls them alignments (since to them, it is exactly that) but NJTA refers to them as spurs (since they both feature separate termini of the ticket system). Though, you probably know that.
Sorry, but Alps is right . . . the Authority's design manuals and drawings refer to them as Alignments. The term Spur, I think, is used more on traffic reports and by the general public.
If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
We're using the NJTA terminology, not NJDOT. NJDOT calls them alignments (since to them, it is exactly that) but NJTA refers to them as spurs (since they both feature separate termini of the ticket system). Though, you probably know that.
Sorry, but Alps is right . . . the Authority's design manuals and drawings refer to them as Alignments. The term Spur, I think, is used more on traffic reports and by the general public.
Interesting, but the NJTA definitely uses "SPUR" in press releases...
https://www.njta.com/newsroom/eastern-spur-weekend-closure
If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
We're using the NJTA terminology, not NJDOT. NJDOT calls them alignments (since to them, it is exactly that) but NJTA refers to them as spurs (since they both feature separate termini of the ticket system). Though, you probably know that.
Sorry, but Alps is right . . . the Authority's design manuals and drawings refer to them as Alignments. The term Spur, I think, is used more on traffic reports and by the general public.
Interesting, but the NJTA definitely uses "SPUR" in press releases...
https://www.njta.com/newsroom/eastern-spur-weekend-closure
At this point, the "spur" terminology is very ingrained in the public consciousness, thanks to decades of traffic reports and other news reports about the roadway, but officially, it very much is the Easterly and Westerly alignments. IIRC, at one time, the eastern one was considered 95 and the western one was considered 95W by the Authority.
Just noticed this new sign showing up on GSV...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8458195,-74.018014,3a,75y,180.4h,88.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSD739HnjKm5rp72ON4TlYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I get the point, I do... I just find it vaguely amusing that NJTA is going to pretend the Eastern Spur isn't 95 here by not even signing a route number with it.
At car only (inner) and truck, bus, and car (outer) carriageway diverge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7249526,-74.1324321,3a,26.4y,207.82h,92.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9M5IQ8oyGAa4X4llsveB3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (you can see the older sign here behind)
Are these sets (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7081527,-74.1501125,3a,40.4y,16.81h,94.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snq5jqL89exorm4MTUXFjlw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) of signs at the southern end of the East/West diverge, as well as the ones approaching the Interstate 80 interchange from the south (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.814922,-74.0284456,3a,28.6y,11.57h,94.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWHc5YPZJNGNuN0FOuhg0qQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)) going to eventually replaced with more modern, electronic versions of these signs similar to what was observed at other locations recently? I also wonder what set of messages the I-80 interchange and US Route 46 displayed as well...
I'm amused that you're disputing someone who directly works with the NJTA and can firsthand vouch for the correct names. But you do you.If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
We're using the NJTA terminology, not NJDOT. NJDOT calls them alignments (since to them, it is exactly that) but NJTA refers to them as spurs (since they both feature separate termini of the ticket system). Though, you probably know that.
Sorry, but Alps is right . . . the Authority's design manuals and drawings refer to them as Alignments. The term Spur, I think, is used more on traffic reports and by the general public.
Interesting, but the NJTA definitely uses "SPUR" in press releases...
https://www.njta.com/newsroom/eastern-spur-weekend-closure
At this point, the "spur" terminology is very ingrained in the public consciousness, thanks to decades of traffic reports and other news reports about the roadway, but officially, it very much is the Easterly and Westerly alignments. IIRC, at one time, the eastern one was considered 95 and the western one was considered 95W by the Authority.
I'm not doubting that internally those terms are used. But they were "alignments" since the day they were both first open, since neither was a "spur" at inception or since then. Since the name "spur" has always been meaningless, for all intents and purposes, but that's what even the NJTA calls them publicly, its a little silly to quibble over it.
I'm amused that you're disputing someone who directly works with the NJTA and can firsthand vouch for the correct names. But you do you.If I'm not mistaken, this is also a subtle change from how the area used to be signed...the Western Spur has always been signed as I-95 for traffic coming from the GWB, but for traffic coming from I-80 & US 46 I thought the Eastern Spur was signed as I-95 (and the older signage closer to the split, which still exists as of that streetview, seems to confirm that).The intent of the older signage was to ultimately balance traffic between alignments (Easterly and Westerly Alignments, not Spurs).
We're using the NJTA terminology, not NJDOT. NJDOT calls them alignments (since to them, it is exactly that) but NJTA refers to them as spurs (since they both feature separate termini of the ticket system). Though, you probably know that.
Sorry, but Alps is right . . . the Authority's design manuals and drawings refer to them as Alignments. The term Spur, I think, is used more on traffic reports and by the general public.
Interesting, but the NJTA definitely uses "SPUR" in press releases...
https://www.njta.com/newsroom/eastern-spur-weekend-closure
At this point, the "spur" terminology is very ingrained in the public consciousness, thanks to decades of traffic reports and other news reports about the roadway, but officially, it very much is the Easterly and Westerly alignments. IIRC, at one time, the eastern one was considered 95 and the western one was considered 95W by the Authority.
I'm not doubting that internally those terms are used. But they were "alignments" since the day they were both first open, since neither was a "spur" at inception or since then. Since the name "spur" has always been meaningless, for all intents and purposes, but that's what even the NJTA calls them publicly, its a little silly to quibble over it.
Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
There are certain officials that will use the absolute correct terminology, and others that use people-speak. Some NJTA press releases will inform us of road work on the "inner roadway", "Cars only roadway", or use both. Then there's ones with NJDOT that will inform us there's construction on I-76 North & South.
The important thing to know...most people will never read them. But the agency did its due diligence.
Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
There are certain officials that will use the absolute correct terminology, and others that use people-speak. Some NJTA press releases will inform us of road work on the "inner roadway", "Cars only roadway", or use both. Then there's ones with NJDOT that will inform us there's construction on I-76 North & South.
The important thing to know...most people will never read them. But the agency did its due diligence.
While signed East-west, I-76 is mileposted, essentially, north-south (MP 0 is at 295, not the PA line). The SLD lists it north-south, too. It’s not too unlike truck 1/9, which is signed north-south, but the SLD and in fact, the mileposts, depict an east-west route.
Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
There are certain officials that will use the absolute correct terminology, and others that use people-speak. Some NJTA press releases will inform us of road work on the "inner roadway", "Cars only roadway", or use both. Then there's ones with NJDOT that will inform us there's construction on I-76 North & South.
The important thing to know...most people will never read them. But the agency did its due diligence.
While signed East-west, I-76 is mileposted, essentially, north-south (MP 0 is at 295, not the PA line). The SLD lists it north-south, too. It’s not too unlike truck 1/9, which is signed north-south, but the SLD and in fact, the mileposts, depict an east-west route.
The SLD, while a pretty cool thing to look at, is for amusement only and shouldn't be relied on as anything official.
Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
There are certain officials that will use the absolute correct terminology, and others that use people-speak. Some NJTA press releases will inform us of road work on the "inner roadway", "Cars only roadway", or use both. Then there's ones with NJDOT that will inform us there's construction on I-76 North & South.
The important thing to know...most people will never read them. But the agency did its due diligence.
While signed East-west, I-76 is mileposted, essentially, north-south (MP 0 is at 295, not the PA line). The SLD lists it north-south, too. It’s not too unlike truck 1/9, which is signed north-south, but the SLD and in fact, the mileposts, depict an east-west route.
The SLD, while a pretty cool thing to look at, is for amusement only and shouldn't be relied on as anything official.
"SLD?" :confused:
Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.*starts to mutter about his office's PR guy but catches himself*
Unfortunately true, because it does qualify as an official source, but anytime it contradicts something else I have to tell people "no, don't trust it." We have a project where the changeover from 40 mph to 50 mph is depicted at MP, let's say 38.02 on the SLDs, but it's 38.22 in the field. I found the traffic order confirming the field signage as correct.Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
There are certain officials that will use the absolute correct terminology, and others that use people-speak. Some NJTA press releases will inform us of road work on the "inner roadway", "Cars only roadway", or use both. Then there's ones with NJDOT that will inform us there's construction on I-76 North & South.
The important thing to know...most people will never read them. But the agency did its due diligence.
While signed East-west, I-76 is mileposted, essentially, north-south (MP 0 is at 295, not the PA line). The SLD lists it north-south, too. It’s not too unlike truck 1/9, which is signed north-south, but the SLD and in fact, the mileposts, depict an east-west route.
The SLD, while a pretty cool thing to look at, is for amusement only and shouldn't be relied on as anything official.
Unfortunately true, because it does qualify as an official source, but anytime it contradicts something else I have to tell people "no, don't trust it." We have a project where the changeover from 40 mph to 50 mph is depicted at MP, let's say 38.02 on the SLDs, but it's 38.22 in the field. I found the traffic order confirming the field signage as correct.Not every road agency has H.B. Elkins as their public relations officer. I would imagine most of the PR people care little about official terminology and probably don't even talk to the people that would know it.
There are certain officials that will use the absolute correct terminology, and others that use people-speak. Some NJTA press releases will inform us of road work on the "inner roadway", "Cars only roadway", or use both. Then there's ones with NJDOT that will inform us there's construction on I-76 North & South.
The important thing to know...most people will never read them. But the agency did its due diligence.
While signed East-west, I-76 is mileposted, essentially, north-south (MP 0 is at 295, not the PA line). The SLD lists it north-south, too. It’s not too unlike truck 1/9, which is signed north-south, but the SLD and in fact, the mileposts, depict an east-west route.
The SLD, while a pretty cool thing to look at, is for amusement only and shouldn't be relied on as anything official.
Someone should mention that to whomever did the mileposts....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7310533,-74.1122777,3a,75y,101.26h,80.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1splYRCk-3KMg-WK8DxBxBbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Someone should mention that to whomever did the mileposts....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7310533,-74.1122777,3a,75y,101.26h,80.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1splYRCk-3KMg-WK8DxBxBbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes. Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.
Someone should mention that to whomever did the mileposts....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7310533,-74.1122777,3a,75y,101.26h,80.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1splYRCk-3KMg-WK8DxBxBbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes. Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.
I feel like 1&9 just picked up that weird quirk because everyone just calls it 1&9 and the multiplex lasts for such a long distance (nearly 30 miles) and NJDOT just went with it. It's definitely a more modern phenomenon to sign it in this way, as older signage (https://goo.gl/maps/gJRSB5BEf6yyupfB9) that still exists does show the shields separately, but that's dwindling. Also, it's still the only multiplex of any length that I've seen use it. The other two I can think of offhand (202-206 and 202-31) always show separate shields for each route.
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes.
Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes.
That's why there's chocolate, vanilla, and rocky road. Iykwim. That said, I myself wouldn't mind separate 1 and 9 signage.
The Maryland SHA did the same thing on the MD 2/MD 4 multiplex in Calvert County in the late '80s when I visited that part of MD. I saw shields for "2-4" all along that stretch. If https://tinyurl.com/4tvxtmc8 is any indication, the SHA has discontinued the practice, at least on that multiplex.
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes.
That's why there's chocolate, vanilla, and rocky road. Iykwim. That said, I myself wouldn't mind separate 1 and 9 signage.
The Maryland SHA did the same thing on the MD 2/MD 4 multiplex in Calvert County in the late '80s when I visited that part of MD. I saw shields for "2-4" all along that stretch. If https://tinyurl.com/4tvxtmc8 is any indication, the SHA has discontinued the practice, at least on that multiplex.
For the most part, yes. There's still a few...
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6604516,-76.6070928,3a,75y,209.23h,83.88t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1se4vVdCE9_9fcXx1XIcFj1A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3De4vVdCE9_9fcXx1XIcFj1A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D216.25208%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6590527,-76.606616,3a,75y,187.36h,88.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFe9get8dJATjhdjcarVKBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
And yet older 1&9 signage exists too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NJ_Route_7_east_at_Truck_US_1-9.jpg#/media/File:NJ_Route_7_east_at_Truck_US_1-9.jpg for exampleSomeone should mention that to whomever did the mileposts....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7310533,-74.1122777,3a,75y,101.26h,80.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1splYRCk-3KMg-WK8DxBxBbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes. Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.
I feel like 1&9 just picked up that weird quirk because everyone just calls it 1&9 and the multiplex lasts for such a long distance (nearly 30 miles) and NJDOT just went with it. It's definitely a more modern phenomenon to sign it in this way, as older signage (https://goo.gl/maps/gJRSB5BEf6yyupfB9) that still exists does show the shields separately, but that's dwindling. Also, it's still the only multiplex of any length that I've seen use it. The other two I can think of offhand (202-206 and 202-31) always show separate shields for each route.
And yet older 1&9 signage exists too. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NJ_Route_7_east_at_Truck_US_1-9.jpg#/media/File:NJ_Route_7_east_at_Truck_US_1-9.jpg for exampleSomeone should mention that to whomever did the mileposts....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7310533,-74.1122777,3a,75y,101.26h,80.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1splYRCk-3KMg-WK8DxBxBbA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes. Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.
I feel like 1&9 just picked up that weird quirk because everyone just calls it 1&9 and the multiplex lasts for such a long distance (nearly 30 miles) and NJDOT just went with it. It's definitely a more modern phenomenon to sign it in this way, as older signage (https://goo.gl/maps/gJRSB5BEf6yyupfB9) that still exists does show the shields separately, but that's dwindling. Also, it's still the only multiplex of any length that I've seen use it. The other two I can think of offhand (202-206 and 202-31) always show separate shields for each route.
The NJTA signs Exit 15E as US 1 and US 9. Same for Exit 14.
The NJTA signs Exit 15E as US 1 and US 9. Same for Exit 14.
That wasn't the case in the past... 15E never had routes listed until the new signage came along a few years ago. Now its 1/9 for southbound, Truck 1/9 northbound. 1/9 is omitted from Exit 14 signage southbound, at least until they pass 15E.
The NJTA signs Exit 15E as US 1 and US 9. Same for Exit 14.
That wasn't the case in the past... 15E never had routes listed until the new signage came along a few years ago. Now its 1/9 for southbound, Truck 1/9 northbound. 1/9 is omitted from Exit 14 signage southbound, at least until they pass 15E.
Which proves the fact, it was added after US 1-9 trend already started. Yes SB it is not signed at 15E for 14 to avoid redundancy. That is why past it, they sign it. Sort of like Allentown on I-195 WB at CR 539. The advanced sign for CR 526 omits it there, but signs it pass that interchange along with Robbinsville. At CR 539 it’s Robbinsville only.
The “1-9” or “1&9” signing phenomenon was to save space on guide signs in a very dense area of numbered routes and ramps. It is only practical where two one-digit routes are concurrent, such that the combined nomenclature 1-9 is the equivalent of a three-digit number. Also works only when both routes are the same type, i.e. state or U.S. routes.
This was especially helpful at the splits between the Skyway and Truck 1-9 and around Newark Airport.
“1&9” became “1-9” because the former was looking like 169.
Every NYC traffic report ends with, "Turnpike Extension better than 1&9."
The “1-9” or “1&9” signing phenomenon was to save space on guide signs in a very dense area of numbered routes and ramps. It is only practical where two one-digit routes are concurrent, such that the combined nomenclature 1-9 is the equivalent of a three-digit number. Also works only when both routes are the same type, i.e. state or U.S. routes.
This was especially helpful at the splits between the Skyway and Truck 1-9 and around Newark Airport.
“1&9” became “1-9” because the former was looking like 169.
Isn’t & forbidden by MUTCD? I thought that’s why it went away…
Every NYC traffic report ends with, "Turnpike Extension better than 1&9."
I find that I-9 thing annoying. It’s US 1- US 9. Two separate routes. Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.
I feel like 1&9 just picked up that weird quirk because everyone just calls it 1&9 and the multiplex lasts for such a long distance (nearly 30 miles) and NJDOT just went with it. It's definitely a more modern phenomenon to sign it in this way, as older signage (https://goo.gl/maps/gJRSB5BEf6yyupfB9) that still exists does show the shields separately, but that's dwindling. Also, it's still the only multiplex of any length that I've seen use it. The other two I can think of offhand (202-206 and 202-31) always show separate shields for each route.
The “1-9” or “1&9” signing phenomenon was to save space on guide signs in a very dense area of numbered routes and ramps. It is only practical where two one-digit routes are concurrent, such that the combined nomenclature 1-9 is the equivalent of a three-digit number. Also works only when both routes are the same type, i.e. state or U.S. routes.
but there is at least one instance of "56/412", on one line with the slash, with the shield stretched to ludicrous width.
The NJTA signs Exit 15E as US 1 and US 9. Same for Exit 14.
That wasn't the case in the past... 15E never had routes listed until the new signage came along a few years ago. Now its 1/9 for southbound, Truck 1/9 northbound. 1/9 is omitted from Exit 14 signage southbound, at least until they pass 15E.
Which proves the fact, it was added after US 1-9 trend already started. Yes SB it is not signed at 15E for 14 to avoid redundancy. That is why past it, they sign it. Sort of like Allentown on I-195 WB at CR 539. The advanced sign for CR 526 omits it there, but signs it pass that interchange along with Robbinsville. At CR 539 it’s Robbinsville only.
but there is at least one instance of "56/412", on one line with the slash, with the shield stretched to ludicrous width.
14/103 takes up less space, since 1s are thinner. Unfortunately, it can't be made into a decimal, unlike US .9875 in Louisiana.
but there is at least one instance of "56/412", on one line with the slash, with the shield stretched to ludicrous width.
14/103 takes up less space, since 1s are thinner. Unfortunately, it can't be made into a decimal, unlike US .9875 in Louisiana.
There actually *is* a US .9875?
There’s so much wrong with that assembly lolbut there is at least one instance of "56/412", on one line with the slash, with the shield stretched to ludicrous width.
14/103 takes up less space, since 1s are thinner. Unfortunately, it can't be made into a decimal, unlike US .9875 in Louisiana.
There actually *is* a US .9875?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3558/3770350483_08e1a2500d_d.jpg)
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.htmlSounds like NJ is trying to replicate Act 44 in PA, except without first trying to toll a currently free road. Have people learned nothing from that debacle?
New Jersey Turnpike and state treasury officials are negotiating details of a plan to have the toll road authority make an annual $81 million payment on loans to fund the state’s share of the Gateway Tunnel project.
(Crossposting in the Mass Transit forum)
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.htmlSounds like NJ is trying to replicate Act 44 in PA, except without first trying to toll a currently free road. Have people learned nothing from that debacle?
New Jersey Turnpike and state treasury officials are negotiating details of a plan to have the toll road authority make an annual $81 million payment on loans to fund the state’s share of the Gateway Tunnel project.
(Crossposting in the Mass Transit forum)
Yes being tied to a specific project and horizon is a huge difference. NJTA is not gonna make PA's mistake.https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.htmlSounds like NJ is trying to replicate Act 44 in PA, except without first trying to toll a currently free road. Have people learned nothing from that debacle?
New Jersey Turnpike and state treasury officials are negotiating details of a plan to have the toll road authority make an annual $81 million payment on loans to fund the state’s share of the Gateway Tunnel project.
(Crossposting in the Mass Transit forum)
It's a bit different, in that Act 44 is a law. This is an agreement (sounds the same, but certainly different), and that it appears the payments will only be made after the NJTA satisfies its own bond payments. This is also tied to a very specific project, whereas Act 44 money floats in the wind and gobbled up by whomever wants it for unknown reasons.
The SJTA (Atlantic City Expressway) had a recent toll increase, of which $200 million is being used to help fund engineering work for a new Gloucester County, NJ Light Rail line. This is a lot more controversial in that the feds won't even assist in funding it due to low projected ridership. And $200 million from the SJTA is a lot of money from that toll road, which has nowhere near the revenue of the NJTA.
There’s so much wrong with that assembly lolbut there is at least one instance of "56/412", on one line with the slash, with the shield stretched to ludicrous width.
14/103 takes up less space, since 1s are thinner. Unfortunately, it can't be made into a decimal, unlike US .9875 in Louisiana.
There actually *is* a US .9875?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/3558/3770350483_08e1a2500d_d.jpg)
Yes being tied to a specific project and horizon is a huge difference. NJTA is not gonna make PA's mistake.https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.htmlSounds like NJ is trying to replicate Act 44 in PA, except without first trying to toll a currently free road. Have people learned nothing from that debacle?
New Jersey Turnpike and state treasury officials are negotiating details of a plan to have the toll road authority make an annual $81 million payment on loans to fund the state’s share of the Gateway Tunnel project.
(Crossposting in the Mass Transit forum)
It's a bit different, in that Act 44 is a law. This is an agreement (sounds the same, but certainly different), and that it appears the payments will only be made after the NJTA satisfies its own bond payments. This is also tied to a very specific project, whereas Act 44 money floats in the wind and gobbled up by whomever wants it for unknown reasons.
The SJTA (Atlantic City Expressway) had a recent toll increase, of which $200 million is being used to help fund engineering work for a new Gloucester County, NJ Light Rail line. This is a lot more controversial in that the feds won't even assist in funding it due to low projected ridership. And $200 million from the SJTA is a lot of money from that toll road, which has nowhere near the revenue of the NJTA.
I have a question; Does a drive between the Clara Barton Service Area and the main toll plaza normally take three minutes, or was I moving a little too fast when I was coming back from New York?
I have a question; Does a drive between the Clara Barton Service Area and the main toll plaza normally take three minutes, or was I moving a little too fast when I was coming back from New York?
3 minutes looks right
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.6968907,-75.3982433/39.6858406,-75.4478157/@39.6910479,-75.4340908,14.17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
2 minutes if you've got Maryland plates.I have a question; Does a drive between the Clara Barton Service Area and the main toll plaza normally take three minutes, or was I moving a little too fast when I was coming back from New York?
3 minutes looks right
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/39.6968907,-75.3982433/39.6858406,-75.4478157/@39.6910479,-75.4340908,14.17z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
Yep - the Service Plaza is at MP 5.3, the toll plaza is 2.4. Normal travel time should be right around 3 minutes.
So around MM78 on the NJTP there is an abandoned paved roadway within the ROW. What’s up with that stretch?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
Right, that's about all there's room for, not testing police cars.I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
It has been used to test paint and striping on the pavement. The NJTP is very good at removing old bridges / roadways / materials during re-construction. This section was definitely intended to be re-used.
I seem to remember training, not testing cars. Like simulating doing car stops, arrests, handling simulated accidents, stuff like that, if I remember right.They may do that at night with a roadway closed, but I can't see them doing that in the travel ROW during daylight.
I seem to remember training, not testing cars. Like simulating doing car stops, arrests, handling simulated accidents, stuff like that, if I remember right.They may do that at night with a roadway closed, but I can't see them doing that in the travel ROW during daylight.
I know, but if they are doing drills on that roadway, it is very visible to traffic in at least the Inner Roadway (which is where I've noticed it most). I would expect they would do exercises in a place that is not along their roadway, given how much they care about traffic safety and minimizing distractions.I seem to remember training, not testing cars. Like simulating doing car stops, arrests, handling simulated accidents, stuff like that, if I remember right.They may do that at night with a roadway closed, but I can't see them doing that in the travel ROW during daylight.
Alps, please see reply #4388. I'm not talking about an active roadway. I'm referring to the section of permanently closed roadway that was spoken about above. Someone asked what the status of that unused roadway was.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
It has been used to test paint and striping on the pavement. The NJTP is very good at removing old bridges / roadways / materials during re-construction. This section was definitely intended to be re-used.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
It has been used to test paint and striping on the pavement. The NJTP is very good at removing old bridges / roadways / materials during re-construction. This section was definitely intended to be re-used.
I don’t see any break in the guardrail/jersey barrier for access, so I imagine any training use was in the past. Unless the training involves jumping over barriers.
I don’t see any break in the guardrail/jersey barrier for access, so I imagine any training use was in the past. Unless the training involves jumping over barriers.
Ummm....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4191637,-74.4442921,3a,75y,130.66h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH5VHoLQbhJgyz6wM1DUU8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
You have a point about visibility to passing traffic Alps. If I remember right from either actually seeing it myself while driving north or reading something about it, I think a lighted sign is displayed to northbound traffic warning of "police training in progress" or something like that so drivers won't be alarmed by all the activity.
So it was deliberately kept up for testing, and has been, for decades? If so I guess they do maintenance.I seem to remember reading somewhere that abandoned stretch of road is used for state trooper training and maybe other things. I think they use that roadway to enact real-life scenarios in a realistic environment.Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Maybe jeffandnicole could tell us more about that?
It has been used to test paint and striping on the pavement. The NJTP is very good at removing old bridges / roadways / materials during re-construction. This section was definitely intended to be re-used.
I'm in a tough situation. This summer, my family plans to do a vacation, and part of that trip may involve driving the NJ Turnpike just outside of the Philly area. I want everybody whose a real expert in roads to help me decide which is better. Should I take the NJ Turnpike and pay some tolls and avoid fighting traffic, or should I take I-295 and save some money but fight some heavy traffic along with some trucks? I'm conflicted between the 2 right now. Also, how congested can I-295 get compared to the turnpike? Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.What day and time?
I'm in a tough situation. This summer, my family plans to do a vacation, and part of that trip may involve driving the NJ Turnpike just outside of the Philly area. I want everybody whose a real expert in roads to help me decide which is better. Should I take the NJ Turnpike and pay some tolls and avoid fighting traffic, or should I take I-295 and save some money but fight some heavy traffic along with some trucks? I'm conflicted between the 2 right now. Also, how congested can I-295 get compared to the turnpike? Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.What day and time?
I'm in a tough situation. This summer, my family plans to do a vacation, and part of that trip may involve driving the NJ Turnpike just outside of the Philly area. I want everybody whose a real expert in roads to help me decide which is better. Should I take the NJ Turnpike and pay some tolls and avoid fighting traffic, or should I take I-295 and save some money but fight some heavy traffic along with some trucks? I'm conflicted between the 2 right now. Also, how congested can I-295 get compared to the turnpike? Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.What day and time?
IDK yet, that's not happening until July. So give me some examples when taking one way might be better than the other and vice versa depending on time and day because I know nothing about when 295 can get congested nor do I know which way is quicker. All I know is that 295 has frequent exits and you have to drive slow like crawling as 295 has a low speed limit of 55 on a certain stretch (even though people drive faster than that anyways, but I don't know how fast).
I'm in a tough situation. This summer, my family plans to do a vacation, and part of that trip may involve driving the NJ Turnpike just outside of the Philly area. I want everybody whose a real expert in roads to help me decide which is better. Should I take the NJ Turnpike and pay some tolls and avoid fighting traffic, or should I take I-295 and save some money but fight some heavy traffic along with some trucks? I'm conflicted between the 2 right now. Also, how congested can I-295 get compared to the turnpike? Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.
I'm in a tough situation. This summer, my family plans to do a vacation, and part of that trip may involve driving the NJ Turnpike just outside of the Philly area. I want everybody whose a real expert in roads to help me decide which is better. Should I take the NJ Turnpike and pay some tolls and avoid fighting traffic, or should I take I-295 and save some money but fight some heavy traffic along with some trucks? I'm conflicted between the 2 right now. Also, how congested can I-295 get compared to the turnpike? Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.
Should I just use my GPS and go where it tells me to go if I can't decide whether to take the turnpike or I-295?
Should I just use my GPS and go where it tells me to go if I can't decide whether to take the turnpike or I-295?
Yes
Should I just use my GPS and go where it tells me to go if I can't decide whether to take the turnpike or I-295?
Yes
About the 55 mph section on 295, you're saying that people still drive as fast as 70 and cops don't mess with them right? How fast do you take that 55 mph section if you didn't get a ticket?
I was thinking about this and I was wondering, instead of building the interchange at I-276, why couldn't they just close the gap by rerouting I-95 onto the Turnpike and extending I-295 down along the I-95 corridor stands through the Philly area instead of spending all that money to build that interchange?
Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.Why not sign up for and take delivery of an EZ-Pass well before the trip date? Pick an IAG agency, any IAG agency, and get one. There are agencies that don’t have monthly fees and have fully refundable Toll deposits and device deposits upon cancellation of account and return of transponder
Please also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.Why not sign up for and take delivery of an EZ-Pass well before the trip date? Pick an IAG agency, any IAG agency, and get one. There are agencies that don’t have monthly fees and have fully refundable Toll deposits and device deposits upon cancellation of account and return of transponder
If the amount of extra Tolls paid is beyond the Return Postage to close your account and send back the transponder to the issuing agency, then the answer is YES, It IS worth it, assuming you get the transponder from an agency with refundable unused Toll Deposits and refundable Transponder depositPlease also note that my trip may also involve driving the Atlantic City Expressway and part of the PA Turnpike as well which that's going to be some money because I don't have EZ-Pass. Thanks.Why not sign up for and take delivery of an EZ-Pass well before the trip date? Pick an IAG agency, any IAG agency, and get one. There are agencies that don’t have monthly fees and have fully refundable Toll deposits and device deposits upon cancellation of account and return of transponder
The thing is that this is a one time thing so IDK if EZ-pass is worth it for a one-time trip because we don't travel toll roads that often.
Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Yep.
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Yep.
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Yep.
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Yep.
Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.
Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Yep.
Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.
Yes.Why don’t they sign it as some auxiliary route if they could just to have some official route number signed along it?Okay. I’ve been thinking, about the stand alone portion of the turnpike, the section that doesn’t have a route number signed concurrent with it. If they wanted to, could they sign that southern portion of the turnpike as another auxiliary route of I-95 like I-395 or I-X95?
Yep.
Because it's unnecessary. the Turnpike is the signed route. Adding another 3di through this stretch isn't going to make matters of navigation all that much easier for people.
Technically, isn't the NJ Tpke from I-295 in Pennsville to Exit 6 in Mansfield (unsigned) NJ Route 700, similar to how the Garden State Parkway is unsigned NJ Route 444?
IF they ever did think to add a designation, it should start at I-95 in Delaware and end at I-95 at Exit 6. In fact, you could argue that it should be I-295, and the existing I-295 should be 4, 6 or 895. But history will likely prevent that from ever happening.
IF they ever did think to add a designation, it should start at I-95 in Delaware and end at I-95 at Exit 6. In fact, you could argue that it should be I-295, and the existing I-295 should be 4, 6 or 895. But history will likely prevent that from ever happening.
495 is already taken as the designation for the Lincoln Tunnel and there’s an existing one in Delaware.
Most people that want this stretch of Turnpike given an Interstate number do so because they have the belief that all freeway-type highways should have an interstate number to attract more motorists. Also under that theory, a 2 digit interstate number is more important than a 3 digit interstate number, and that would attract more motorists.There are also those of us who see the interstate system as the backbone of America, and this is a fairly major gap in the system (albeit a less visible one for those of us who grew up with Turnpikes being seemingly considered more important than interstates).
In some areas of the country, that may be true. In this area of the country, it generally isnt.
Notably absent is very few people think of giving the Garden State Parkway an Interstate number South of 195, even though it's basically Interstatefan990 quality from I-195 down to Cape May.
Please stop taking this into Fictional territory. The Turnpike is not receiving an Interstate designation. It's a toll road and so would get 0% Federal funding, so there is NO reason to designate it. People already know it bypasses Philly, it's signed as such, so it serves its purpose and the shield would bring no benefit. End of discussion, move on.Point taken, and I don’t plan to discuss it any - but simply because it’s a toll road and receives no federal funding does not disqualify it from receiving an interstate designation.
Disqualify, technically, no, but I promise it's not considered.Please stop taking this into Fictional territory. The Turnpike is not receiving an Interstate designation. It's a toll road and so would get 0% Federal funding, so there is NO reason to designate it. People already know it bypasses Philly, it's signed as such, so it serves its purpose and the shield would bring no benefit. End of discussion, move on.Point taken, and I don’t plan to discuss it any - but simply because it’s a toll road and receives no federal funding does not disqualify it from receiving an interstate designation.
NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply “the Turnpike.” In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as “The Parkway.” Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.
Arizona, where there are zero 3dis despite the wealth of freeways.NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply “the Turnpike.” In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as “The Parkway.” Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.
The names are known and they don't get forgotten.
For those who keep wanting to argue that all freeways should have an interstate number, just look at California, the king of non-interstate designated freeways. US 101 and CA 99 to mention two major ones plus a ton in the L.A. area and a handful in the Bay Area. CA 99 is all freeway from Sacramento its end at I-5 just north of the Grapevine. While US 101 is not all freeway from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it's getting close.
NJ seems fine about their freeways. I lived in NJ for the first 25 years of my life, and people generally referred to the NJ Turnpike as simply “the Turnpike.” In addition the Garden State Parkway was always referred to as “The Parkway.” Nothing will change that including the addition of a red, white, and blue shield to the non I-95 part of the roadway.
The names are known and they don't get forgotten.
For those who keep wanting to argue that all freeways should have an interstate number, just look at California, the king of non-interstate designated freeways. US 101 and CA 99 to mention two major ones plus a ton in the L.A. area and a handful in the Bay Area. CA 99 is all freeway from Sacramento its end at I-5 just north of the Grapevine. While US 101 is not all freeway from San Francisco to Los Angeles, it's getting close.
If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways. I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever. Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.Your first statement isn't quite true. Original 95 at some point was conceived as a completely separate roadway.
It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering. After all, it was given I-95 and I-78.
Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's? If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.
If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways. I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever. Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.
It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering. After all, it was given I-95 and I-78.
Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's? If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.
If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways. I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever. Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.
It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering. After all, it was given I-95 and I-78.
Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's? If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.
Let’s not forget it took six decades to plan, design and build I-95 along its present route in Bucks County/OA Turnpike. .
https://qz.com/1366559/i-95-between-new-jersey-and-pennsylvania-is-finally-finished-61-years-later/
IIRC, a combination of wealthy exurb NIMBYs and NJ Turnpike officials whodunnit want free-Route competitio made sure that the planned Route for 95, which was to parallel the NJ Turnpike, never happened.
If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways. I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever. Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.
It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering. After all, it was given I-95 and I-78.
Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's? If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.
Let’s not forget it took six decades to plan, design and build I-95 along its present route in Bucks County/OA Turnpike. .
https://qz.com/1366559/i-95-between-new-jersey-and-pennsylvania-is-finally-finished-61-years-later/
IIRC, a combination of wealthy exurb NIMBYs and NJ Turnpike officials whodunnit want free-Route competitio made sure that the planned Route for 95, which was to parallel the NJ Turnpike, never happened.
Technically the PA link only took 3 1/2 decades (1982 to 2018). That's the length of time between when it was first legislated to when it finally opened. Before then, it was supposed to be a new alignment in NJ.
Interesting. I know of the originally planned route south of I-287 but north of there the only routings I know of is what's now I-287 to exit 10 and the way it is now. Where was it supposed to go?If the NJTA cared, they would've whined to the Feds back in the 1950's when they were designating future corridors and slapping Interstate numbers on existing highways. I-95 was due to be on the Turnpike from Interchange 10 on north already, so that would've been the time to designate Exits 1 - 10 as I-295. Or I-195. Or I-895. Or whatever. Designating I-95 down the Turnpike to Interchange 6 would've simply shortened the 3 digit I-number the Turnpike could've had from the start, if they cared.Your first statement isn't quite true. Original 95 at some point was conceived as a completely separate roadway.
It's not like the Turnpike was opposed 100% no way no how to Interstate numbering. After all, it was given I-95 and I-78.
Why would the NJ Turnpike suddenly in 2022 want an Interstate designation if they didn't want it back in the 1950's? If they really were concerned about traffic following just solely interstate designations, they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions to significantly improve Interchange 6 to help traffic get routed into PA, and wouldn't be interested in building a new, wider bridge over the Delaware, and could've told the feds in the earlier 2000's now is the time to declare Exits 1 - 6 an interstate highway.
My guess is that NJ 21 would have been utilized from Newark to Passaic if the Turnpike had been routed that way. But even trying to connect I-78 to I-280 would have displaced people if that were done.
Hard to tell, because AFAIK the Turnpike routing was only ever conceptual in nature, whereas NJ 75 was fully designed.My guess is that NJ 21 would have been utilized from Newark to Passaic if the Turnpike had been routed that way. But even trying to connect I-78 to I-280 would have displaced people if that were done.
NJ 75 (unbuilt) was also a corridor that would've been utilized, most likely, but the reason that never happened is exactly what you just said.
Storm2k, in your item #2 above, you say the term Toll Plaza Bypass makes it sound like you don't have to pay a toll. I strongly disagree. Because it also says E-Z Pass Only. So if the E-Z Pass is required to use those lanes, obviously you are going to be paying a toll because the sign wouldn't say that if there was no toll.I would still prefer a term that made it clear it's not a toll plaza bypass, it's the express lanes where you can maintain speed. Garden State Parkway doesn't say bypass! IT... oh, wait, it does. Oh well.
Re: your item #4 about the lane marking stripes. I share your concern and I hope the NJTA will not be phasing out their traditional longer/wider lane lines.
Storm2k, in your item #2 above, you say the term Toll Plaza Bypass makes it sound like you don't have to pay a toll. I strongly disagree. Because it also says E-Z Pass Only. So if the E-Z Pass is required to use those lanes, obviously you are going to be paying a toll because the sign wouldn't say that if there was no toll.I would still prefer a term that made it clear it's not a toll plaza bypass, it's the express lanes where you can maintain speed. Garden State Parkway doesn't say bypass! IT... oh, wait, it does. Oh well.
Re: your item #4 about the lane marking stripes. I share your concern and I hope the NJTA will not be phasing out their traditional longer/wider lane lines.
5. This sign (https://goo.gl/maps/kPSnNF34mC6vuvHSA), which is clearly done by the PTC has a very badly peeling 13 shield.
The GSV footage from late last year shows Exits 1 and 18W as having "Express E-ZPass" lanes.Storm2k, in your item #2 above, you say the term Toll Plaza Bypass makes it sound like you don't have to pay a toll. I strongly disagree. Because it also says E-Z Pass Only. So if the E-Z Pass is required to use those lanes, obviously you are going to be paying a toll because the sign wouldn't say that if there was no toll.I would still prefer a term that made it clear it's not a toll plaza bypass, it's the express lanes where you can maintain speed. Garden State Parkway doesn't say bypass! IT... oh, wait, it does. Oh well.
Re: your item #4 about the lane marking stripes. I share your concern and I hope the NJTA will not be phasing out their traditional longer/wider lane lines.
So odd that they did it that way even though its a new thing for both roads since the merger.
Call it a merge, or call it a confluence. Call it a crossroad or call it a junction.
Same with Toll Bypass or Express Toll Lane.
We just had a discussion about what each part of the country calls a frontage road. Different states use different terms just as the NJTA called the c/d roadway in Brick a service road ( which many use this term to refer to a frontage road not part of the freeway) when the NJ 70 exchange got rebuilt in on line documents.
What’s the difference? Long as it’s functioning as it should and has the nature preserved, what’s in a name.
Call it a merge, or call it a confluence. Call it a crossroad or call it a junction.
Same with Toll Bypass or Express Toll Lane.
We just had a discussion about what each part of the country calls a frontage road. Different states use different terms just as the NJTA called the c/d roadway in Brick a service road ( which many use this term to refer to a frontage road not part of the freeway) when the NJ 70 exchange got rebuilt in on line documents.
What’s the difference? Long as it’s functioning as it should and has the nature preserved, what’s in a name.
I'd argue that a service or frontage road can have local private access, which is not the case with a CD road on freeway.
Some of our radio traffic reporters here use the term "service road" to refer to a C/D road. While it's not technically correct, it's also not a big deal because it's clear what they mean and it's a shorter term–given their limited time to give their reports, I can't grouse too much about them using a shorter term, and I suspect "collector/distributor roadway" or "C/D road" would not be terms most listeners would necessarily know.
(With that said, I hate it when they refer to the tenth-of-a-mile mileposts in the form "Mile 143 over 2." It's not a fraction. It's Mile 143.2.)
Some of our radio traffic reporters here use the term "service road" to refer to a C/D road. While it's not technically correct, it's also not a big deal because it's clear what they mean and it's a shorter term–given their limited time to give their reports, I can't grouse too much about them using a shorter term, and I suspect "collector/distributor roadway" or "C/D road" would not be terms most listeners would necessarily know.
(With that said, I hate it when they refer to the tenth-of-a-mile mileposts in the form "Mile 143 over 2." It's not a fraction. It's Mile 143.2.)
Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
And soon enough, he’ll tell you that 4 lanes is adequate south of Exit 4 and should not be widened to 6 lanes despite its obvious need.He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
And I (and others) probably replied with the same response lol.
And soon enough, he’ll tell you that 4 lanes is adequate south of Exit 4 and should not be widened to 6 lanes despite its obvious need.He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
And I (and others) probably replied with the same response lol.
And soon enough, you'll see new bridges being built to 6 lanes wide and realize that's not an argument to bother with. (There are already several that fall into that category, anything rebuilt from original basically.)And soon enough, he’ll tell you that 4 lanes is adequate south of Exit 4 and should not be widened to 6 lanes despite its obvious need.He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
And I (and others) probably replied with the same response lol.
Short question to ask, but ever since the 16/18 E toll plaza reconstruction, have they re-instated the 16 E toll for those wanting to exit onto NJ 3 / Paterson Plank Rd, or do they still pay the full 18 E toll? Remember hearing there was some kind of compromise in the works to allow certain E-ZPass transponders in certain cities to get the 16 E toll than 18 W but don’t know the full semantics of it.
The addition of an additional lane in each direction will advance mobility, improve safety, reduce congestion and thereby improve air quality across the Program Corridor. Other Program improvements include geometric and capacity improvements at Interchanges 1, 2, 3 and 4, a potential new interchange to help alleviate congestion on the local roadway network...
One of the biggest questions regarding the NJ Turnpike in South Jersey is, why was there never a connection between the NJ Turnpike and Rt. 42.That would be the time to do it, during the widening. 🤞
However...there's a small hint that may be changing - or at least being considered! This apparently has been posted since January, and has been overlooked by everyone, especially the lousy media this area has.
https://www.njta.com/media/6392/nj1to4wp-program-fact-sheet-january-2022.pdf
Take a look at that link. Contained within the 3rd paragraph is (emphasis mine):QuoteThe addition of an additional lane in each direction will advance mobility, improve safety, reduce congestion and thereby improve air quality across the Program Corridor. Other Program improvements include geometric and capacity improvements at Interchanges 1, 2, 3 and 4, a potential new interchange to help alleviate congestion on the local roadway network...
Now granted, it doesn't say where in that 30-some mile range a potential new interchange could go. But let's face it - there's only 1 location where it would go. There's actually 4 locations where one could make sense - Somewhere down south near NJ 48, at NJ 45, at NJ 47, and NJ 42. There's no reason for one at NJ 48. NJ 45 & NJ 47 would actually be decent locations to capture the traffic in the area before hitting the main highways, but there's really no room to build one in either location. So that leaves the one obvious location - the location everyone wishes one will be placed. It would be great NJ 42 finally connected as part of the widening project forthcoming to the Turnpike!
disclaimer: no clue if this is practical or not due to geography/permitting/row/etc...
but such an interchange would also ideally tie directly into NJ 55, similar in intent if not design to the reconstructed Exit 8 with NJ 133.
One of the biggest questions regarding the NJ Turnpike in South Jersey is, why was there never a connection between the NJ Turnpike and Rt. 42.Good and bad news... I know exactly what they're considering, but since I work in the industry I can't share anything with anyone till it's publicized (:
However...there's a small hint that may be changing - or at least being considered! This apparently has been posted since January, and has been overlooked by everyone, especially the lousy media this area has.
https://www.njta.com/media/6392/nj1to4wp-program-fact-sheet-january-2022.pdf
Take a look at that link. Contained within the 3rd paragraph is (emphasis mine):QuoteThe addition of an additional lane in each direction will advance mobility, improve safety, reduce congestion and thereby improve air quality across the Program Corridor. Other Program improvements include geometric and capacity improvements at Interchanges 1, 2, 3 and 4, a potential new interchange to help alleviate congestion on the local roadway network...
Now granted, it doesn't say where in that 30-some mile range a potential new interchange could go. But let's face it - there's only 1 location where it would go. There's actually 4 locations where one could make sense - Somewhere down south near NJ 48, at NJ 45, at NJ 47, and NJ 42. There's no reason for one at NJ 48. NJ 45 & NJ 47 would actually be decent locations to capture the traffic in the area before hitting the main highways, but there's really no room to build one in either location. So that leaves the one obvious location - the location everyone wishes one will be placed. It would be great NJ 42 finally connected as part of the widening project forthcoming to the Turnpike!
Disagree.Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
What would be gained for that? Honestly the traffic mostly flows between those two points, especially with more traffic now diverting off at Exit 6 to follow 95 into PA. The focus needs to be on widening from 1 to 4 from 2 lanes to 3 which is why that's a major focus of the current 10 year plan for the Turnpike Authority.
That is not the same as being 4-4.Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
You've asked this numerous times, been told to stop, and anyways the 4 lane design already exists between Exits 11 & 13A in the outer roadways.
There isn't an obvious need from south of Exit 4, especially exit 3.And soon enough, he’ll tell you that 4 lanes is adequate south of Exit 4 and should not be widened to 6 lanes despite its obvious need.He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
And I (and others) probably replied with the same response lol.
I have driven the length of the NJTP every month for nearly the past 5 years. I am well aware of where it gets backed up, and the worst to me is on the WS when it goes to 2-2 after the split at exit 16.And soon enough, he’ll tell you that 4 lanes is adequate south of Exit 4 and should not be widened to 6 lanes despite its obvious need.He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
And I (and others) probably replied with the same response lol.
It occurs to me that his comments may be purely personal interest... he uses 4-6, so wants more lanes, but doesn't use 1-4 and doesn't want the money which could go to 4-6 siphoned off for 1-4.
Who?Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
Are you related to an Ethanman in Fairfax, VA?
And as far as 8 lanes from interchanges 5-6 (or the split), and to PLEASE STOP BEATING THIS DAMN DEAD HORSE, it's something that's come up before but as I noted, I can only share with you what's publicized, and I'm fairly certain there is nothing public on that matter, so just hold your fingers for now.I think you or somebody said once the NJTPA does not like a 4-4 setup, I wanted to know why.
NJTA, not NJTPA (the latter is north jersey planning). On the Turnpike specifically, you only have one area with 4 lanes - exits 11-14 outer roadway with HOV lanes during peak hours. Otherwise they're at 3-3. Do they "not like it"? I mean, clearly they prefer 3-3 to a 6 lane single roadway. That's as far as I can go here, that and you keep beating a dead horse.And as far as 8 lanes from interchanges 5-6 (or the split), and to PLEASE STOP BEATING THIS DAMN DEAD HORSE, it's something that's come up before but as I noted, I can only share with you what's publicized, and I'm fairly certain there is nothing public on that matter, so just hold your fingers for now.I think you or somebody said once the NJTPA does not like a 4-4 setup, I wanted to know why.
Last Sunday night the ramp at Exit 11 to the southbound outer roadway was closed. The outer roadway itself however was open albeit there were very few cars and trucks traveling on it. As a result, traffic on the inner roadway was quite heavy and not moving smoothly. What was the NJTA thinking on a summer Sunday night? It certainly wasn’t about the convenience of its paying customers.
Now very early this morning there was an accident in the northbound inner roadway south of Exit 7A. By 6:30 traffic was backed up to Exit 6. The outer roadway had been closed all night and remained closed. As I write this at 10:30 there is still congestion.
I would question the competency of the NJTA as now constituted to manage the Turnpike. From a simple thing such as renumbering the exits to being I-95 mileage based to something more complicated like all electronic tolling they have done nothing. Now they want to embark upon a grandiose expansion plan. It will be a nightmare for motorists under the current NJTA's management.
The NJTA should be abolished, and a competent organization should be established to take its place.
After the initial collision with smaller vehicles, it appeared that the truck crashed through the guardrail between the inner and outer lanes and came to rest, stopping about 1,000 feet later and was completely consumed in fire.
Let’s take a look at the management of the service area redevelopments on the Turnpike.
When the Pennsylvania Turnpike rehabbed their service plazas a few years ago, they would close down several on the day after Labor Day and have them all reopened by Memorial Day of the following year, at the latest. Perhaps Molly Pitcher will be reopened by Memorial Day of next year. We can hope.
The New York State Thruway is in the process of rehabbing their service areas. However, they do not close them down completely but rather they keep fuel services available at all of those service plazas for the convenience of the motorists. That idea probably never was in the NJTA’s thought process.
The New York State Thruway is in the process of rehabbing their service areas. However, they do not close them down completely but rather they keep fuel services available at all of those service plazas for the convenience of the motorists. That idea probably never was in the NJTA’s thought process.The Thruway service areas are being done as a P3 deal where the new operator of the buildings is replacing/rehabilitating them and then reopening them with new tenants. The fuel areas are a separate contract and are not part of this project. It is worth noting that the Thruway will not shut down two consecutive service areas in the same direction.
They have to be redone sometime. Even rest areas get shut down. The one on I-75 in Hernando County, Florida is currently shit down to build a new restroom facility and revamp the parking lot. The one following it remains open as the one before it.:-D
They have to be redone sometime. Even rest areas get shut down. The one on I-75 in Hernando County, Florida, is currently shit down to build a new restroom facility and revamp the parking lot. The one following it remains open as the one before it.
The New York State Thruway is in the process of rehabbing their service areas. However, they do not close them down completely but rather they keep fuel services available at all of those service plazas for the convenience of the motorists. That idea probably never was in the NJTA’s thought process.The Thruway service areas are being done as a P3 deal where the new operator of the buildings is replacing/rehabilitating them and then reopening them with new tenants. The fuel areas are a separate contract and are not part of this project. It is worth noting that the Thruway will not shut down two consecutive service areas in the same direction.
Its amazing how the way the service plazas are run. The authority owns the land, the building is owned by another party, and the company who runs the business is another.
Newark Airport is the same way. The city owns the airport and land, the Port Authority manages the facility, but the airline tenants maintain the areas of the check ins, baggage carousel, and gate areas.
Its amazing how the way the service plazas are run. The authority owns the land, the building is owned by another party, and the company who runs the business is another.
Newark Airport is the same way. The city owns the airport and land, the Port Authority manages the facility, but the airline tenants maintain the areas of the check ins, baggage carousel, and gate areas.
That's not uncommon for commercial leases.
Its amazing how the way the service plazas are run. The authority owns the land, the building is owned by another party, and the company who runs the business is another.
Newark Airport is the same way. The city owns the airport and land, the Port Authority manages the facility, but the airline tenants maintain the areas of the check ins, baggage carousel, and gate areas.
That's not uncommon for commercial leases.
Hospitals are the most common hence why you get several bills instead of one. Even the ER is a separate entity from the actual hospital.
Its amazing how the way the service plazas are run. The authority owns the land, the building is owned by another party, and the company who runs the business is another.
Newark Airport is the same way. The city owns the airport and land, the Port Authority manages the facility, but the airline tenants maintain the areas of the check ins, baggage carousel, and gate areas.
So what is going with construction on the NB turnpike at MMs: 74, 78, 86, and just before exit 18?If it's isolated areas, it's often either repairing drainage or fixing light posts. Little stuff like that.
A Turnpike southbound to I-295 southbound/I-295 northbound to Turnpike northbound connection at Woodcrest would alleviate traffic on the Turnpike and eliminate the need for extravagant widening south of there.
A Turnpike southbound to I-295 southbound/I-295 northbound to Turnpike northbound connection at Woodcrest would alleviate traffic on the Turnpike and eliminate the need for extravagant widening south of there.
South of that point on 295 already operates at an E/F, and the current 295/76/42 project will reduce, but not eliminate, congestion on certain areas of that corridor. Traffic, as it currently is, doesn't take 95 because the Turnpike is normally the quickest route...even when factoring in congestion. When given the option at the Del Mem Bridge, traffic often takes the Turnpike rather than 295 for long distance travel, even though taking 295 will save several dollars in tolls.
The widening is needed, and offering improved alternatives has shown to do little to encourage traffic to bypass the Turnpike.
A Turnpike southbound to I-295 southbound/I-295 northbound to Turnpike northbound connection at Woodcrest would alleviate traffic on the Turnpike and eliminate the need for extravagant widening south of there.
South of that point on 295 already operates at an E/F, and the current 295/76/42 project will reduce, but not eliminate, congestion on certain areas of that corridor. Traffic, as it currently is, doesn't take 95 because the Turnpike is normally the quickest route...even when factoring in congestion. When given the option at the Del Mem Bridge, traffic often takes the Turnpike rather than 295 for long distance travel, even though taking 295 will save several dollars in tolls.
The widening is needed, and offering improved alternatives has shown to do little to encourage traffic to bypass the Turnpike.
I wonder if a well-designed interchange at 42 (ignoring property and environmental constraints) would be enough to alleviate congestion on the southern section. (Of course it’s not likely to happen).
A Turnpike southbound to I-295 southbound/I-295 northbound to Turnpike northbound connection at Woodcrest would alleviate traffic on the Turnpike and eliminate the need for extravagant widening south of there.
South of that point on 295 already operates at an E/F, and the current 295/76/42 project will reduce, but not eliminate, congestion on certain areas of that corridor. Traffic, as it currently is, doesn't take 95 because the Turnpike is normally the quickest route...even when factoring in congestion. When given the option at the Del Mem Bridge, traffic often takes the Turnpike rather than 295 for long distance travel, even though taking 295 will save several dollars in tolls.
The widening is needed, and offering improved alternatives has shown to do little to encourage traffic to bypass the Turnpike.
I wonder if a well-designed interchange at 42 (ignoring property and environmental constraints) would be enough to alleviate congestion on the southern section. (Of course it’s not likely to happen).
It won't fully happen, but it's not totally that interchange's fault. There's "pockets" of congestion on 295 South some days: NJ 73 to NJ 70. Then speeds pick up. Some days it bogs down again from around 561 to past US 30. Anytime traffic picks up to 55 to 65 mph or above, that area's congestion is independent of the 295/76/42 interchange. Now...should we see fewer jams on that stretch from 73 to 42? Yep. And certainly congestion due to crashes in the Aljo curve will be eliminated.
Tying this in with the Turnpike: wherever there's an issue on the Turnpike south of Interchange 4, the extra traffic that does come over to 295 quickly congests 295.
On the NB side of 295, it'll be even worse. We are seeing it already where traffic bogs down between the widened area just north of 76/42 thru NJ 168 before it picks up speed (although the current lane configuration assists with this issue). There's a few areas where it congests again, around 561, and some days around 70 & 73. As this is north of the 295/76/42 interchange, the project will not affect that traffic...If anything , it'll help get more traffic to these areas quicker, aiding in the congestion.
Based on the plans, I think the 295/76/42 revamped interchange will actually be pretty decent; the only criticism I have with the plans are the 2 lane ramps merge down to one lane too soon around the gore point. Overall it will definitely help traffic. There's just too much else going on nearby and not enough capacity downstream to fully allow the interchange to meet its full potential.
A Turnpike southbound to I-295 southbound/I-295 northbound to Turnpike northbound connection at Woodcrest would alleviate traffic on the Turnpike and eliminate the need for extravagant widening south of there.
South of that point on 295 already operates at an E/F, and the current 295/76/42 project will reduce, but not eliminate, congestion on certain areas of that corridor. Traffic, as it currently is, doesn't take 95 because the Turnpike is normally the quickest route...even when factoring in congestion. When given the option at the Del Mem Bridge, traffic often takes the Turnpike rather than 295 for long distance travel, even though taking 295 will save several dollars in tolls.
The widening is needed, and offering improved alternatives has shown to do little to encourage traffic to bypass the Turnpike.
I wonder if a well-designed interchange at 42 (ignoring property and environmental constraints) would be enough to alleviate congestion on the southern section. (Of course it’s not likely to happen).
It won't fully happen, but it's not totally that interchange's fault. There's "pockets" of congestion on 295 South some days: NJ 73 to NJ 70. Then speeds pick up. Some days it bogs down again from around 561 to past US 30. Anytime traffic picks up to 55 to 65 mph or above, that area's congestion is independent of the 295/76/42 interchange. Now...should we see fewer jams on that stretch from 73 to 42? Yep. And certainly congestion due to crashes in the Aljo curve will be eliminated.
Tying this in with the Turnpike: wherever there's an issue on the Turnpike south of Interchange 4, the extra traffic that does come over to 295 quickly congests 295.
On the NB side of 295, it'll be even worse. We are seeing it already where traffic bogs down between the widened area just north of 76/42 thru NJ 168 before it picks up speed (although the current lane configuration assists with this issue). There's a few areas where it congests again, around 561, and some days around 70 & 73. As this is north of the 295/76/42 interchange, the project will not affect that traffic...If anything , it'll help get more traffic to these areas quicker, aiding in the congestion.
Based on the plans, I think the 295/76/42 revamped interchange will actually be pretty decent; the only criticism I have with the plans are the 2 lane ramps merge down to one lane too soon around the gore point. Overall it will definitely help traffic. There's just too much else going on nearby and not enough capacity downstream to fully allow the interchange to meet its full potential.
I think we had a miscommunication… I meant a well designed interchange between 42 and the turnpike, which might allow more traffic to transfer over to 295 southbound easily via 42 when the southbound turnpike gets congested, and vice versa northbound.
They have to be redone sometime. Even rest areas get shut down. The one on I-75 in Hernando County, Florida is currently shit down to build a new restroom facility and revamp the parking lot. The one following it remains open as the one before it.Ummm, that's Sumter County, not Hernando.
A Turnpike southbound to I-295 southbound/I-295 northbound to Turnpike northbound connection at Woodcrest would alleviate traffic on the Turnpike and eliminate the need for extravagant widening south of there.Yeh there should definitely be a connection between 95 in NJ and 295 by exit 6.
Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
I’m guessing that since there is now a literal link between the Turnpike and 95 to Philadelphia that the signage would follow.
I believe such, the placing of Philadelphia on southbound pull-through signs (thus far), only took place at interchanges 7A & 7 where the previous legend listed Camden. As of 2 weeks ago (Sept. 16), the ramp sign for I-95/NJTP southbound from the Exit 7A toll plaza still listed Camden.So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
I’m guessing that since there is now a literal link between the Turnpike and 95 to Philadelphia that the signage would follow.
That 'Trenton' directional city always irritated me.
I believe such, the placing of Philadelphia on southbound pull-through signs (thus far), only took place at interchanges 7A & 7 where the previous legend listed Camden. As of 2 weeks ago (Sept. 16), the ramp sign for I-95/NJTP southbound from the Exit 7A toll plaza still listed Camden.So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
I’m guessing that since there is now a literal link between the Turnpike and 95 to Philadelphia that the signage would follow.
That 'Trenton' directional city always irritated me.
While the reasoning for using Philly is obvious; given that this stretch of highway north of Exit 6 is technically a concurrency (I-95 & NJTP), it would've been better IMHO to use a 2-line Philadelphia/Wilmington legend (yes, such would mean replacement sign panels) at those locations.
The use of Trenton on southbound signage north of Exit 7A still makes sense because Trenton is NJ's capital & one has a direct connection to it from I-95/NJTP via I-195/NJ 29. Yes, I'm aware of the placement of Philadelphia on the GSP southbound signage for Exit 129 but the northbound signage as well as the ramp signage from the toll plaza still lists Trenton.
___________________________________________
Moving further south to Exit 5: why were the overhead interchange signs, in both directions, replaced with ground-mounted 1/4-mile advance signs (still no CR 537 shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0304415,-74.8176646,3a,75y,239.79h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY6bTJBsSEa6fZ-4F3NQSUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) within the past year? Interestingly, if not ironically, the now-gone southbound NJTP pull-through BGS at this interchange went from listing Wilmington to Camden.
I believe such, the placing of Philadelphia on southbound pull-through signs (thus far), only took place at interchanges 7A & 7 where the previous legend listed Camden. As of 2 weeks ago (Sept. 16), the ramp sign for I-95/NJTP southbound from the Exit 7A toll plaza still listed Camden.So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
I’m guessing that since there is now a literal link between the Turnpike and 95 to Philadelphia that the signage would follow.
That 'Trenton' directional city always irritated me.
While the reasoning for using Philly is obvious; given that this stretch of highway north of Exit 6 is technically a concurrency (I-95 & NJTP), it would've been better IMHO to use a 2-line Philadelphia/Wilmington legend (yes, such would mean replacement sign panels) at those locations.
The use of Trenton on southbound signage north of Exit 7A still makes sense because Trenton is NJ's capital & one has a direct connection to it from I-95/NJTP via I-195/NJ 29. Yes, I'm aware of the placement of Philadelphia on the GSP southbound signage for Exit 129 but the northbound signage as well as the ramp signage from the toll plaza still lists Trenton.
___________________________________________
Moving further south to Exit 5: why were the overhead interchange signs, in both directions, replaced with ground-mounted 1/4-mile advance signs (still no CR 537 shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0304415,-74.8176646,3a,75y,239.79h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY6bTJBsSEa6fZ-4F3NQSUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) within the past year? Interestingly, if not ironically, the now-gone southbound NJTP pull-through BGS at this interchange went from listing Wilmington to Camden.
I believe those structures were due to be replaced, they were old (they were the older galvanized ones and not the newer pre-rusted ones). Not sure why they didn't put up new overhead structures there, but they may do that later on. Even on the southern section of the roadway south of the dual-dual lanes where they're pretty content with the advance approach signage being ground mount, they still put the exit point signage on overhead structures.
Moving further south to Exit 5: why were the overhead interchange signs, in both directions, replaced with ground-mounted 1/4-mile advance signs (still no CR 537 shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0304415,-74.8176646,3a,75y,239.79h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY6bTJBsSEa6fZ-4F3NQSUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) within the past year? Interestingly, if not ironically, the now-gone southbound NJTP pull-through BGS at this interchange went from listing Wilmington to Camden.
At the same meeting the Turnpike Authority awarded the bid for going cashless on its highways, they also approved a bid to demolish the Turnpike's original administration building still seen at Interchange 9. The contract calls for the building to be demolished over the next year, although first some hazardous materials including asbestos, lead and mold will need to be removed first. It'll then be available for 'redevelopment', but doesn't go into more specifics than that.That's sad. I've actually been there. RIP history.
Moving further south to Exit 5: why were the overhead interchange signs, in both directions, replaced with ground-mounted 1/4-mile advance signs (still no CR 537 shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0304415,-74.8176646,3a,75y,239.79h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY6bTJBsSEa6fZ-4F3NQSUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) within the past year? Interestingly, if not ironically, the now-gone southbound NJTP pull-through BGS at this interchange went from listing Wilmington to Camden.
exit 5 is 541; exit 7A is 537. same applies, though.
At the same meeting the Turnpike Authority awarded the bid for going cashless on its highways, they also approved a bid to demolish the Turnpike's original administration building still seen at Interchange 9. The contract calls for the building to be demolished over the next year, although first some hazardous materials including asbestos, lead and mold will need to be removed first. It'll then be available for 'redevelopment', but doesn't go into more specifics than that.That's sad. I've actually been there. RIP history.
IIRC after Woodbridge the old parkway building was still used for administrative meetings.At the same meeting the Turnpike Authority awarded the bid for going cashless on its highways, they also approved a bid to demolish the Turnpike's original administration building still seen at Interchange 9. The contract calls for the building to be demolished over the next year, although first some hazardous materials including asbestos, lead and mold will need to be removed first. It'll then be available for 'redevelopment', but doesn't go into more specifics than that.That's sad. I've actually been there. RIP history.
Been in there twice for interviews: P/T toll collector; F/T Accountant which I determined would be too far of a drive everyday...and that's before they moved admin to Woodbridge.
yeah, i'm an idiot; 7A is I-195, of course. 537 passes under the Turnpike very close to NJ 38's overpass.Moving further south to Exit 5: why were the overhead interchange signs, in both directions, replaced with ground-mounted 1/4-mile advance signs (still no CR 537 shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0304415,-74.8176646,3a,75y,239.79h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY6bTJBsSEa6fZ-4F3NQSUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) within the past year? Interestingly, if not ironically, the now-gone southbound NJTP pull-through BGS at this interchange went from listing Wilmington to Camden.
exit 5 is 541; exit 7A is 537. same applies, though.
7A is 526 if anything. 537 is closest to 4.
I think we all know what you meant. CR 541 has not had a shield since as long as I can remember. It seems signing county routes is not a thing NJTA likes on the Turnpike. However I’m surprised that the SB ramp to NJ 140 further south got CR 540 shields on that, as for years even NJ 140 never got mentioned.
It was “Penns Grove” Deepwater only on the original gore sign beyond the former Exit 1 Plaza for many decades.
I disagree on Trenton, it is not a major destination, and there is not a direct route, 95 doesn't got there and I-195 does not either.I believe such, the placing of Philadelphia on southbound pull-through signs (thus far), only took place at interchanges 7A & 7 where the previous legend listed Camden. As of 2 weeks ago (Sept. 16), the ramp sign for I-95/NJTP southbound from the Exit 7A toll plaza still listed Camden.So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
I’m guessing that since there is now a literal link between the Turnpike and 95 to Philadelphia that the signage would follow.
That 'Trenton' directional city always irritated me.
While the reasoning for using Philly is obvious; given that this stretch of highway north of Exit 6 is technically a concurrency (I-95 & NJTP), it would've been better IMHO to use a 2-line Philadelphia/Wilmington legend (yes, such would mean replacement sign panels) at those locations.
The use of Trenton on southbound signage north of Exit 7A still makes sense because Trenton is NJ's capital & one has a direct connection to it from I-95/NJTP via I-195/NJ 29. Yes, I'm aware of the placement of Philadelphia on the GSP southbound signage for Exit 129 but the northbound signage as well as the ramp signage from the toll plaza still lists Trenton.
___________________________________________
Moving further south to Exit 5: why were the overhead interchange signs, in both directions, replaced with ground-mounted 1/4-mile advance signs (still no CR 537 shields) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0304415,-74.8176646,3a,75y,239.79h,85.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY6bTJBsSEa6fZ-4F3NQSUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) within the past year? Interestingly, if not ironically, the now-gone southbound NJTP pull-through BGS at this interchange went from listing Wilmington to Camden.
I disagree on Trenton, it is not a major destination, and there is not a direct route, 95 doesn't got there and I-195 does not either.saying "I-195 doesn't go to Trenton" is the same kind of missing-the-forest-for-the-trees logic that "I-80 doesn't go to New York City" is.
I disagree on Trenton, it is not a major destination, and there is not a direct route, 95 doesn't got there and I-195 does not either.saying "I-195 doesn't go to Trenton" is the same kind of missing-the-forest-for-the-trees logic that "I-80 doesn't go to New York City" is.
I just found out the toll plazas near Secaucus Junction no longer accept cash. Are there any toll plazas on the Turnpike that still do?Um - the first one approaches the ENTRY. You don't pay to enter. You take a ticket. The second one is the CAMERA problem, not the VMS.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approaching_NJ_Turnpike_exit_15X_tollbooth_(3),_April_2022.jpg
I also see a big problem with the newer VMS signs; frequent pixelation;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Jersey_Turnpike_North_-_MM49_Car_Truck_Lane_Splits_(49818419752).jpg
I just found out the toll plazas near Secaucus Junction no longer accept cash. Are there any toll plazas on the Turnpike that still do?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approaching_NJ_Turnpike_exit_15X_tollbooth_(3),_April_2022.jpg
I also see a big problem with the newer VMS signs; frequent pixelation;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Jersey_Turnpike_North_-_MM49_Car_Truck_Lane_Splits_(49818419752).jpg
The second one is the CAMERA problem, not the VMS.I hate to say this, but I've seen that without any cameras too.
The second one is the CAMERA problem, not the VMS.I hate to say this, but I've seen that without any cameras too.
The New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs both highways, adopted a $2.5 billion 2023 budget – which calls for a 3% toll increase starting Jan. 1 in a budget that increased by 7.4% over 2022.
Officials blamed the increase on “pressures on discretionary travel and costs due to an inflation rate of 8.3%, a level not seen in 40 years.”
Wow over a million posts.
I heard on the radio today that tolls would increase another 3% by 2023. That means definitely over $20 EACH WAY to go from end to end. Let's not forget the tolls on the bridges at both ends as well. Add on congestion pricing...a trip from Baltimore to NYC will cost close to $100 in tolls alone.
From nj.com: Brace yourself, drivers. Turnpike and Parkway tolls are going up for the 3rd year in a row. (https://www.nj.com/news/2022/10/brace-yourself-drivers-turnpike-and-parkway-tolls-are-going-up-for-the-3rd-year-in-a-row.html)QuoteThe New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs both highways, adopted a $2.5 billion 2023 budget – which calls for a 3% toll increase starting Jan. 1 in a budget that increased by 7.4% over 2022.
Officials blamed the increase on “pressures on discretionary travel and costs due to an inflation rate of 8.3%, a level not seen in 40 years.”
On the flip, the NJTA has a pretty ambitious 10 year capital plan so the money is going into improvements and projects to keep the roadways going.
Wow over a million posts.
I heard on the radio today that tolls would increase another 3% by 2023. That means definitely over $20 EACH WAY to go from end to end. Let's not forget the tolls on the bridges at both ends as well. Add on congestion pricing...a trip from Baltimore to NYC will cost close to $100 in tolls alone.
You can save some money by taking 295 and using local roads to avoid the tolls in Delaware
Enormously? Not really.Wow over a million posts.
I heard on the radio today that tolls would increase another 3% by 2023. That means definitely over $20 EACH WAY to go from end to end. Let's not forget the tolls on the bridges at both ends as well. Add on congestion pricing...a trip from Baltimore to NYC will cost close to $100 in tolls alone.
You can save some money by taking 295 and using local roads to avoid the tolls in Delaware
295 only goes up to a point, these rest of the Turnpike is still enormously expensive
Enormously? Not really.Wow over a million posts.
I heard on the radio today that tolls would increase another 3% by 2023. That means definitely over $20 EACH WAY to go from end to end. Let's not forget the tolls on the bridges at both ends as well. Add on congestion pricing...a trip from Baltimore to NYC will cost close to $100 in tolls alone.
You can save some money by taking 295 and using local roads to avoid the tolls in Delaware
295 only goes up to a point, these rest of the Turnpike is still enormously expensive
I’m guessing that the rates per mile jump north of Route 18 like they’ve always been.there's an app for that
Of course, the NJ Turnpike is still cheaper if factoring the cost per lane miles rather than centerline miles. Much cheaper south of NJ 18.Enormously? Not really.Wow over a million posts.
I heard on the radio today that tolls would increase another 3% by 2023. That means definitely over $20 EACH WAY to go from end to end. Let's not forget the tolls on the bridges at both ends as well. Add on congestion pricing...a trip from Baltimore to NYC will cost close to $100 in tolls alone.
You can save some money by taking 295 and using local roads to avoid the tolls in Delaware
295 only goes up to a point, these rest of the Turnpike is still enormously expensive
Well, you may be in for a shock. It's actually more expensive on the NJ Turnpike than the PA Turnpike, especially when comparing EZ Pass rates.
Currently, from Exit 7A (where it's the northern-most easiest access point to 295) to Exit 18E/W, that 57 mile trip will cost you $10.05 Off-Peak (17.6 cents per mile), or $13.39 Peak (23.5 cents per mile).
On the PA Turnpike, an equivalent 57 mile trip is generally about $6.20 to $8.90 (10.9 to 15.6 cents per mile) with EZ Pass.
If you think of the price to drive the entire PA Turnpike, or the price someone would pay using the Toll-by-Plate option, the PA Turnpike is much more expensive than the entire length of the NJ Turnpike. But the PA Turnpike is also 3 times as long as the NJ Turnpike, so that makes sense.
But on a per-mile basis, the NJ Turnpike is actually considerably more expensive than the PA Turnpike. It's actually a bit surprising the NJ Turnpike has been able to hide that from the media and the public.
Now, is $10 or $13 enormously expensive? For someone on a lower income, or someone that drives it every day (and in that case, probably twice a day), it adds up considerably.
PA Turnpike is almost $100 each way, and it's not even as good of a road as the Jersey Turnpike. 70 mph speed limit and some curves can barely handle 70. Jersey Turnpike however, is straighter. It should be 70 while the PENN Turnpike should be lowered to 65.
Yes 76 west of Harrisburg and I-81 is as good as the Jersey turnpike, but then it becomes very curvy again and only 2 lanes near the mountains and through-terrain tunnels. I-78 is straighter through eastern PA, but from what I can remember none of that is even 70. Jersey Turnpike should definitely be 70 and maybe even a bump to 75-80.
Probably, or maybe not. Washington State allows for 75 mph but no road is posted above 70. Mississippi allows 80 mph on toll roads, but no toll roads were ever built. The entire turnpike should be 65 at least then, even the section north of I-278 can easily handle it.
They allow 80 before they start to ticket you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Yes 76 west of Harrisburg and I-81 is as good as the Jersey turnpike, but then it becomes very curvy again and only 2 lanes near the mountains and through-terrain tunnels. I-78 is straighter through eastern PA, but from what I can remember none of that is even 70. Jersey Turnpike should definitely be 70 and maybe even a bump to 75-80.
NJ doesn’t allow 70. If it did, large sections of the Turnpike would be, no doubt.
They allow 80 before they start to ticket you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Yes 76 west of Harrisburg and I-81 is as good as the Jersey turnpike, but then it becomes very curvy again and only 2 lanes near the mountains and through-terrain tunnels. I-78 is straighter through eastern PA, but from what I can remember none of that is even 70. Jersey Turnpike should definitely be 70 and maybe even a bump to 75-80.
NJ doesn’t allow 70. If it did, large sections of the Turnpike would be, no doubt.
At 80, or 81?
It seems the truck spur is always faster for some reason
Wonder if they will ever build that 3rd lane from the Delaware Bridge to Exit 4.
Wonder if they will ever build that 3rd lane from the Delaware Bridge to Exit 4.
I really wish they prioritize having a crossover between the car and truck lanes, then widen the NJTP to 4 lanes from the PATP to exit 4, 3 lanes to exit 3, and leave the rest as 2.Wonder if they will ever build that 3rd lane from the Delaware Bridge to Exit 4.
Good question, but it’s a popular one. So you may agitate some, on here just like proposing I-76 to go to Atlantic City is so old that users become weary.
The answer is on the website https://www.njta.com/media/6542/2022-03-07-2022-2026_capital-projects-list_v06.pdf go to page 7 under capital
plan.
https://www.njta.com/media/6542/2022-03-07-2022-2026_capital-projects-list_v06.pdf if that don’t work.
On another note, to respond to previous posts. The toll calculator reveals $ 19.35 to pay cash the entire length.
Then over 9 bucks for the Parkway to the GWB.
Outrageous! So yes the tolls north of Exit 9 jump per mile still.
I really wish they prioritize having a crossover between the car and truck lanes, then widen the NJTP to 4 lanes from the PATP to exit 4, 3 lanes to exit 3, and leave the rest as 2.
Please keep your wishes to Fictional. Reality is real.
I really wish they prioritize having a crossover between the car and truck lanes, then widen the NJTP to 4 lanes from the PATP to exit 4, 3 lanes to exit 3, and leave the rest as 2.
i really wish you'd stop beating that dead horse
I've done that. When I first realized the truck spurs were faster I switched over via one of the service areas. However, I have only driven in the cars spur since after a piece of cargo/degree came loose from a truck and came flying into my windshield, cracking it.
No, access to both spur roadways north of Newark are available to both inner and outer roadways. One don’t default into the other if that’s what your implying.
But after the roadways crossover, which spur is ultimately the truck lanes down south, and which one ultimately becomes the car lanes?
But after the roadways crossover, which spur is ultimately the truck lanes down south, and which one ultimately becomes the car lanes?
But after the roadways crossover, which spur is ultimately the truck lanes down south, and which one ultimately becomes the car lanes?
Neither. The whole split complex between 14 and 15E is pretty much a split and then merge of equals. Southbound, it's keep right for the truck lanes and left for the car lanes on both roadways.
It's very different than at the north end where a case can be made that the western spur goes to/from the GWB and the eastern spur goes to/from I-80 (a very well designed complex that keeps the two major flows, Lincoln Tunnel via the eastern spur to/from I-80 separate from the through I-95 traffic that is encouraged by signs at both ends to use the western spur).
Is it true that the exits 68-72..etc are what the correct mile markers would have been had the somerset freeway been built? They coincidently look like exact exit continuations from I-80 eastbound.
No, the Easterly and Westerly Alignments are not spurs. Everyone just calls them that. (:I've done that. When I first realized the truck spurs were faster I switched over via one of the service areas. However, I have only driven in the cars spur since after a piece of cargo/degree came loose from a truck and came flying into my windshield, cracking it.
I'm gonna take a moment to clarify some terminology (which probably will probably nitpick, but this is what I know them as)...
The "spurs" specifically refer to the split roadways north of Newark, where one branch goes east of downtown Secaucus and the other goes west. These are the eastern and western spurs. (history lesson: The eastern spur was the original built in 1952, the western was built in 1971).
From Newark south to Exit 6, its just the "car lanes' and the "truck lanes" (officially just referred to as the inner and outer roadways).
Then there's the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension (I-78) and the Pennsylvania Extension (the I-95 link to Philly and the PA Turnpike).
But after the roadways crossover, which spur is ultimately the truck lanes down south, and which one ultimately becomes the car lanes?
Neither. The whole split complex between 14 and 15E is pretty much a split and then merge of equals. Southbound, it's keep right for the truck lanes and left for the car lanes on both roadways.
It's very different than at the north end where a case can be made that the western spur goes to/from the GWB and the eastern spur goes to/from I-80 (a very well designed complex that keeps the two major flows, Lincoln Tunnel via the eastern spur to/from I-80 separate from the through I-95 traffic that is encouraged by signs at both ends to use the western spur).
The signage is very different on the north end, but it still has the same full connectivity.
But after the roadways crossover, which spur is ultimately the truck lanes down south, and which one ultimately becomes the car lanes?
Neither. Both spurs split with options for inner and outer roadways.
Western spur southbound split:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7211216,-74.1349551,3a,75y,185.66h,85.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sC2aKPwXS9ddOEY46DI665A!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Eastern spur southbound split (old signage):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7245973,-74.1326491,3a,75y,208.48h,89.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQMIoSM80i39hlgPluMHVKQ!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Note: Signage southbound is replaced on the eastern spur, just saw this in GSV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7246961,-74.1325858,3a,75y,213.52h,95.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLkPpc9nurXVLaFhk6yxJsQ!2e0!5s20220701T000000!7i16384!8i8192
The above posts are correct. Both roadways split evenly into the two sets of southbound lanes. The mixing bowl is a complete transition of the roadways. Also a third set of southbound lanes begins there which becomes the exit roadway for Interchange 14. Not sure if it could be called a collector-distributor road as defined in the MUTCD.
The three lanes split into a set of two 2 lane ramps to either the Eastern or Western Spurs. This is how Exit 6 should have been done. This would have made the car and truck lane merge south of Exit 6 easier as it would had for 4 lanes merge into 3 rather than 6 into 3.
No, the Easterly and Westerly Alignments are not spurs. Everyone just calls them that. (:I've done that. When I first realized the truck spurs were faster I switched over via one of the service areas. However, I have only driven in the cars spur since after a piece of cargo/degree came loose from a truck and came flying into my windshield, cracking it.
I'm gonna take a moment to clarify some terminology (which probably will probably nitpick, but this is what I know them as)...
The "spurs" specifically refer to the split roadways north of Newark, where one branch goes east of downtown Secaucus and the other goes west. These are the eastern and western spurs. (history lesson: The eastern spur was the original built in 1952, the western was built in 1971).
From Newark south to Exit 6, its just the "car lanes' and the "truck lanes" (officially just referred to as the inner and outer roadways).
Then there's the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension (I-78) and the Pennsylvania Extension (the I-95 link to Philly and the PA Turnpike).
No, the Easterly and Westerly Alignments are not spurs. Everyone just calls them that. (:I've done that. When I first realized the truck spurs were faster I switched over via one of the service areas. However, I have only driven in the cars spur since after a piece of cargo/degree came loose from a truck and came flying into my windshield, cracking it.
I'm gonna take a moment to clarify some terminology (which probably will probably nitpick, but this is what I know them as)...
The "spurs" specifically refer to the split roadways north of Newark, where one branch goes east of downtown Secaucus and the other goes west. These are the eastern and western spurs. (history lesson: The eastern spur was the original built in 1952, the western was built in 1971).
From Newark south to Exit 6, its just the "car lanes' and the "truck lanes" (officially just referred to as the inner and outer roadways).
Then there's the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension (I-78) and the Pennsylvania Extension (the I-95 link to Philly and the PA Turnpike).
Including me. What does the NJTA call them? Refresh my memory.
I would imagine it all gets done at the same time if or when the system goes mile based.No, the Easterly and Westerly Alignments are not spurs. Everyone just calls them that. (:I've done that. When I first realized the truck spurs were faster I switched over via one of the service areas. However, I have only driven in the cars spur since after a piece of cargo/degree came loose from a truck and came flying into my windshield, cracking it.
I'm gonna take a moment to clarify some terminology (which probably will probably nitpick, but this is what I know them as)...
The "spurs" specifically refer to the split roadways north of Newark, where one branch goes east of downtown Secaucus and the other goes west. These are the eastern and western spurs. (history lesson: The eastern spur was the original built in 1952, the western was built in 1971).
From Newark south to Exit 6, its just the "car lanes' and the "truck lanes" (officially just referred to as the inner and outer roadways).
Then there's the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension (I-78) and the Pennsylvania Extension (the I-95 link to Philly and the PA Turnpike).
Including me. What does the NJTA call them? Refresh my memory.
What he said - Alignments.
The "spur" terminology made (and still makes) sense if you are looking solely at the ticket toll system, which ends at 18E and 18W on each spur. Ticket toll roads tend to number things via their ticket system - that's why northbound, 46 has no number (it is part of 18E/W as far as the NJTA is concerned). Also why there's no number for 140/540 (its outside the ticket system). And also why the supposed "6A" (130) isn't signed with its number (its part of 6 as far as NJTA is concerned).
Southbound, 46 has a number (68) because it was part of NJDOT's I-95 section - jurisdiction ended at 46.
When the turnpike goes cashless, it might be useful to finally remedy all these unnumbered exits. Then again, maybe no one cares.
No, the Easterly and Westerly Alignments are not spurs. Everyone just calls them that. (:I've done that. When I first realized the truck spurs were faster I switched over via one of the service areas. However, I have only driven in the cars spur since after a piece of cargo/degree came loose from a truck and came flying into my windshield, cracking it.
I'm gonna take a moment to clarify some terminology (which probably will probably nitpick, but this is what I know them as)...
The "spurs" specifically refer to the split roadways north of Newark, where one branch goes east of downtown Secaucus and the other goes west. These are the eastern and western spurs. (history lesson: The eastern spur was the original built in 1952, the western was built in 1971).
From Newark south to Exit 6, its just the "car lanes' and the "truck lanes" (officially just referred to as the inner and outer roadways).
Then there's the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension (I-78) and the Pennsylvania Extension (the I-95 link to Philly and the PA Turnpike).
Including me. What does the NJTA call them? Refresh my memory.
What he said - Alignments.
The "spur" terminology made (and still makes) sense if you are looking solely at the ticket toll system, which ends at 18E and 18W on each spur. Ticket toll roads tend to number things via their ticket system - that's why northbound, 46 has no number (it is part of 18E/W as far as the NJTA is concerned). Also why there's no number for 140/540 (its outside the ticket system). And also why the supposed "6A" (130) isn't signed with its number (its part of 6 as far as NJTA is concerned).
Southbound, 46 has a number (68) because it was part of NJDOT's I-95 section - jurisdiction ended at 46.
When the turnpike goes cashless, it might be useful to finally remedy all these unnumbered exits. Then again, maybe no one cares.
Is there now an 87c toll north of exit 16. I got that in the mail once despite entering at 16 and only going north
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"
What con-artists lol
Is there now an 87c toll north of exit 16. I got that in the mail once despite entering at 16 and only going north
Interesting, I can't seem to find the sign with street view. It's been a while since I've been on the Turnpike, so maybe they did remove it, but I think I still saw the sign after I got an 87c bill at least one time.
Is there now an 87c toll north of exit 16. I got that in the mail once despite entering at 16 and only going north
Is there now an 87c toll north of exit 16. I got that in the mail once despite entering at 16 and only going northBut I think I figured out your mystery $0.87. That's the tolls-by-mail toll between NY Thruway exits 16 and 17.
It probably was that, that's where the 16 came from then. I have done that route.
The Turnpike entrance I was referring to was the entrance from NJ 495 West to I-95 North (Eastern Spur).
It probably was that, that's where the 16 came from then. I have done that route.
The Turnpike entrance I was referring to was the entrance from NJ 495 West to I-95 North (Eastern Spur).
That's 17, technically. 16E is only from/to the south, 17 is from/to the north. Confusing, I know.
My brain just got even more scrambled LOL
Another question about the Turnpike. Those U turn ramps, could they theoretically be used to avoid tolls. I know your ticket specifies what direction you initially got on, so if you get off at a toll booth in the opposite direction you get charged the full amount for both ways, but what if for example, for a joyride, I drove from say, I-278 to a U turn area further south, say between exits 6 and 7, then drove all the way back up north to another U turn area, to end up back on the southbound side, and got off at exit 10. Even though I went from exits 13 to 6, from 6 to U-trun area, and back south to 10, there's no way they would know that I made 2 U turns vs just going from Exits 13 to 10 directly. Of course this wouldn't get you anywhere, but you could avoid a higher toll if you just wanted to drive on the Turnpike without getting off.
Then why do they warn about U turns resulting in the highest toll on the ticket?
Then why do they warn about U turns resulting in the highest toll on the ticket?
Also I find it interesting that Exits 18E&W both use the same line on the tickets. Two separate interchanges, but treated as one on the ticket.
If you get on at 16W, being you can go north to 18W, that has the same line as 18E, you can go south, make an illegal u turn, and use the eastern spur to Exit 18E and not get charged the high fare cause it’s on the ticket as a part of 18W. Though the collector at 18E will notice the 16W entry point, which should send up a flag to him or her, I’m sure the cash handler is not given the authority to charge that high fare for a u turn.
So I guess those U turn ramps are for emergencies only, or for law enforcement only?
I knew the median breaks were for emergency only, but for the U turn areas, I figured that's just a way for them to charge you an extra toll should you ever have to use them.
I knew the median breaks were for emergency only, but for the U turn areas, I figured that's just a way for them to charge you an extra toll should you ever have to use them.
I knew the median breaks were for emergency only, but for the U turn areas, I figured that's just a way for them to charge you an extra toll should you ever have to use them.
You never "have to use them." If you need to turn around, you do that at the next exit in a legal manner.
In addition to signs prohibiting using them, there are no acceleration and de-acceleration lanes at them and to reach then, you need to cross a solid line. In short, they are for use by people (police and maintenance) with the training as to how to safely use them or in an emergency under the direction of the police.
Again it's been a while since I was on the Turnpike but I don't remember any signs. In fact, I wasn't even sure if they were even a road or not due to lack of clearly visible signage (from what I remember). Of course I would never use them lol I was just bringing up the point about the tolls. On a road like the Turnpike where everyone is going 75-90 mph, I would never get back on the road without an acceleration lane. I also thought there was a "toll free keep moving" sign at the entrance to the northbound Turnpike from 495, but I can't seem to find that anywhere on Google streets view either.
Again it's been a while since I was on the Turnpike but I don't remember any signs.
I also thought there was a "toll free keep moving" sign at the entrance to the northbound Turnpike from 495, but I can't seem to find that anywhere on Google streets view either.
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"It is toll free to enter from 16E (Route 495 west) and continue north on the Easterly Alignment. You are just saying "16" so I'm not sure where you entered from. You should not be billed if you entered that way.
What con-artists lol
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"It is toll free to enter from 16E (Route 495 west) and continue north on the Easterly Alignment. You are just saying "16" so I'm not sure where you entered from. You should not be billed if you entered that way.
What con-artists lol
...But if you took 2 hours to drive 3 exits, they would suspect you of making a U turn cause it shouldn't take that long. But then again the rest areas..
Yeah one time the machine didn't give me a ticket so had to pay the maximum, didn't have enough room to back out. Wish they closed those lanes when tickets run out
Yeah one time the machine didn't give me a ticket so had to pay the maximum, didn't have enough room to back out. Wish they closed those lanes when tickets run out
The machines when emptied are supposed to automatically turn the light red. They could malfunction on occasion, either accidently or by someone jamming it. Biy what I saw much more often than not: people entered a closed lane, even with the red light lit. If there wasn't a cone placed to block a lane, motorists would use the lane. Very common issue.
It was green and was lit up with "CASH" or "Full Service" when that happened lol. Don't know if the machine was out or just malfunctioned and didn't dispense it. What they should do is alternate Cash and EZ pass lanes and have an equal number, so you are at most only one lane change away from what you need to use. Some of them have only 2 cash lanes out of 7-8 and have to cut across 3-4 lanes to get to one, very annoying.
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"
What con-artists lol
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"
What con-artists lol
They got it all screwed up. It should say: "TOLL FREE? KEEP MOVING!"
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"
What con-artists lol
They got it all screwed up. It should say: "TOLL FREE? KEEP MOVING!"
Oops, shouldn't have this DOT logo either.
Yeah one time the machine didn't give me a ticket so had to pay the maximum, didn't have enough room to back out. Wish they closed those lanes when tickets run out
The machines when emptied are supposed to automatically turn the light red. They could malfunction on occasion, either accidently or by someone jamming it. Biy what I saw much more often than not: people entered a closed lane, even with the red light lit. If there wasn't a cone placed to block a lane, motorists would use the lane. Very common issue.
Agreed, as a toll collector I found motorists ignore the red lane and cones must be placed.
They installed temporary electronic tolling during the first month of the pandemic, but then went back to cash collection. Why didn't they just leave that as is?
$60+ dollars in tolls just to go 130 miles and back. That's just beyond reason.
Yeah one time the machine didn't give me a ticket so had to pay the maximum, didn't have enough room to back out. Wish they closed those lanes when tickets run out
The machines when emptied are supposed to automatically turn the light red. They could malfunction on occasion, either accidently or by someone jamming it. Biy what I saw much more often than not: people entered a closed lane, even with the red light lit. If there wasn't a cone placed to block a lane, motorists would use the lane. Very common issue.
Agreed, as a toll collector I found motorists ignore the red lane and cones must be placed.
Back in the 1950's and 60's, some if not all toll barriers at the NYC area bridges and tunnels had a swing-gate (looked like a railroad gate) across the lane when the toll booth was not open, in addition to the red light.
What? People evading tolls?then go take a back road and this is unrelated to this topic so please don't post this
Can't blame them. Tolls in those states are extortion.
Suppose you are taking a trip from the Delaware/Maryland border to Brooklyn, NYC, and back.
Delaware Turnpike: $4 each way = $8 total
Delaware Bridge: $5
Jersey Turnpike: $15 each way= $30 total
Goethals Bridge: $16
Verrazzano Bridge: $20.34 total for both ways
$60+ dollars in tolls just to go 130 miles and back. That's just beyond reason.
Any route that involves both the Pennsylvania Turnpike and jersey turnpike or Atlantic city expressway would be all tolls. Tolls should be reserves for bridges/tunnels only, not select highways that theybchoose.
This thread is literally on the New Jersey Turnpike though?most of what you cited is not?
Tolls should be reserves for bridges/tunnels only, not select highways that theybchoose.All of the highways / bridge facilities you mentioned were built with tolls from the start… prior to existing as toll roads, there was no highway or bridge there.
Tolls should be reserves for bridges/tunnels only, not select highways that theybchoose.All of the highways / bridge facilities you mentioned were built with tolls from the start… prior to existing as toll roads, there was no highway or bridge there.
Are the tolls high? Well, yes, but saying there should be no tolls isn’t the most realistic, considering they’ve always been there. It’s not like they took existing free highways and put tolls on them.
Jersey Turnpike should be free south of Newark/NYC at least. I am sure the maintenance costs have been paid for 10x over by now. Went from $13 to drive the entire length to $20 in less than 3 years.
Then we’re expecting the HRBT to be tolled soon, that is been free since 1976, to pay for the bridge- tunnel expansion.The expansion of the HRBT has been well under construction for over a year, and only the new capacity will consist of tolled HO/T lanes that will still be free for HOV 2+ with an E-ZPass Flex, similar to the existing reversible lanes in Norfolk. The existing general purpose lanes will not be tolled.
Jersey Turnpike should be free south of Newark/NYC at least. I am sure the maintenance costs have been paid for 10x over by now. Went from $13 to drive the entire length to $20 in less than 3 years.
Definitely it should be tolled next to NYC, I would say either south of 278 or 287 it should be free, but I'd even be fine with the full toll just between I-80 and I-278. I would rather split the toll though and have half of it on the Garden State Parkway since that is so much cheaper for some reason. The Delaware "turnpike" however is a huge rip off as it's not even the main road and only 12-15 miles long! $4 each way! But out of respect for the mods who want this thread to stay strictly about NJ that's the last I'll Say about any nearby out-of-state roads.
Definitely it should be tolled next to NYC, I would say either south of 278 or 287 it should be free, but I'd even be fine with the full toll just between I-80 and I-278. I would rather split the toll though and have half of it on the Garden State Parkway since that is so much cheaper for some reason. The Delaware "turnpike" however is a huge rip off as it's not even the main road and only 12-15 miles long! $4 each way! But out of respect for the mods who want this thread to stay strictly about NJ that's the last I'll Say about any nearby out-of-state roads.
I don't get why they wouldn't prefer that since they'd make more money. More drivers drive between I-287 and I-80 then any other stretch, and the toll through there would be even higher since the $20 would now be squeezed all into that area instead of diffused throughout the entire length.So now double the toll or more on drivers who only use the northern part of the Turnpike? Why should they pay the same rate for the full length if they’re not taking the full length?
Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any.Since when was traffic the determiner of who gets a toll or not?
That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road.No, but if a driver is going a longer distance on a toll road, they should pay more. The New Jersey Turnpike is a full toll road from Delaware to New York.
Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any.Since when was traffic the determiner of who gets a toll or not?QuoteThat's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road.No, but if a driver is going a longer distance on a toll road, they should pay more. The New Jersey Turnpike is a full toll road from Delaware to New York.
If there's hardly anyone on the road south of 287, why did they widen it from Interchnages 6 - 9, and preparing to widen it from 1 - 4?
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'd love a free ride every day and make the northern motorists pay for it. But it ain't going to happen.
Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because it is commuter road in the north as compared to the south where non-toll roads are used for commuting daily. It's a sore point that the Turnpike and Parkway are tolled that commuters need to use daily.
^ There’s definitely no double charging that I’m aware of…
^ There’s definitely no double charging that I’m aware of…
The double charging is when you have to pay much more to go 10 miles on the northern end, while paying less to go triple that distance on the southern end. If you support commuters getting a break, why should the northern stretch charge you more? Either do it by mile, by exit, or only in the north, but not the whole length while also more in select sections.
Given that it is already widened, the road can now handle the traffic...
. Uh hum. US 130 from 7-9. US 1 from 9-18.Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because it is commuter road in the north as compared to the south where non-toll roads are used for commuting daily. It's a sore point that the Turnpike and Parkway are tolled that commuters need to use daily.
What "non-toll roads"? Keep going on I-295 north and you'll find yourself heading south again and in PA. Not exactly a replacement for the turnpike. And the parkway is on the other side of the state. Between Exits 5 and 11 there are literally no alternatives.
. Uh hum. US 130 from 7-9. US 1 from 9-18.Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because it is commuter road in the north as compared to the south where non-toll roads are used for commuting daily. It's a sore point that the Turnpike and Parkway are tolled that commuters need to use daily.
What "non-toll roads"? Keep going on I-295 north and you'll find yourself heading south again and in PA. Not exactly a replacement for the turnpike. And the parkway is on the other side of the state. Between Exits 5 and 11 there are literally no alternatives.
First there was Ethanman with his I-366 and 85 mph.
Then the diesel mechanic and his Hypotenuse.
Now we have this guy and his high tolls in northern New Jersey.
What next?
. Uh hum. US 130 from 7-9. US 1 from 9-18.Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because it is commuter road in the north as compared to the south where non-toll roads are used for commuting daily. It's a sore point that the Turnpike and Parkway are tolled that commuters need to use daily.
What "non-toll roads"? Keep going on I-295 north and you'll find yourself heading south again and in PA. Not exactly a replacement for the turnpike. And the parkway is on the other side of the state. Between Exits 5 and 11 there are literally no alternatives.
You're joking right?
I mean, that was the option before the toll road was built. It’s always been the free route. The Turnpike has never been free.. Uh hum. US 130 from 7-9. US 1 from 9-18.Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because it is commuter road in the north as compared to the south where non-toll roads are used for commuting daily. It's a sore point that the Turnpike and Parkway are tolled that commuters need to use daily.
What "non-toll roads"? Keep going on I-295 north and you'll find yourself heading south again and in PA. Not exactly a replacement for the turnpike. And the parkway is on the other side of the state. Between Exits 5 and 11 there are literally no alternatives.
You're joking right?
Because drivers using the northern end are worsening the traffic, whereas drivers on the southern end barely affect the traffic as there rarely is any. Drivers going the entire length would have to pay the same amount through the northern stretch so how is it unfair? That's like saying drivers who go longer distances should pay more of a toll just because more of their trip happened to be on a non-toll road. The northern end is consistently black-red on the map during rush hour, whereas South of NYC, there is rarely any red on the map even on the worst Friday getaway holidays during rush hour.
Because it is commuter road in the north as compared to the south where non-toll roads are used for commuting daily. It's a sore point that the Turnpike and Parkway are tolled that commuters need to use daily.
What "non-toll roads"? Keep going on I-295 north and you'll find yourself heading south again and in PA. Not exactly a replacement for the turnpike. And the parkway is on the other side of the state. Between Exits 5 and 11 there are literally no alternatives.
There's actually precedent for the less-used end not having a toll: the Mass Pike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 (sequential) had a $0.00 toll (still part of the ticket system, but it didn't increase how much you paid). This went away a few years ago, before and unrelated to the AET switch. Trucks still paid a toll, though.
There's actually precedent for the less-used end not having a toll: the Mass Pike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 (sequential) had a $0.00 toll (still part of the ticket system, but it didn't increase how much you paid). This went away a few years ago, before and unrelated to the AET switch. Trucks still paid a toll, though.
The lack of a toll on the Mass Pike was a concession for the Big Dig and the cost disaster that it was. In Western Mass, people were upset that they were funding the Big Dig and all the overruns and the old Mass Turnpike Authority was the agency in charge of the Big Dig. The concession was no tolls for Exits 1-6.
When the tolls came back, the deal was the money on the western part would stay in Western Mass.
Now there is no Mass Turnpike Authority, it was dissolved and incorporated into MassDOT after the Big Dig. This is also a different situation that with the NJ Turnpike where there is a separate entity tasked with maintenance.
There's actually precedent for the less-used end not having a toll: the Mass Pike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 (sequential) had a $0.00 toll (still part of the ticket system, but it didn't increase how much you paid). This went away a few years ago, before and unrelated to the AET switch. Trucks still paid a toll, though.
Because the northern part of the Turnpike has the most traffic, so obviously the toll should be entirely there. Why should drivers have to pay on the southern length?because it's congested and is being improved just like the entire system and it's in FAR better shape than about any other road in the nation
I would be very surprised if they double the tolls in the course of one or two years.
Yes SMH that's what I've been saying LOL you have to drive back right?You can take US-1 and US-130 back. Explore something new. Life is boing if you return the same way you came, just as boring as the NJ Turnpike :D
I was surprised when I heard that too a couple years ago. I thought NJ was at least in the top 5 states with the best roads, but apparently they were the worst that year. Jersey Turnpike is definitely one of the best highways in the country however, but still a $5 toll each way or even $10 each way for the entire length is more than enough. $40 to drive the entire length and back is criminal extortion. Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.Except for the fact that NJTA receives exactly $0.00 in tax revenue.
That is a very logical statement. Carrying it forth, the cost of any improvement project on the Turnpike should be paid for by tolls from the area of the project.
Also the reason the tolls are higher in the north is the complexity of the roadway. There are many more bridges and elevated sections that cost more to maintain.
FTFY, I believe....Except for the fact that NJTA receives exactly $0.00 in
Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.tolltax revenue.
Also, homes had to be leveled. Properties seized. Elizabeth, the turnpike wiped out peoples dwellings twice. Once when the original turnpike built and second when expanded later.
My dad said land was worth more in North Jersey anyway, but in Elizabeth it was legal hassles mainly to acquire eminent domain.
Yep, that's what I meant. Time to fire the proofreader :sombrero:FTFY, I believe....Except for the fact that NJTA receives exactly $0.00 in
Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.tolltax revenue.
Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.The New Jersey Turnpike was not built with taxes, nor is maintained by taxes?
I collected tolls on another road, but got that statement " This is road paid for by taxes. Why should we pay tolls?"Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.The New Jersey Turnpike was not built with taxes, nor is maintained by taxes?
I collected tolls on another road, but got that statement " This is road paid for by taxes. Why should we pay tolls?"Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.The New Jersey Turnpike was not built with taxes, nor is maintained by taxes?
I would tell them what you said.
If you are just a toll collector they shouldn't be saying that to you anyway LOL you didnt set the tolls. No matter how outrageous the toll, I would never whine to the collector. Actually I think I complained once and she said "i know its too expensive". Not all of them agree with it either.
https://goo.gl/maps/AvhqqxYtHDcZVRYZ8
Back on topic for a moment, is the wooden post NJ Turnpike Goode an NJTA assembly or NJDOT?
What is the topic restriction in this thread? The title is just "New Jersey Turnpike"?
I don't think she was just trying to keep me moving. She started the "discussion" by saying something first, can't remember what, but I replied yeah and it so expensive in a calm, neutral tone, and she said "I know" very emphatically, as if feeling stronger about it than me.
https://goo.gl/maps/AvhqqxYtHDcZVRYZ8
Back on topic for a moment, is the wooden post NJ Turnpike Guide an NJTA assembly or NJDOT?
https://goo.gl/maps/AvhqqxYtHDcZVRYZ8
Back on topic for a moment, is the wooden post NJ Turnpike Guide an NJTA assembly or NJDOT?
Those are NJTA assemblies. These have replaced the last of the white on green entrance signs (like this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1254657,-74.7064418,3a,75y,189.26h,80.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spFfWEtqEp30G-TozUYWiDg!2e0!5s20191101T000000!7i16384!8i8192) that this sign replaced). NJDOT tends to not do wooden posts nor rounded corners (they do rectangle signs with roundrect outlines).
On the Interchange 2 on ramp gore between the ramps to the Northbound and Southbound Turnpike, the NJTA replaced the traditional NEW YORK and NORTH/DELAWARE and SOUTH sign with this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/BqFpAzp19fCHLQKw9), which I quite like. Reminds me a lot of the style sign NJDOT likes to use when the road you're on meets up with a state highway. In fact, the sign on the other end (https://goo.gl/maps/kEftScWPGmUUosYR7) for route 322 looks like it was actually erected by NJDOT (squared off edges, backplate on the shield which means it's from before like 2018 or whenever they stopped using them), and you can see the similarities.
I see NJ Turnpike only issues logo signs for hotels as it don’t want to compete with its vendors at the service areas.
Yes SMH that's what I've been saying LOL you have to drive back right?Go take other roads that arent' tolled then. You have choices. Sheesh.
I also think there should be a universal limit to how much someone owes in tolls. Once someone has already payed $1000 in tolls for the year let's say, they automatically get exempt from tolls for that year, for the next 5 years, or for life. They've payed their fair Share.
I see NJ Turnpike only issues logo signs for hotels as it don’t want to compete with its vendors at the service areas.
I think most toll roads with service plazas handle specific service signs the same way.
The Atlantic City Expressway does have fuel (and I think food) logos. I don't think it hurts the SJTA financially assuming the motorist intends to get back on the roadway afterward fueling up (or eating) since they'll pay at least an extra 75 cents in tolls for the privilege (Exit 9 even has fuel logos, and that one will set you back $1.50). For that matter, someone who knows all this will realize that sticking to the service plaza is actually cheaper factoring in the extra tolls.I see NJ Turnpike only issues logo signs for hotels as it don’t want to compete with its vendors at the service areas.
I think most toll roads with service plazas handle specific service signs the same way.
The Atlantic City Expressway does have fuel (and I think food) logos...I see NJ Turnpike only issues logo signs for hotels as it don’t want to compete with its vendors at the service areas.
I think most toll roads with service plazas handle specific service signs the same way.
The project to modify the intersection (and install the signal) was an NJTA project.On the Interchange 2 on ramp gore between the ramps to the Northbound and Southbound Turnpike, the NJTA replaced the traditional NEW YORK and NORTH/DELAWARE and SOUTH sign with this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/BqFpAzp19fCHLQKw9), which I quite like. Reminds me a lot of the style sign NJDOT likes to use when the road you're on meets up with a state highway. In fact, the sign on the other end (https://goo.gl/maps/kEftScWPGmUUosYR7) for route 322 looks like it was actually erected by NJDOT (squared off edges, backplate on the shield which means it's from before like 2018 or whenever they stopped using them), and you can see the similarities.
The sign on the other end was done probably cause the intersection at the end of the ramp was modified as a NJDOT project.
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9...that's an E-ZPass lane.
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
On the Interchange 2 on ramp gore between the ramps to the Northbound and Southbound Turnpike, the NJTA replaced the traditional NEW YORK and NORTH/DELAWARE and SOUTH sign with this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/BqFpAzp19fCHLQKw9), which I quite like. Reminds me a lot of the style sign NJDOT likes to use when the road you're on meets up with a state highway. In fact, the sign on the other end (https://goo.gl/maps/kEftScWPGmUUosYR7) for route 322 looks like it was actually erected by NJDOT (squared off edges, backplate on the shield which means it's from before like 2018 or whenever they stopped using them), and you can see the similarities.Love it, though I think the DEMB needs to be on the SB sign.
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9...that's an E-ZPass lane.
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9...that's an E-ZPass lane.
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
Now. But in the past, New Jersey did have toll lanes where you had to pay out the passenger-side window.
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9...that's an E-ZPass lane.
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
Now. But in the past, New Jersey did have toll lanes where you had to pay out the passenger-side window.
Correct, NJ Turnpike did have right side toll lanes. I remember the original Exit 1 plaza had them going through on family vacations when we paid our tolls there.
That would be incredibly annoying, this ain't England.
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
why have i been down there for work so many times and NEVER KNOWN THIS WAS ORIGINAL STUFFhttps://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
BTW, you'll notice the automated ticket disbursing machines are in those metal toll booths, not the original toll booths. When they designed this ticket machine which went into service around 2003, they didn't take into consideration the older toll plaza buildings that were still in use, which had slightly narrower doorways. They had to install these metal booths, which meant rebuilding the concrete bullnose barrier, to fit the tollbooth to house the ticket machine.
Correct, NJ Turnpike did have right side toll lanes. I remember the original Exit 1 plaza had them going through on family vacations when we paid our tolls there.Wow, I have a distant memory from age 5 or 6, where I was sitting in the front passenger seat (a rare event at the time), and, while exiting at Interchange 8, my dad handed me a pile of coins -- don't drop them -- to give to the tollbooth operator. Presumably, one of the old IBM-style, punch-card tickets went with it. Even at that tender age, I was slightly puzzled as to how/why the toll window was on that side, or that I just never noticed it.
Correct, NJ Turnpike did have right side toll lanes. I remember the original Exit 1 plaza had them going through on family vacations when we paid our tolls there.
Correct, NJ Turnpike did have right side toll lanes. I remember the original Exit 1 plaza had them going through on family vacations when we paid our tolls there.
Thankfully when EZ Pass came along they had the EZ Pass Lanes in those right side toll booths at the old Exit 1 plaza so there wasn't much active use of the booth. I worked there for a bit part time and very occasionally they would take one of the those lanes and turn off the EZ Pass and make it a regular pay lane. Back in those days is was not uncommon for the traffic to be locked up for 2-3 miles waiting to pay the toll.
You can see the old style double sided booths in the Exit 3 picture posted earlier by roadman65: https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
I wonder if there was some thought about the ability to move the point where the toll lanes switch between inbound and outbound traffic. For example at Exit 3, there are three double-sided booths farthest from the building. Even if there was a need for many more inbound lanes, you would still need some outbound paying lanes.
Before the ticket machines, some of those lanes had to be operated by one person both ways. I did a tour up at Exit 2 and there were only 2 people scheduled there. So when one was on break, the other had to run both directions. There were 2 toll terminals inside the booth and you worked both directions.
Are their any interchanges where there are different toll plazas for each direction, or does every entrance and exit go through the same exact set of lanes?
Correct, NJ Turnpike did have right side toll lanes. I remember the original Exit 1 plaza had them going through on family vacations when we paid our tolls there.
Thankfully when EZ Pass came along they had the EZ Pass Lanes in those right side toll booths at the old Exit 1 plaza so there wasn't much active use of the booth. I worked there for a bit part time and very occasionally they would take one of the those lanes and turn off the EZ Pass and make it a regular pay lane. Back in those days is was not uncommon for the traffic to be locked up for 2-3 miles waiting to pay the toll.
You can see the old style double sided booths in the Exit 3 picture posted earlier by roadman65: https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
I wonder if there was some thought about the ability to move the point where the toll lanes switch between inbound and outbound traffic. For example at Exit 3, there are three double-sided booths farthest from the building. Even if there was a need for many more inbound lanes, you would still need some outbound paying lanes.
Before the ticket machines, some of those lanes had to be operated by one person both ways. I did a tour up at Exit 2 and there were only 2 people scheduled there. So when one was on break, the other had to run both directions. There were 2 toll terminals inside the booth and you worked both directions.
Are their any interchanges where there are different toll plazas for each direction, or does every entrance and exit go through the same exact set of lanes?
Exit 13A-Liberty Airport, sort of.
Are their any interchanges where there are different toll plazas for each direction, or does every entrance and exit go through the same exact set of lanes?
Exit 13A-Liberty Airport, sort of.
So would there be a way for them to know if you got off in the same direction you got, after a U-turn?
Are their any interchanges where there are different toll plazas for each direction, or does every entrance and exit go through the same exact set of lanes?If 13A gets "sorta" counted so does 1 (the SB mainline plaza) which is divided by Express E-ZPass, and you could make the same case for other Express locations.
Correct, NJ Turnpike did have right side toll lanes. I remember the original Exit 1 plaza had them going through on family vacations when we paid our tolls there.
Thankfully when EZ Pass came along they had the EZ Pass Lanes in those right side toll booths at the old Exit 1 plaza so there wasn't much active use of the booth. I worked there for a bit part time and very occasionally they would take one of the those lanes and turn off the EZ Pass and make it a regular pay lane. Back in those days is was not uncommon for the traffic to be locked up for 2-3 miles waiting to pay the toll.
You can see the old style double sided booths in the Exit 3 picture posted earlier by roadman65: https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
I wonder if there was some thought about the ability to move the point where the toll lanes switch between inbound and outbound traffic. For example at Exit 3, there are three double-sided booths farthest from the building. Even if there was a need for many more inbound lanes, you would still need some outbound paying lanes.
Before the ticket machines, some of those lanes had to be operated by one person both ways. I did a tour up at Exit 2 and there were only 2 people scheduled there. So when one was on break, the other had to run both directions. There were 2 toll terminals inside the booth and you worked both directions.
When did you work the Turnpike? I was there from 2001-2004. Since you mentioned it, I recall maybe once or twice at Interchange 1 when they switched lane 5 from a Northbound entering lane to a Southbound exiting lane. Sundays were always the worst...upwards of 10 mile backups some days...namely all summer long, and around certain holidays, with Thanksgiving being the worst.
Interchange 3, the person in the left most exit lane would also have to hand tickets out to truckers entering the Turnpike in the left-most entering lane. Or to car drivers that sped past the ticket machine. Sometimes if I could tell there was no one behind them, I motioned for them to back up to the ticket machine. I'm trying to think if they ever had to reverse direction of one of the lanes there, which would've been for construction purposes. I can't think of an occasion myself, at least when I worked there.
They now have posts installed at Interchange 3 rather than cones to keep traffic on their proper side.
Even before working there, you could hear on weekends there were 10 mile delays waiting for Interchange 1. Sometimes they would even close the Turnpike at Route 73 (Interchange 4) and have the traffic head to Route 295 to continue south to try and let the delays further south ease out some.
Didn’t Exit 7 have long queues before the 1989 relocation of the ramps?
If I remember the relocation of the Exit 7 turnpike side trumpet was moved a half mile to the north along with a new plaza and a curve into the 206 side trumpet. I know it was for a good reason at the time, but that was close to 44 years ago where I can’t remember the exact motivation now.
Yeah, I know it’s off topic from Exit 1, but I’m curious to know what that reason is being over forty years ago you remembered that, but now four decades later it becomes more than a memory.
typo. Yes 33 not 43. Then I looked at the 43 and continued with it nor realizing when I wrote four decades.Didn’t Exit 7 have long queues before the 1989 relocation of the ramps?
If I remember the relocation of the Exit 7 turnpike side trumpet was moved a half mile to the north along with a new plaza and a curve into the 206 side trumpet. I know it was for a good reason at the time, but that was close to 44 years ago where I can’t remember the exact motivation now.
Yeah, I know it’s off topic from Exit 1, but I’m curious to know what that reason is being over forty years ago you remembered that, but now four decades later it becomes more than a memory.
1989 was only 33 years ago. But otherwise, yes.
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/12/nj-turnpike-agrees-to-pay-billions-to-help-fund-the-gateway-tunnel.html
Looks like the NJTA might help fund the needed Gateway Tunnel.
For those wondering why the Exit 1-4 widening is needed, it seems that every time I get on at Exit 4 northbound, there is a backup southbound at the lane drop. This has been happening more frequently, but it really wasn't an issue until the 6-9 widening was completed.100% agree.
So the potential coming of AET on the Turnpike in the next decade has me thinking about Exit 14... (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Newark+Toll+Plaza/@40.708588,-74.1579324,16.86z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c2535c91d6790d:0x39a8e793ae3bb945!8m2!3d40.7085693!4d-74.1562507)
78 and all ramps to and from the Turnpike, 1and9, and local streets converge briefly through the toll plaza then immediately diverge on their separate ways again. How the heck is it going to be possible to make this stretch of road workable without the toll plaza there to (de facto) meter traffic?
The Exit 11 plaza is more challenging to eliminate weaving as going from the Parkway to the Turnpike you have three on ramps into the plaza where you have two split after.
Exiting Exit 11 you have three ramps ( remember the Exit 11 NB truck lanes provides the third) into the plaza and split into two beyond.
Exiting Exit 11 you have three ramps (remember the Exit 11 NB truck lanes provides the third) into the plaza and split into two beyond.If there were some way of channeling the trucks from the NJTP truck lanes directly to the US-9 exit, as that's the only route they may take from Exit 11. But of course, the lanes are for "Cars-Trucks-Buses", so the passenger cars (and buses) would need a chance to get to the Parkway.
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/12/nj-turnpike-agrees-to-pay-billions-to-help-fund-the-gateway-tunnel.html
Looks like the NJTA might help fund the needed Gateway Tunnel.
Here comes another big toll hike...
Wrong authority...https://www.nj.com/news/2022/12/nj-turnpike-agrees-to-pay-billions-to-help-fund-the-gateway-tunnel.html
Looks like the NJTA might help fund the needed Gateway Tunnel.
Here comes another big toll hike...
The crossings are now all $17 too. The extortion will never end.
All this talk about the Exit 1-4 widening, what about the western spur widening?? It's been ignored for years it seems.Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.
Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.
Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
What's shouldering?Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
Shoulding is "The cognitive distortion of making statements of what should be true, as opposed to reality."What's shouldering?Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
Does the NJTA now own the former Emerada Hess Building in Woodbridge?
The Thomas Edison Service Area is now open again, but that other one (forgot which one) has still been closed for almost a year now.
Does the NJTA now own the former Emerada Hess Building in Woodbridge?
Per this article from 2015 on nj.com (https://www.nj.com/traffic/2015/11/turnpike_authority_moving_offices_to_former_hess_building.html), they signed a 15 year lease with an option to buy the building. I haven't ever heard further that they've decided to buy it, but they still have a number of years before they have to make that decision.
Does the NJTA now own the former Emerada Hess Building in Woodbridge?
Per this article from 2015 on nj.com (https://www.nj.com/traffic/2015/11/turnpike_authority_moving_offices_to_former_hess_building.html), they signed a 15 year lease with an option to buy the building. I haven't ever heard further that they've decided to buy it, but they still have a number of years before they have to make that decision.
So they closed the building on Route 184 which had been the Parkway’s Executive Offices for years? Ditto for the New Brunswick Turnpike building.
Does the NJTA now own the former Emerada Hess Building in Woodbridge?
Per this article from 2015 on nj.com (https://www.nj.com/traffic/2015/11/turnpike_authority_moving_offices_to_former_hess_building.html), they signed a 15 year lease with an option to buy the building. I haven't ever heard further that they've decided to buy it, but they still have a number of years before they have to make that decision.
So they closed the building on Route 184 which had been the Parkway’s Executive Offices for years? Ditto for the New Brunswick Turnpike building.
The turned the old NJHA headquarters into the Statewide Traffic Management Center a number of years ago. Likewise, they moved out of the old headquarters at Exit 9 years ago. They were renting space in Woodbridge on Main Street for a while before they moved to the old Hess building.
TPK Grade Separated U-Turns, MP 6.4 - 46.1What is that, and where is the access from the car truck?
go up a ramp, cross over the Turnpike, come down the ramp going the other way. used by employees and police, as it's far safer than pulling a U-turn via a median cut.QuoteTPK Grade Separated U-Turns, MP 6.4 - 46.1What is that,
and where is the access from the car truck?not sure what you're asking.
QuoteTPK Grade Separated U-Turns, MP 6.4 - 46.1What is that, and where is the access from the car truck?
Could I save money on the Turnpike when joyriding, by using those U turn ramps? Or will they realize that I am literally getting off at the same exit I got on, or only went 1 exit in 2 hours?
Could I save money on the Turnpike when joyriding, by using those U turn ramps? Or will they realize that I am literally getting off at the same exit I got on, or only went 1 exit in 2 hours?
If you make a u-turn and exited where you entered, you'll be charged the maximum fare to that exit.
If you got on one exit and off the next 2 hours later, they won't care. The machines only show your toll due. They don't show the length of time you were on the highway.
Better than the maximum fare both ways though! One guy was nice, there was an issue a couple times with machines being out of tickets and I was unable to back up to go to another booth, and the guy down at exit 4, just asked "where did you start" instead of charging the maximum. I was actually honest and tolled him "13", because I was just so relieved I wouldn't have to pay from the GWB when I didn't enter there! Plus with my NY plate, it would be suspicious to say anything south of I-287. But I bet merging from those U turn roads is extra dangerous, given how traffic is going over 90 mph so often and there isn't much a ramp from them, so maybe screw it, I won't ever attempt that.
Yeah I think we did discuss this. I forgot exactly what was said the first time you're right. I think even the toll plazas themselves there's no way to tell what direction you've entered them from.
But the exit plaza they don't know what direction you are approaching it from. You choose the direction you want to go after the toll booths, so they wouldn't be able to tell if you are coming from the same or opposite direction as the one you entered on.
The old Turnpike Headquarters before they moved to Woodbridge.
The authority plans to add two lanes in each direction on the 36.5 miles between Exit 1 and Exit 4 at Route 73 in Mount Laurel. Engineering work for the areas around Exits 2 and 3 is scheduled to begin in 2024, with construction there getting underway in 2028, officials said.
QuoteThe authority plans to add two lanes in each direction on the 36.5 miles between Exit 1 and Exit 4 at Route 73 in Mount Laurel. Engineering work for the areas around Exits 2 and 3 is scheduled to begin in 2024, with construction there getting underway in 2028, officials said.
Don’t tell someone :wow:
The typical news getting minor details (although I’d argue 6 vs. 8 lanes is a big difference) wrong aside, the overall premise of the article is they would like Turnpike Authority to construct a new interchange / direct link at NJ-42 / I-76, to divert thru traffic away from the current Exit 3.
QuoteThe authority plans to add two lanes in each direction on the 36.5 miles between Exit 1 and Exit 4 at Route 73 in Mount Laurel. Engineering work for the areas around Exits 2 and 3 is scheduled to begin in 2024, with construction there getting underway in 2028, officials said.
Don’t tell someone :wow:
The typical news getting minor details (although I’d argue 6 vs. 8 lanes is a big difference) wrong aside, the overall premise of the article is they would like Turnpike Authority to construct a new interchange / direct link at NJ-42 / I-76, to divert thru traffic away from the current Exit 3.
Wouldn't we all like that...
I’ve always wondered why there was never an interchange between the Turnpike and NJ-42. Kind of like there not being an interchange between I-95 and the PA Turnpike until 2018.
Even looking at closely spaced exits now, such as Exits 10 and 11, Exit 10 was originally where Exit 11 is now, and didn't connect to the Garden State Parkway, which didn't exist at the time.Interesting... where was the original exit 11?
Even looking at closely spaced exits now, such as Exits 10 and 11, Exit 10 was originally where Exit 11 is now, and didn't connect to the Garden State Parkway, which didn't exist at the time.Interesting... where was the original exit 11?
Even looking at closely spaced exits now, such as Exits 10 and 11, Exit 10 was originally where Exit 11 is now, and didn't connect to the Garden State Parkway, which didn't exist at the time.Interesting... where was the original exit 11?
I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.
Interesting counterpoint J&N. So you're saying the reason PTC didn't build an I-95 interchange was because they felt the existing routes (US 1 and US 13) were adequate for making that connection.
So did PTC fund the interchange with I-76 west of Philadelphia? If they did, then yes that blows away my theory.
I keep hearing this excuse from Pennsylvania and New Jersey that toll roads could not be connected to free Interstates. But yet New York State had no trouble building interchanges between the NY Thruway and various free Interstates.See how I-87 and I-84 didn't have a direct connection until a few years ago...
I think the real issue was that Federal funding couldn't be used for such interchanges, but they could be built by the toll authorities using their own funding which is probably what New York did. I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.
All of PA is odd...they didn't make connections with the Turnpike at most points, and still don't in some cases, but others they did, such as I-176 towards Reading.
Not sure how the whole history of I-76 came about. While many focus on wanting 76 going thru Philly because of the significance of history, which is false, a lot less is made of why it didn't just continue on its east-west track into NJ, and the Schuykill Expressway simply be an x76.
And not sure about the funding of such.
All of PA is odd...they didn't make connections with the Turnpike at most points, and still don't in some cases, but others they did, such as I-176 towards Reading.
....
All of PA is odd...they didn't make connections with the Turnpike at most points, and still don't in some cases, but others they did, such as I-176 towards Reading.
....
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't I-176 disconnected from the Turnpike until sometime in the 1990s?
All of PA is odd...they didn't make connections with the Turnpike at most points, and still don't in some cases, but others they did, such as I-176 towards Reading.
Not sure how the whole history of I-76 came about. While many focus on wanting 76 going thru Philly because of the significance of history, which is false, a lot less is made of why it didn't just continue on its east-west track into NJ, and the Schuykill Expressway simply be an x76.
And not sure about the funding of such.
https://goo.gl/maps/4zEErXo9kibLRFRA6
What’s with the sign entering the Turnpike from Exit 5? Those poles are too high above the sign, plus when does NJTA use wooden posts?
Local officials want improvements for Exit 3 with the Turnpike widening: https://www.inquirer.com/transportation/new-jersey-turnpike-exit-3-bellmawr-runnemede-haddon-20230309.html
I think the real issue was that Federal funding couldn't be used for such interchanges, but they could be built by the toll authorities using their own funding which is probably what New York did. I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.
I think the real issue was that Federal funding couldn't be used for such interchanges, but they could be built by the toll authorities using their own funding which is probably what New York did. I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.
The NJTP has no direct connection to I-76/NJ-42/ACE (I count these as the same road because I've long thought the I-76 designation ought to extend down the ACE to Atlantic City), but it does have direct connections to I-195 (7A), I-287 (10), I-278 (13), I-78(14), and I-280 (15W). I think this was more about not wanting drivers to take the parallel and toll-free I-295 through south Jersey (recall I-195 and I-295 did not have a direct connection between them until a few years ago).
The whole "no direct connection between the PA Turnpike andI-95/I-176/I-81/I-70/etc" thing appears to be uniquely a PTC thing. Not sure why there are direct connections to I-83, I-283, and I-76 though.
(Also, I haven't been up that way in YEARS, but IIRC the NY Thruway does not have a direct connection to I-84. I'd argue that the I-87/I-90 split up by Albany isn't REALLY a direct connection either, but you don't have to use surface streets.)
I think the real issue was that Federal funding couldn't be used for such interchanges, but they could be built by the toll authorities using their own funding which is probably what New York did. I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.
The NJTP has no direct connection to I-76/NJ-42/ACE (I count these as the same road because I've long thought the I-76 designation ought to extend down the ACE to Atlantic City), but it does have direct connections to I-195 (7A), I-287 (10), I-278 (13), I-78(14), and I-280 (15W). I think this was more about not wanting drivers to take the parallel and toll-free I-295 through south Jersey (recall I-195 and I-295 did not have a direct connection between them until a few years ago).
The whole "no direct connection between the PA Turnpike andI-95/I-176/I-81/I-70/etc" thing appears to be uniquely a PTC thing. Not sure why there are direct connections to I-83, I-283, and I-76 though.
(Also, I haven't been up that way in YEARS, but IIRC the NY Thruway does not have a direct connection to I-84. I'd argue that the I-87/I-90 split up by Albany isn't REALLY a direct connection either, but you don't have to use surface streets.)
NYSTA improved the connections to 84 some years ago, so it's better than it used to be. PTC wouldn't do it because they would have had to foot the costs of the builds thanks to federal law, so they were content for all connections to be indirect. NJTA built their interchanges in the 50s, and 295 came later and NJTA saw no real need to change things.
I think this was more about not wanting drivers to take the parallel and toll-free I-295 through south Jersey (recall I-195 and I-295 did not have a direct connection between them until a few years ago).
(Also, I haven't been up that way in YEARS, but IIRC the NY Thruway does not have a direct connection to I-84)
Now there is a direct connection. I don't understand why I-87/I-90 is so weird though.
I-87 NB to Free I-90 east and through I-87 to the Northway transition is a substandard ramp. The extension of the Northway to US 20 should be extended into ramps to the Thruway south of US 20 and the Thruway crossing and become seam less I-87.
An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements:If you want fewer single-vehicle trips on the Turnpike, then build a HSR line. I don't know what to tell you.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/
Years ago, NJDOT did have TO RT. 42 circles on I-295 north where it exited I-76 and another one at NJ 168. So it once was marked at least one way.I'm not as familiar with I-295 as I was with NJ 42.
An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements (not mine):
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/
Years ago, NJDOT did have TO RT. 42 circles on I-295 north where it exited I-76 and another one at NJ 168. So it once was marked at least one way.I'm not as familiar with I-295 as I was with NJ 42.
The routing was that exit 1C on I-76 was signed as TO I-295 and NJ 42.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8802111,-75.1028447,3a,75y,356.8h,98.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9GXN3nWx_O0LlLjC8V6hMQ!2e0!5s20121101T000000!7i13312!8i6656
So the NJ 42 north to I-295 south movement was go past I-295 then U turn at exit 1C and then exit at I-295 south. Of course after they closed the right side exit to I-295 south then you had to get over 4 lanes in a mile to get to that exit. Or use US 130 as a go between.
An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements (not mine):
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:QuoteSince it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road. (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)
While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.
These people complain about highways but use highways. But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.From Streesblog's very first paragraph:QuoteSince it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road. (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)
While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.
These people complain about highways but use highways. But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
I suppose sometimes we wait too long and the added capacity doesn't match the level of development and demand that is already in place.This is hardly true in all scenarios.From Streesblog's very first paragraph:QuoteSince it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road. (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)
While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.
These people complain about highways but use highways. But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
Bingo.I suppose sometimes we wait too long and the added capacity doesn't match the level of development and demand that is already in place.This is hardly true in all scenarios.From Streesblog's very first paragraph:QuoteSince it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road. (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)
While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.
These people complain about highways but use highways. But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:I feel like this logic is a bit flawed. People do complain about highways, but they use them because they don't have any other option. If I wanted to get to work using just surface streets, I'd have to cross the Connecticut River at a bridge that is either 10 miles north or 10 miles south of Hartford. There is no commuter rail from my town to Hartford. NIMBYs will readily accept that they have to use cars to get around, and also believe we need better mass transit (which we do.).QuoteSince it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
These people complain about highways but use highways. But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
I agree. Driving to work is become a chore over a luxury it once was. Many people don’t have the option of mass transit. The Turnpike users are the same. Many are on it cause they have to and ongoing growth makes commuting even more dreadful each day.
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:I feel like this logic is a bit flawed. People do complain about highways, but they use them because they don't have any other option. If I wanted to get to work using just surface streets, I'd have to cross the Connecticut River at a bridge that is either 10 miles north or 10 miles south of Hartford. There is no commuter rail from my town to Hartford. NIMBYs will readily accept that they have to use cars to get around, and also believe we need better mass transit (which we do.).QuoteSince it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.
These people complain about highways but use highways. But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
I'll bet you there were plenty of people who complained when the elevated lines were built in Manhattan and the Bronx, but their benefit over the alternatives far outweighed the need to keep the street aesthetically pleasing.
Ultimately, you choose where you live. You choose where you work.
When I read local Facebook groups of people complaining about sprawl in their towns, they were part of the problem at one point. People living there before them were complaining about *them* moving in.
I think the real issue was that Federal funding couldn't be used for such interchanges, but they could be built by the toll authorities using their own funding which is probably what New York did. I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.
The NJTP has no direct connection to I-76/NJ-42/ACE (I count these as the same road because I've long thought the I-76 designation ought to extend down the ACE to Atlantic City), but it does have direct connections to I-195 (7A), I-287 (10), I-278 (13), I-78(14), and I-280 (15W). I think this was more about not wanting drivers to take the parallel and toll-free I-295 through south Jersey (recall I-195 and I-295 did not have a direct connection between them until a few years ago).
The whole "no direct connection between the PA Turnpike andI-95/I-176/I-81/I-70/etc" thing appears to be uniquely a PTC thing. Not sure why there are direct connections to I-83, I-283, and I-76 though.
(Also, I haven't been up that way in YEARS, but IIRC the NY Thruway does not have a direct connection to I-84. I'd argue that the I-87/I-90 split up by Albany isn't REALLY a direct connection either, but you don't have to use surface streets.)
NYSTA improved the connections to 84 some years ago, so it's better than it used to be. PTC wouldn't do it because they would have had to foot the costs of the builds thanks to federal law, so they were content for all connections to be indirect. NJTA built their interchanges in the 50s, and 295 came later and NJTA saw no real need to change things.
Ohio too. There was no I-80/90 connection to I-75 for years. Ditto for I-77 too. Then they finally connected both to their Turnpike.
IL, kind of with I-294 to I-57. For years no connection, but now a partial one anyway.
Officially, when I-71 was completed in the late 60s in Cleveland, it immediately had a direct connection to the Turnpike via a new Exit 10 toll plaza. What may have warranted that was because there was a temporary or a "TO I-90 West" routing from downtown Cleveland via I-71, and was signed as such until I-90 was completed west of Cleveland in the late 70s/early 80s.
Officially, when I-71 was completed in the late 60s in Cleveland, it immediately had a direct connection to the Turnpike via a new Exit 10 toll plaza. What may have warranted that was because there was a temporary or a "TO I-90 West" routing from downtown Cleveland via I-71, and was signed as such until I-90 was completed west of Cleveland in the late 70s/early 80s.
Does the Ohio Turnpike still call exits "Gates?" I distinctly remember using "Gate 10" to get to my grandparents' house in the Cleveland area (during the late 1980s and early-to-mid-1990s I think?) but I haven't been on the Ohio Turnpike since at least 2009. I thought this was weird since everywhere else, including on toll roads, they were called "exits."
Does the Ohio Turnpike still call exits "Gates?"In the mid-70s, at the US-20 interchange with the OH Turnpike in Maumee, I remember an advance LGS (not sure of the color, actually) reading
Officially, when I-71 was completed in the late 60s in Cleveland, it immediately had a direct connection to the Turnpike via a new Exit 10 toll plaza.
Now back to the NJTP... I don't have time to search the thread, but has anybody ever read Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike by Michael Rockland and Angus Gillespie? One factoid from that book I found intriguing is that photography on the Turnpike is prohibited and that one fellow from Virginia's Tidewater was arrested (IIRC he was acquitted) for photographing an accident that he narrowly avoided being in, but he felt he needed evidence for insurance purposes.
The book (which came out in 1989 IIRC) fails to say why the no photos regulation was adopted (anybody on AARoads know?) or how long it's been on the books.
To insure the health, safety, and welfare of motorists, the general public, and the Authority, no person shall be permitted to park, stop, stand, or travel at a slow speed in violation of N.J.S.A. 27:23-27, for the purpose of taking photographs, videos, or motion pictures (collectively, "film") on the Roadway for any reason without a permit issued by the Authority in accordance with N.J.A.C. 19:9-5.6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, filming for solely personal use is allowed without a permit in those areas of the Roadway in which parking, stopping, or standing is otherwise permitted.
Now back to the NJTP... I don't have time to search the thread, but has anybody ever read Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike by Michael Rockland and Angus Gillespie? One factoid from that book I found intriguing is that photography on the Turnpike is prohibited and that one fellow from Virginia's Tidewater was arrested (IIRC he was acquitted) for photographing an accident that he narrowly avoided being in, but he felt he needed evidence for insurance purposes.
The book (which came out in 1989 IIRC) fails to say why the no photos regulation was adopted (anybody on AARoads know?) or how long it's been on the books.
Basically the usual safety boilerplate, and it appears the prohibition applies only to the actual carriageways. NJ Administrative Code §19.9-1.22 says:QuoteTo insure the health, safety, and welfare of motorists, the general public, and the Authority, no person shall be permitted to park, stop, stand, or travel at a slow speed in violation of N.J.S.A. 27:23-27, for the purpose of taking photographs, videos, or motion pictures (collectively, "film") on the Roadway for any reason without a permit issued by the Authority in accordance with N.J.A.C. 19:9-5.6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, filming for solely personal use is allowed without a permit in those areas of the Roadway in which parking, stopping, or standing is otherwise permitted.
I have the book and read it many years ago. Interesting read. I should dust it off and read it again.
But it does stand out as the first -- and only -- time I've noticed a highway exit number acknowledged at the entrance.
But it does stand out as the first -- and only -- time I've noticed a highway exit number acknowledged at the entrance.
One time I was called out for my photos, albeit with a bit of a sly "don't tell me you were driving" "Oh, of course not! Offff cooouuuurrrse..." and that was it (:Now back to the NJTP... I don't have time to search the thread, but has anybody ever read Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike by Michael Rockland and Angus Gillespie? One factoid from that book I found intriguing is that photography on the Turnpike is prohibited and that one fellow from Virginia's Tidewater was arrested (IIRC he was acquitted) for photographing an accident that he narrowly avoided being in, but he felt he needed evidence for insurance purposes.
The book (which came out in 1989 IIRC) fails to say why the no photos regulation was adopted (anybody on AARoads know?) or how long it's been on the books.
Basically the usual safety boilerplate, and it appears the prohibition applies only to the actual carriageways. NJ Administrative Code §19.9-1.22 says:QuoteTo insure the health, safety, and welfare of motorists, the general public, and the Authority, no person shall be permitted to park, stop, stand, or travel at a slow speed in violation of N.J.S.A. 27:23-27, for the purpose of taking photographs, videos, or motion pictures (collectively, "film") on the Roadway for any reason without a permit issued by the Authority in accordance with N.J.A.C. 19:9-5.6. Notwithstanding the foregoing, filming for solely personal use is allowed without a permit in those areas of the Roadway in which parking, stopping, or standing is otherwise permitted.
I have the book and read it many years ago. Interesting read. I should dust it off and read it again.
I guess I have to ask again since it keeps getting deleted(why), what is going on at exit 10?This is all I can find. https://www.njtat100523.com/
But, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
From that article:QuoteBut, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
That sentence seems like it’s missing something at the end. To what?
From that article:QuoteBut, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
That sentence seems like it’s missing something at the end. To what?
From that article:QuoteBut, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
That sentence seems like it’s missing something at the end. To what?
I think it was bad grammar and word usage.
"But the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is also in for a less controversial, less publicized widening." would have been better.
And it has been publicized and commented on. Even by the Sierra Club, which overall basically gave as much of a blessing as they're going to give towards a highway widening project.
As for the article, I'm not sure what they mean by a Route 45 median...it's about 8 feet wide.I believe this is referring to simply the fact Route 45 is median-divided and multi-lane and has the capacity for an additional interchange.
As for the article, I'm not sure what they mean by a Route 45 median...it's about 8 feet wide.I believe this is referring to simply the fact Route 45 is median-divided and multi-lane and has the capacity for an additional interchange.
From that article:QuoteBut, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
That sentence seems like it’s missing something at the end. To what?
I think it was bad grammar and word usage.
"But the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is also in for a less controversial, less publicized widening." would have been better.
And it has been publicized and commented on. Even by the Sierra Club, which overall basically gave as much of a blessing as they're going to give towards a highway widening project.
I think that’s their north Jersey bias showing up, as far the “less publicized” comment goes…
At least one municipality in South Jersey favors a direct connection between the NJTP and NJ-42/55, though not necessarily within its own borders.
https://woodbury.nj.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02102021-51
Given that neither the Turnpike nor NJ-42 go through Woodbury, I would not see why an interchange would be built there?At least one municipality in South Jersey favors a direct connection between the NJTP and NJ-42/55, though not necessarily within its own borders.
https://woodbury.nj.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02102021-51
NIMBYism at it's finest. "We need this thing, but it better not happen within our borders."
It looks like there may be enough space for an interchange between the NJT and NJ 42, although the NJ 42/55 interchange may need to be reconstructed. I would imagine that collector-distributor lanes may help distribute traffic through the area if such an interchange is ever built.I could show you, but I'd have to blind you first :|
It looks like there may be enough space for an interchange between the NJT and NJ 42, although the NJ 42/55 interchange may need to be reconstructed. I would imagine that collector-distributor lanes may help distribute traffic through the area if such an interchange is ever built.I could show you, but I'd have to blind you first :|
As for the article, I'm not sure what they mean by a Route 45 median...it's about 8 feet wide.I believe this is referring to simply the fact Route 45 is median-divided and multi-lane and has the capacity for an additional interchange.
Of course, looking at it from an aerial view...how could they even fit an interchange anywhere in the area anyway? https://goo.gl/maps/w7EuZeDxeM32XcT38 The clear land to the west of where the Turnpike and 45 intersect is Green Acres land, and is all-but-off limits to any sort of development, which would include an interchange project. The wetlands around where the Turnpike, 42 and 55 intersect is easier to build on than protected/preserved Green Acres land in NJ.
Not that the area wouldn't be a bad place to host an interchange, directly between Interchanges 2 and 3, but I don't sense the area really has any desire to have an interchange nearby, and it certainly isn't a topic of conversation around here.From that article:QuoteBut, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
That sentence seems like it’s missing something at the end. To what?
I think it was bad grammar and word usage.
"But the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is also in for a less controversial, less publicized widening." would have been better.
And it has been publicized and commented on. Even by the Sierra Club, which overall basically gave as much of a blessing as they're going to give towards a highway widening project.
I think that’s their north Jersey bias showing up, as far the “less publicized” comment goes…
Based on their Facebook page post, which received no likes and no comments, and another story on nj.com's Facebook page a few weeks ago which garnished no likes and no comments, they're not going to stir up any controversy and are just going to have to let this one go.
As for the article, I'm not sure what they mean by a Route 45 median...it's about 8 feet wide.I believe this is referring to simply the fact Route 45 is median-divided and multi-lane and has the capacity for an additional interchange.
Of course, looking at it from an aerial view...how could they even fit an interchange anywhere in the area anyway? https://goo.gl/maps/w7EuZeDxeM32XcT38 The clear land to the west of where the Turnpike and 45 intersect is Green Acres land, and is all-but-off limits to any sort of development, which would include an interchange project. The wetlands around where the Turnpike, 42 and 55 intersect is easier to build on than protected/preserved Green Acres land in NJ.
Not that the area wouldn't be a bad place to host an interchange, directly between Interchanges 2 and 3, but I don't sense the area really has any desire to have an interchange nearby, and it certainly isn't a topic of conversation around here.From that article:QuoteBut, the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is in for a less controversial, less publicized widening, to.
That sentence seems like it’s missing something at the end. To what?
I think it was bad grammar and word usage.
"But the southern end of the toll road, where usage has been increasing, is also in for a less controversial, less publicized widening." would have been better.
And it has been publicized and commented on. Even by the Sierra Club, which overall basically gave as much of a blessing as they're going to give towards a highway widening project.
I think that’s their north Jersey bias showing up, as far the “less publicized” comment goes…
Based on their Facebook page post, which received no likes and no comments, and another story on nj.com's Facebook page a few weeks ago which garnished no likes and no comments, they're not going to stir up any controversy and are just going to have to let this one go.
If space is tight you could have exit 3 be a double exit with new access to NJ-42.
^^^^You mean Philly as a pull through control over Camden?
It’s now been a SB control point on the Parkway in Woodbridge also. However post Plaza is still Trenton.
https://goo.gl/maps/XfqYpXRiKjCAaLa69
https://goo.gl/maps/f32tPX6WGHePdGeo9
Any clue about what this blank left exit tab (Left Exit 69 going to be signed?) and blank space left of the I-80 shield is going to be for on the Western Spur heading northbound at the I-95/I-80 interchange? These electronic signs were up and active on my 12 Feb 2023 trip to NJIT. As of that date... those tabs don't appear on the Eastern Spur, however, the Eastern Spur got digital APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/q73rw83/IMG-5731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLJmvNJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPkXDJB/IMG-5733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH7QBTX)
Any clue about what this blank left exit tab (Left Exit 69 going to be signed?) and blank space left of the I-80 shield is going to be for on the Western Spur heading northbound at the I-95/I-80 interchange? These electronic signs were up and active on my 12 Feb 2023 trip to NJIT. As of that date... those tabs don't appear on the Eastern Spur, however, the Eastern Spur got digital APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/q73rw83/IMG-5731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLJmvNJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPkXDJB/IMG-5733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH7QBTX)
I'm surprised they only "digitized" the lower portion of those signs and yet still used the old-school.nrotating boxes just above them.
You would think they would've made that LED as well so they weren't restricted to only 3 or 4 different lines of information. What were they thinking???
Any clue about what this blank left exit tab (Left Exit 69 going to be signed?) and blank space left of the I-80 shield is going to be for on the Western Spur heading northbound at the I-95/I-80 interchange? These electronic signs were up and active on my 12 Feb 2023 trip to NJIT. As of that date... those tabs don't appear on the Eastern Spur, however, the Eastern Spur got digital APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/q73rw83/IMG-5731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLJmvNJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPkXDJB/IMG-5733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH7QBTX)
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Why is that absurd?
It makes sense now because um there's a US 46 exit right there and they want to make sure people using that exit are going the right way...^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Why is that absurd?
It made sense when the turnpike was first built, but these days, its not that important. Its legacy signing which could easily go away and no one would notice.
It makes sense now because um there's a US 46 exit right there and they want to make sure people using that exit are going the right way...^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Why is that absurd?
It made sense when the turnpike was first built, but these days, its not that important. Its legacy signing which could easily go away and no one would notice.
It makes sense now because um there's a US 46 exit right there and they want to make sure people using that exit are going the right way...^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Why is that absurd?
It made sense when the turnpike was first built, but these days, its not that important. Its legacy signing which could easily go away and no one would notice.
I think the 80 on the other sign is sufficient in that regard, honestly. Typically there'd be a third panel which said something like "46 exit right half mile" or something like that.
That hardly makes the current signage absurd.It makes sense now because um there's a US 46 exit right there and they want to make sure people using that exit are going the right way...^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Why is that absurd?
It made sense when the turnpike was first built, but these days, its not that important. Its legacy signing which could easily go away and no one would notice.
I think the 80 on the other sign is sufficient in that regard, honestly. Typically there'd be a third panel which said something like "46 exit right half mile" or something like that.
That hardly makes the current signage absurd.It makes sense now because um there's a US 46 exit right there and they want to make sure people using that exit are going the right way...^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Why is that absurd?
It made sense when the turnpike was first built, but these days, its not that important. Its legacy signing which could easily go away and no one would notice.
I think the 80 on the other sign is sufficient in that regard, honestly. Typically there'd be a third panel which said something like "46 exit right half mile" or something like that.
The "Jct US 46" verbiage strikes me as a holdover from when the Turnpike ended at US 46. Since I-95 has been built to the north and NJTA took it over, IMO it's no longer appropriate. I can see "To US 46" if there's concern that people might take the ramp to I-80 expecting that both it and the mainline will take them there, but I would think signing that ramp as an exit would address that as well.
Any clue about what this blank left exit tab (Left Exit 69 going to be signed?) and blank space left of the I-80 shield is going to be for on the Western Spur heading northbound at the I-95/I-80 interchange? These electronic signs were up and active on my 12 Feb 2023 trip to NJIT. As of that date... those tabs don't appear on the Eastern Spur, however, the Eastern Spur got digital APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/q73rw83/IMG-5731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLJmvNJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPkXDJB/IMG-5733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH7QBTX)
Any clue about what this blank left exit tab (Left Exit 69 going to be signed?) and blank space left of the I-80 shield is going to be for on the Western Spur heading northbound at the I-95/I-80 interchange? These electronic signs were up and active on my 12 Feb 2023 trip to NJIT. As of that date... those tabs don't appear on the Eastern Spur, however, the Eastern Spur got digital APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/q73rw83/IMG-5731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLJmvNJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPkXDJB/IMG-5733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH7QBTX)
I'm surprised they only "digitized" the lower portion of those signs and yet still used the old-school.nrotating boxes just above them.
You would think they would've made that LED as well so they weren't restricted to only 3 or 4 different lines of information. What were they thinking???
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
The Turnpike’s interchange with 46 is frustratingly unnumbered. Also, what they call the Northern Mixing Bowl could not provide for the customary 2/1/Half mile advance sequence signing for an unnumbered interchange. So I think it’s “JCT 46” like go this way we’ll get you there.
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
The Turnpike’s interchange with 46 is frustratingly unnumbered. Also, what they call the Northern Mixing Bowl could not provide for the customary 2/1/Half mile advance sequence signing for an unnumbered interchange. So I think it’s “JCT 46” like go this way we’ll get you there.
As I mentioned the use of jct 46 is just legacy signage in need of an update, the lack of a number is also a legacy from when the turnpike ended there. It still never got a number even after the 95 connection, even tho NJDOT gave it a number on their approach (68). This would be an easy remedy but almost comically, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon, if ever, despite the NJTA keeping NJDOTs numbers on their section.
Truthfully, the whole numbering on at least the 95 portion of the turnpike needs an overhaul, and if it was up to NJDOT, I think it would happen. But, it’s up to the NJTA.
Maybe, just maybe, things change after it goes all electronic. If we’re really lucky.
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
The Turnpike’s interchange with 46 is frustratingly unnumbered. Also, what they call the Northern Mixing Bowl could not provide for the customary 2/1/Half mile advance sequence signing for an unnumbered interchange. So I think it’s “JCT 46” like go this way we’ll get you there.
As I mentioned the use of jct 46 is just legacy signage in need of an update, the lack of a number is also a legacy from when the turnpike ended there. It still never got a number even after the 95 connection, even tho NJDOT gave it a number on their approach (68). This would be an easy remedy but almost comically, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon, if ever, despite the NJTA keeping NJDOTs numbers on their section.
Truthfully, the whole numbering on at least the 95 portion of the turnpike needs an overhaul, and if it was up to NJDOT, I think it would happen. But, it’s up to the NJTA.
Maybe, just maybe, things change after it goes all electronic. If we’re really lucky.
IIRC, Exit 68 is following I-80’s exit numbering.
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
The Turnpike’s interchange with 46 is frustratingly unnumbered. Also, what they call the Northern Mixing Bowl could not provide for the customary 2/1/Half mile advance sequence signing for an unnumbered interchange. So I think it’s “JCT 46” like go this way we’ll get you there.
As I mentioned the use of jct 46 is just legacy signage in need of an update, the lack of a number is also a legacy from when the turnpike ended there. It still never got a number even after the 95 connection, even tho NJDOT gave it a number on their approach (68). This would be an easy remedy but almost comically, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon, if ever, despite the NJTA keeping NJDOTs numbers on their section.
Truthfully, the whole numbering on at least the 95 portion of the turnpike needs an overhaul, and if it was up to NJDOT, I think it would happen. But, it’s up to the NJTA.
Maybe, just maybe, things change after it goes all electronic. If we’re really lucky.
IIRC, Exit 68 is following I-80’s exit numbering.
No.
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
The Turnpike’s interchange with 46 is frustratingly unnumbered. Also, what they call the Northern Mixing Bowl could not provide for the customary 2/1/Half mile advance sequence signing for an unnumbered interchange. So I think it’s “JCT 46” like go this way we’ll get you there.
As I mentioned the use of jct 46 is just legacy signage in need of an update, the lack of a number is also a legacy from when the turnpike ended there. It still never got a number even after the 95 connection, even tho NJDOT gave it a number on their approach (68). This would be an easy remedy but almost comically, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon, if ever, despite the NJTA keeping NJDOTs numbers on their section.
Truthfully, the whole numbering on at least the 95 portion of the turnpike needs an overhaul, and if it was up to NJDOT, I think it would happen. But, it’s up to the NJTA.
Maybe, just maybe, things change after it goes all electronic. If we’re really lucky.
IIRC, Exit 68 is following I-80’s exit numbering.
No.
Right, I forgot where I-95 now begins.
Someone said above that the JCT-46 posting on the signs without an exit number is a legacy of the original Turnpike ending there. The end of the Turnpike at Rt. 46 actually was Exit-18 until the later years when the Western Leg and the "missing mile" were built with all the reconfiguration of that area.
I don't think it's that close. Measuring on Google Maps from the PA border (the middle of the Delaware River), US 46 is around mile 72. The exit number is 68.^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
The Turnpike’s interchange with 46 is frustratingly unnumbered. Also, what they call the Northern Mixing Bowl could not provide for the customary 2/1/Half mile advance sequence signing for an unnumbered interchange. So I think it’s “JCT 46” like go this way we’ll get you there.
As I mentioned the use of jct 46 is just legacy signage in need of an update, the lack of a number is also a legacy from when the turnpike ended there. It still never got a number even after the 95 connection, even tho NJDOT gave it a number on their approach (68). This would be an easy remedy but almost comically, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon, if ever, despite the NJTA keeping NJDOTs numbers on their section.
Truthfully, the whole numbering on at least the 95 portion of the turnpike needs an overhaul, and if it was up to NJDOT, I think it would happen. But, it’s up to the NJTA.
Maybe, just maybe, things change after it goes all electronic. If we’re really lucky.
IIRC, Exit 68 is following I-80’s exit numbering.
No.
Right, I forgot where I-95 now begins.
Not even that. The exit numbers were put in place back when the Turnpike took ownership of that segment of 95 during a previous Governor's administration in the 1990s. It's based on the original routing of 95 in New Jersey.
With the current routing, the exit numbering will happen to be very similar to the planned mileage markers of the original routing of 95 in that area, give or take a mile. It's so close that if the Turnpike did convert to mile-based numbering, they may not even bother tweaking it (in my opinion).
I don't think it's that close. Measuring on Google Maps from the PA border (the middle of the Delaware River), US 46 is around mile 72. The exit number is 68.
If the New Jersey Turnpike's (and untolled 95's) exit numbers are ever renumbered, such as to mileage-based, I think untolled 95's exit numbers should be a continuation of the NJT's exit numbers, which should start at its southern terminus at Interstate 295. If I'm not mistaken, the untolled segment's mileposts are a continuation of the NJT's mileage.
I don't think it's that close. Measuring on Google Maps from the PA border (the middle of the Delaware River), US 46 is around mile 72. The exit number is 68.
The SLD agrees with you, its more like a 4 mile difference... 68 would be 72, 69 would be 73, 70 would be 74, 71 would be 75, 72 would be 76, 73 and 74 would be 77.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000095__-.pdf
Someone said above that the JCT-46 posting on the signs without an exit number is a legacy of the original Turnpike ending there. The end of the Turnpike at Rt. 46 actually was Exit-18 until the later years when the Western Leg and the "missing mile" were built with all the reconfiguration of that area.
Actually, remember that the turnpike is a ticket system, so 18 was wherever the final plaza northbound was. This is the same as the other end where 1 is actually the final plaza southbound. Would have to look thru historic aerials to figure out where 18 was. Right now, it’s descendent, 18E, is at 16E.
Someone said above that the JCT-46 posting on the signs without an exit number is a legacy of the original Turnpike ending there. The end of the Turnpike at Rt. 46 actually was Exit-18 until the later years when the Western Leg and the "missing mile" were built with all the reconfiguration of that area.
Actually, remember that the turnpike is a ticket system, so 18 was wherever the final plaza northbound was. This is the same as the other end where 1 is actually the final plaza southbound. Would have to look thru historic aerials to figure out where 18 was. Right now, it’s descendent, 18E, is at 16E.
The original Exit-18 toll plaza was located right at the end of the Turnpike just short of the Route-46 interchange. That changed in 1964 when Exit-18 tolls were relocated to the new Exit-16E toll plaza at its current location.
The New York Thruway did the same with Exit 15, although with the former ticket system you had two Exit 15s. The actual signed exit for I-287 into New Jersey and the Woodbury Plaza were both Exit 15.
Indeed. The Thruway doesn't have the same obsession NJTA does and the MassPike historically did with basing exit numbers on toll barriers rather than interchanges. The ends of the ticket system simply used the number of the next exit beyond the plaza (which the Thruway could do because there always was one; the only state line toll point it ever had was at exit 15, and only because the interchange doesn't serve NY at all, instead directly interfacing with roads in NJ). Now it's even more pronounced with the former barrier names for the ends of the ticket system being dropped entirely with the AET conversion and all the fixed-price gantries except Harriman, Spring Valley, the GMCB, and Yonkers simply billing as a trip between whatever interchanges they're between.
For a completely opposite view, look at the Illinois Tollways where plaza numbers are in a somewhat haphazard order (and not related to the recent addition of exit numbers) and are really for toll accounting use only.ISTHA originally only issued odd numbers for toll plazas…enough new interchanges and toll points have been added that there are plenty of even numbered toll plazas now in IL
For a completely opposite view, look at the Illinois Tollways where plaza numbers are in a somewhat haphazard order (and not related to the recent addition of exit numbers) and are really for toll accounting use only.ISTHA originally only issued odd numbers for toll plazas…enough new interchanges and toll points have been added that there are plenty of even numbered toll plazas now in IL
ISTHA was forward-thinking, allowing numbering space for future changes/additions
If the New Jersey Turnpike's (and untolled 95's) exit numbers are ever renumbered, such as to mileage-based, I think untolled 95's exit numbers should be a continuation of the NJT's exit numbers, which should start at its southern terminus at Interstate 295. If I'm not mistaken, the untolled segment's mileposts are a continuation of the NJT's mileage.The factor here that I haven't seen brought up yet is that all of the Turnpike Authority's bridges are tagged by milepost. Everything along the mainline is the mile (to the nearest hundredth) as the starting characters. If you change exits to follow I-95, which would be the national standard, are you going to change all your bridges and all your historical identification gets confused? You could have two bridges with the same milepost! So I think the mileposts are never going to change from what they are now, but the exit numbers might, and THAT is gonna be an interesting question - do you follow I-95 with the exit numbers or match the mileposts??
For a completely opposite view, look at the Illinois Tollways where plaza numbers are in a somewhat haphazard order (and not related to the recent addition of exit numbers) and are really for toll accounting use only.ISTHA originally only issued odd numbers for toll plazas…enough new interchanges and toll points have been added that there are plenty of even numbered toll plazas now in IL
ISTHA was forward-thinking, allowing numbering space for future changes/additions
True but somewhere along the way, they have completely lost their way and turned it into a hot mess. It can cost you less to go one exit farther thanks to some of the things they've done. And added so many new toll plazas that the allowed space has long been exhausted.
The NJ turnpike has a similar situation where if you get on at 18E it’s more than three times more expensive to take exit 17 instead of going one exit farther to 15X. I actually take advantage of it sometimes if the traffic is light, taking 15X is like an 8 minute detour over 17 but worth saving a few bucks.
The NJ turnpike has a similar situation where if you get on at 18E it’s more than three times more expensive to take exit 17 instead of going one exit farther to 15X. I actually take advantage of it sometimes if the traffic is light, taking 15X is like an 8 minute detour over 17 but worth saving a few bucks.
This is an impossible route. Interchange 17 is a one way barrier toll with a fixed amount. You can't get on at 18E and exit at 17.
Also in 4938 forgot to address that traffic to Paterson Plank Road now has to pay the same rate as traveling north to US 46, so that’s another unfair toll to add to post 4938.
Also in 4938 forgot to address that traffic to Paterson Plank Road now has to pay the same rate as traveling north to US 46, so that’s another unfair toll to add to post 4938.
I’m sure the turnpike was well aware of what they were doing from the beginning of that toll plaza reconfiguration. They are very sneaky about these kinds of things. They have no
excuse not to fix that under AET.
They caved and now offer a discount for people who live within certain surrounding towns of the exit (to be equivalent to the 16E toll). I could take advantage of it but I would need to buy a NJ EZPass and pay another $12 a year in fees, and I don’t think I would take advantage enough to be worth it. Plus NJ requires a credit card replenishment while NY lets you suck the tolls straight from your bank account.
Any clue about what this blank left exit tab (Left Exit 69 going to be signed?) and blank space left of the I-80 shield is going to be for on the Western Spur heading northbound at the I-95/I-80 interchange? These electronic signs were up and active on my 12 Feb 2023 trip to NJIT. As of that date... those tabs don't appear on the Eastern Spur, however, the Eastern Spur got digital APLs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)as well.
(https://i.ibb.co/q73rw83/IMG-5731.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLJmvNJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/nPkXDJB/IMG-5733.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH7QBTX)
Going back to these sign assemblies on the western spur, I gotta ask about their counterparts on the eastern spur:
Is the VMS portion of the advance guide sign (here: https://goo.gl/maps/dW6JLHPhJvn2MtSu7 ) ever turned on and used? When I drove that way last week, it was blank. And then when I got to the split (here: https://goo.gl/maps/CHyXV4oEPqu2TwC98 ), I found it a bit jarring that there was no advance notice as to which lane went there (even though it wasn't a problem for me, because I was in the far-right lane and wanted to get to US 46).
I would guess the first sign is going to be an APL but they don’t want to turn in on right now, because the lanes are shifted during construction and the arrows wouldn’t align with the lanes.
Edit: Just saw fwydriver’s link (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) which confirms it’s an APL. You can also see the misaligned lanes, I don’t honestly feel that it’s confusing, but maybe for some people it is. Or maybe they think it could encourage someone to drive on the shoulder.
I would guess the first sign is going to be an APL but they don’t want to turn in on right now, because the lanes are shifted during construction and the arrows wouldn’t align with the lanes.
Edit: Just saw fwydriver’s link (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8150742,-74.0284269,3a,19.5y,13.89h,92.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZUttwrjLPn7Znf738RaHBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) which confirms it’s an APL. You can also see the misaligned lanes, I don’t honestly feel that it’s confusing, but maybe for some people it is. Or maybe they think it could encourage someone to drive on the shoulder.
That makes sense. I kind of feel like it would be helpful to have the VMS say "LEFT LANES || RIGHT LANES" or "KEEP LEFT || KEEP RIGHT" when the lanes aren't aligned for APL. I suppose it's not causing any major problems, though.
The construction staging on the eastern spur has changed so now the right lane diverges from the left two and they go around the work in the middle. It's amusing how no matter how they sign this situation, there are always cars freaking the f*ck out at the last second and swerving over the gore to get to the other lanes that go to the same place.
There is a similar split northbound on the truck lanes between Exits 9 and 10 for bridge redecking. It is REALLY annoying to drive thru there.
I see now a mileage sign placed between Exits 4 & 3 SB now feature Baltimore at 95 miles away with Washington ( I think) at 140 miles out.
Saw it on Social Media just now.
I see now a mileage sign placed between Exits 4 & 3 SB now feature Baltimore at 95 miles away with Washington ( I think) at 140 miles out.
Saw it on Social Media just now.
Sign has been there at least a year (this is from June 2022):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722833,-75.0201214,3a,75y,241.35h,89.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgkLAULWSDBu3vqhg4XRQ3Q!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
I think it's great that they finally acknowledge MD's largest city, which is one of the most disrespected cities in the nation, mainly because of its close proximity to DC. In fact, many weather reports ignore it unless the map is zoomed in close enough.I see now a mileage sign placed between Exits 4 & 3 SB now feature Baltimore at 95 miles away with Washington ( I think) at 140 miles out.
Saw it on Social Media just now.
Sign has been there at least a year (this is from June 2022):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722833,-75.0201214,3a,75y,241.35h,89.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgkLAULWSDBu3vqhg4XRQ3Q!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
I think it's great that they finally acknowledge MD's largest city, which is one of the most disrespected cities in the nation, mainly because of its close proximity to DC. In fact, many weather reports ignore it unless the map is zoomed in close enough.I see now a mileage sign placed between Exits 4 & 3 SB now feature Baltimore at 95 miles away with Washington ( I think) at 140 miles out.
Saw it on Social Media just now.
Sign has been there at least a year (this is from June 2022):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722833,-75.0201214,3a,75y,241.35h,89.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgkLAULWSDBu3vqhg4XRQ3Q!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
That is very OT. Any city in the top 50+ deserves mention instead of skipping over it.I think it's great that they finally acknowledge MD's largest city, which is one of the most disrespected cities in the nation, mainly because of its close proximity to DC. In fact, many weather reports ignore it unless the map is zoomed in close enough.I see now a mileage sign placed between Exits 4 & 3 SB now feature Baltimore at 95 miles away with Washington ( I think) at 140 miles out.
Saw it on Social Media just now.
Sign has been there at least a year (this is from June 2022):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722833,-75.0201214,3a,75y,241.35h,89.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgkLAULWSDBu3vqhg4XRQ3Q!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Getting a little OT, but DC is ranked 6th, Philly is ranked 7th... wedged in between is 20th ranked Baltimore. The 19 more important ones are
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Washington
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Miami
Phoenix
Boston
San Bernardino
San Francisco
Detroit
Seattle
Minneapolis
Tampa
San Diego
Denver
That is very OT. Any city in the top 50+ deserves mention instead of skipping over it.I think it's great that they finally acknowledge MD's largest city, which is one of the most disrespected cities in the nation, mainly because of its close proximity to DC. In fact, many weather reports ignore it unless the map is zoomed in close enough.I see now a mileage sign placed between Exits 4 & 3 SB now feature Baltimore at 95 miles away with Washington ( I think) at 140 miles out.
Saw it on Social Media just now.
Sign has been there at least a year (this is from June 2022):
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8722833,-75.0201214,3a,75y,241.35h,89.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgkLAULWSDBu3vqhg4XRQ3Q!2e0!5s20220601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
Getting a little OT, but DC is ranked 6th, Philly is ranked 7th... wedged in between is 20th ranked Baltimore. The 19 more important ones are
New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Washington
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Miami
Phoenix
Boston
San Bernardino
San Francisco
Detroit
Seattle
Minneapolis
Tampa
San Diego
Denver
NJTA can't even be bothered to even acknowledge Newark on northbound signs despite being NJ's largest city and three exits directly serving it. Not to mention its status as a major transportation hub/junction.Such used to be on some entrance ramp signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1933113,-74.605358,3a,75y,112.45h,72.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTImtz9d4ZCTWs5-Eo9hB-Q!2e0!5s20110601T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
NJTA can't even be bothered to even acknowledge Newark on northbound signs despite being NJ's largest city and three exits directly serving it. Not to mention its status as a major transportation hub/junction.Such used to be on some entrance ramp signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1933113,-74.605358,3a,75y,112.45h,72.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTImtz9d4ZCTWs5-Eo9hB-Q!2e0!5s20110601T000000!7i13312!8i6656).
Oddly enough, NJTA does sign Newark going southbound (https://goo.gl/maps/XJhwALCBh8bpmG7P7) (NYSDOT has also started to sign it (https://goo.gl/maps/3KXnUn28KYytT5xc6) as well), but going northbound, they will only sign for New York City. I think they should do both.
In fairness, NJDOT likes to be inconsistent about signing Newark for 78 eastbound even though it's a direct connection to several routes heading to both the airport and downtown Newark. A lot of ramps use Newark, but the signage from 287 shows New York City, for example.
At least the Parkway prefers Newark over New York as mileage signs starting in Galloway use Newark over the Big Apple.The Parkway passes through Newark and has exits directly serving it. It never goes to New York (I know, the Turnpike doesn't go to New York either, but I-95 continues into NYC where the Turnpike ends).
At least the Parkway prefers Newark over New York as mileage signs starting in Galloway use Newark over the Big Apple.The Parkway passes through Newark and has exits directly serving it. It never goes to New York (I know, the Turnpike doesn't go to New York either, but I-95 continues into NYC where the Turnpike ends).
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
The GSP doesn't go to Mahwah.
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
An example of stupid signing… at Exit 8, Exit 8A, and Exit 9, it’s signed southbound for Trenton, but how many people would really get in at those exits in order to get to Trenton? Especially at Exit 8A?
An example of stupid signing… at Exit 8, Exit 8A, and Exit 9, it’s signed southbound for Trenton, but how many people would really get in at those exits in order to get to Trenton? Especially at Exit 8A?Google Maps recommends I-95 (New Jersey Turnpike) South to I-195 West. Makes sense to me, although I do agree Philadelphia is a better control city.
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
Yeah, but a lot of people heading for Trenton are likely to hop on US,1 at Exit 9… that’s unlikely if you are heading for Philly metro. And let’s face it, the primary use of the turnpike between the two cities is connecting those two cities. Trenton should be as much as an afterthought as Newark.
An example of stupid signing… at Exit 8, Exit 8A, and Exit 9, it’s signed southbound for Trenton, but how many people would really get in at those exits in order to get to Trenton? Especially at Exit 8A?
An example of stupid signing… at Exit 8, Exit 8A, and Exit 9, it’s signed southbound for Trenton, but how many people would really get in at those exits in order to get to Trenton? Especially at Exit 8A?
In other parts we have Princeton as a control for nearby I-295 that that freeway don’t enter at all. One can argue the NJTA case similar to that of NJDOT and PennDOT.
In other parts we have Princeton as a control for nearby I-295 that that freeway don’t enter at all. One can argue the NJTA case similar to that of NJDOT and PennDOT.
Princeton is only used north of Trenton, where there really is no other good option.
In other parts we have Princeton as a control for nearby I-295 that that freeway don’t enter at all. One can argue the NJTA case similar to that of NJDOT and PennDOT.
Princeton is only used north of Trenton, where there really is no other good option.
The thing is when the NJ Turnpike was first opened in the early fifties, not all were destined to what later became the I-95 corridor. Some used US 13 to head further south and later when US 301 got rerouted, began to utilize that as well. So using Baltimore wasn’t really feasible back then and as far as Philly went, it wasn’t close enough to the toll road to warrant its placement.Neither was I-195 built. Was Trenton a control city back then? If so, how would you get there? Via US 206?
I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
I agree. Since the Turnpike goes through Newark and connects at multiple interchanges, both cities should be equally important to list. Good.I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
Yeah, but a lot of people heading for Trenton are likely to hop on US,1 at Exit 9… that’s unlikely if you are heading for Philly metro. And let’s face it, the primary use of the turnpike between the two cities is connecting those two cities. Trenton should be as much as an afterthought as Newark.
The thing is when the NJ Turnpike was first opened in the early fifties, not all were destined to what later became the I-95 corridor. Some used US 13 to head further south and later when US 301 got rerouted, began to utilize that as well. So using Baltimore wasn’t really feasible back then and as far as Philly went, it wasn’t close enough to the toll road to warrant its placement.Neither was I-195 built. Was Trenton a control city back then? If so, how would you get there? Via US 206?
It's reasonable to sign smaller destinations when heading away from a major city, but not when heading toward it. The problem in this area is that there are a lot of major cities within a small area, and it's a judgement call as to whether you're heading toward or away from one, or just between them. I'd say mentioning Newark when heading away from New York, but not toward it is reasonable. Not mentioning Philadelphia in either direction is not reasonable.
The thing is when the NJ Turnpike was first opened in the early fifties, not all were destined to what later became the I-95 corridor. Some used US 13 to head further south and later when US 301 got rerouted, began to utilize that as well. So using Baltimore wasn’t really feasible back then and as far as Philly went, it wasn’t close enough to the toll road to warrant its placement.Neither was I-195 built. Was Trenton a control city back then? If so, how would you get there? Via US 206?
NJ 33 from Hightstown. Read my earlier posts. Originally Exit 8 was signed Hightstown Trenton before I-195.
Yes it was and still is. Trenton always had two exits signed. Just now the second is Exit 7A rather than 8.The thing is when the NJ Turnpike was first opened in the early fifties, not all were destined to what later became the I-95 corridor. Some used US 13 to head further south and later when US 301 got rerouted, began to utilize that as well. So using Baltimore wasn’t really feasible back then and as far as Philly went, it wasn’t close enough to the toll road to warrant its placement.Neither was I-195 built. Was Trenton a control city back then? If so, how would you get there? Via US 206?
NJ 33 from Hightstown. Read my earlier posts. Originally Exit 8 was signed Hightstown Trenton before I-195.
And wasn't Exit-7 (U.S. 206) originally designated Bordentown-Trenton?
https://goo.gl/maps/MyWmGyrU5kPhrWTb8
No control city for the NB ramp, but Trenton for the SB ramp.
Maybe Manhattan specifically. But technically from that point you can reach parts of NYC by going south. New Haven might be a better control city for northbound because at this point the road is already within the NYC urbanized area.
Maybe Manhattan specifically. But technically from that point you can reach parts of NYC by going south. New Haven might be a better control city for northbound because at this point the road is already within the NYC urbanized area.
Wouldn’t “New York” by itself work?
Maybe Manhattan specifically. But technically from that point you can reach parts of NYC by going south. New Haven might be a better control city for northbound because at this point the road is already within the NYC urbanized area.
To me that would seem like 95 would bypass NYC. NJTA uses Geo Washington Bridge typically, I think that or The Bronx, would be a good choice.
Maybe Manhattan specifically. But technically from that point you can reach parts of NYC by going south. New Haven might be a better control city for northbound because at this point the road is already within the NYC urbanized area.
To me that would seem like 95 would bypass NYC. NJTA uses Geo Washington Bridge typically, I think that or The Bronx, would be a good choice.
AGREED!I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
Yeah, but a lot of people heading for Trenton are likely to hop on US,1 at Exit 9… that’s unlikely if you are heading for Philly metro. And let’s face it, the primary use of the turnpike between the two cities is connecting those two cities. Trenton should be as much as an afterthought as Newark.
Trenton is one that is close enough to be warranted , as well as Wilmington, DE. Though the latter many whine on here about and arguing that Baltimore should be instead, it’s also connected by another freeway just as Trenton is.I disagree about Wilmington, it is large enough (70K), directly on the route, and it serves as a major junction with 95.
At one time I-195 wasn’t there and there were no freeways from the Turnpike to the State Capital. Previously Exit 8 was signed for Trenton SB and signs from North Jersey downward reflected it then also. And NJ 33 west from Exit 8 wasn’t ( and still isn’t) a freeway, which was the route into Trenton from that exchange when signed as NJ 33 Hightstown Trenton back then.
Alright, one final swing at this and then I'm done for the moment...AGREED!
Pretend states don't exist. Pretend highways were signed from scratch today. Would anyone seriously sign Trenton as the southbound control on 95? Of course not. They'd sign Philly. Wilmington would disappear too. The I-95 controls would be DC, Baltimore, Philly and NYC in this stretch, since they are by far the most important locations. All others are insignificant by comparison, and not worthy of being signed. If this whole area was, say, within the state of Texas, this is how it would be.
Signing only NYC in one direction, and then much smaller and more insignificant locations in the other direction WHEN THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT PLACES, is purely indicative of a NYC-centric mindset, which I suppose isn't surprising in NJ (which is NYC-centric on average), but still ridic in the grand scheme.
OK, I'll shut for the time being on this...
-signed, someone who grew up in Ewing and resides there once again, but realizes this area isn't really important
That only makes sense if you co-sign the NB NJTP with Newark/NY City; if the puny state capital not on the NJTP is getting signed, then so should the largest city in the state which is off 95.I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
Southbound on the Turnpike from Newark, both Trenton and Philadelphia are valid control cities. Trenton is valid for the Turnpike (because it's the state capital and not far off the Turnpike) and Phila. is valid for I-95.
So here's a novel idea: Why not post both cities on the southbound entrance and pull-thru signs? I believe the MUTCD does not prohibit that and it would make a lot of sense for both routes running concurrent.
Wouldn’t “New York” by itself work?No, in fact I hate it when New York is used, it should be NY City, New York could refer to upstate/Albany. You need to specify.
AGREED!I always thought the NBJTP/GSP interchange should have for GSP North 'Paterson' then after Paterson, Mahway.You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
SB, it should list Shore Points.
As for the NJTP, SB after Newark ALL signs need to say Philadelphia. The Trenton sign always has bothered me since it is so small and not even off the TP.
Yeah, but a lot of people heading for Trenton are likely to hop on US,1 at Exit 9… that’s unlikely if you are heading for Philly metro. And let’s face it, the primary use of the turnpike between the two cities is connecting those two cities. Trenton should be as much as an afterthought as Newark.
Trenton is irrelevant especially compared to, oh the 6th biggest metro area in the country.Trenton is one that is close enough to be warranted , as well as Wilmington, DE. Though the latter many whine on here about and arguing that Baltimore should be instead, it’s also connected by another freeway just as Trenton is.I disagree about Wilmington, it is large enough (70K), directly on the route, and it serves as a major junction with 95.
At one time I-195 wasn’t there and there were no freeways from the Turnpike to the State Capital. Previously Exit 8 was signed for Trenton SB and signs from North Jersey downward reflected it then also. And NJ 33 west from Exit 8 wasn’t ( and still isn’t) a freeway, which was the route into Trenton from that exchange when signed as NJ 33 Hightstown Trenton back then.
It definitely should be the SB control, unless you want it to be the DEMB which I am also fine with; remember Wilmington serves as a major transition point from the NJTP/295, 95 from Philly, to BAL/WAS OR down RT 1 to the beach and Norfolk.
Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8eY2afK/ Interesting, I never knew the New Jersey Turnpike used longer lines than other roads.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8eY2afK/ Interesting, I never knew the New Jersey Turnpike used longer lines than other roads.
I'm surprised you never noticed that!
I don't know if I agree with his assertion that the line length causes motorists to drive faster. Speeds on the Turnpike are fast due to it being straight, clear sightlines and a fairly boring drive. When traffic is light, speeds pick up also. And the Turnpike has a reputation from those that travel it often as a road with a very high tolerance: At least 80; maybe 85. Many troopers aren't even interested in speed; they're looking for other things, responding to issues, or just going from Point A to Point B.
Other highways, such as the Parkway, I-80 & I-295, have very fast speeds with 85th percentile speeds over 80 mph, yet those lines used are the standard 10' length.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1403192636576400/permalink/3647122858850022/
Here is an interesting HoJo pennant with the NJ Turnpike on it.
I don't think Wilmington is bad; Trenton is.Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.
Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
You forgot to mention VERY few exits or a lot of distance.https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8eY2afK/ Interesting, I never knew the New Jersey Turnpike used longer lines than other roads.
I'm surprised you never noticed that!
I don't know if I agree with his assertion that the line length causes motorists to drive faster. Speeds on the Turnpike are fast due to it being straight, clear sightlines and a fairly boring drive. When traffic is light, speeds pick up also. And the Turnpike has a reputation from those that travel it often as a road with a very high tolerance: At least 80; maybe 85. Many troopers aren't even interested in speed; they're looking for other things, responding to issues, or just going from Point A to Point B.
Other highways, such as the Parkway, I-80 & I-295, have very fast speeds with 85th percentile speeds over 80 mph, yet those lines used are the standard 10' length.
I don't think Wilmington is bad; Trenton is.Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.
Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
Wilmington is directly adjacent to 95, and moreover, it is a major crossroads merging with 95 and as well beach traffic down to Norfolk.
I don't think Wilmington is bad; Trenton is.Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.
Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
Wilmington is directly adjacent to 95, and moreover, it is a major crossroads merging with 95 and as well beach traffic down to Norfolk.
I don't think of the 295-95 junction as being in Wilmington though (even if it technically may be)... when I think of reaching Wilmington from the southbound Turnpike it involves going north on I-95 or I-495, when most traffic from southbound Turnpike probably goes to southbound I-95.
... because that is an example of continuing in the same direction, as opposed to changing direction.
Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
On the topic of skip line length.... it seems that the Turnpike might be doing away with the extra long lines. The northbound side from Exit 4 to around Exit 5 was recently repaved and has standard length lines painted.
On the topic of skip line length.... it seems that the Turnpike might be doing away with the extra long lines. The northbound side from Exit 4 to around Exit 5 was recently repaved and has standard length lines painted.
Hopefully, just temp lines until the final lines come through?
One always got me was the former split at Exit 9 when the dual carriageways were first built and prior to the 8A and 9 extension. The NB split had two redundant ramps depart after the split, but the former SB Exit 14 ramp in Newark would diverge from the outer roadway with no access from the inner.
The Exit 9 NB ramps were immediately after the split, but the original SB Exit 14 ramp was about a mile after the split and it could have used the inner roadway own ramp for it.
Also why was Exit 14 SB moved to its current location on both spurs with the long cattle chute into I-78? Was there back ups at the 14 plaza that caused congestion on the SB outer roadway?
One always got me was the former split at Exit 9 when the dual carriageways were first built and prior to the 8A and 9 extension. The NB split had two redundant ramps depart after the split, but the former SB Exit 14 ramp in Newark would diverge from the outer roadway with no access from the inner.
The Exit 9 NB ramps were immediately after the split, but the original SB Exit 14 ramp was about a mile after the split and it could have used the inner roadway own ramp for it.
Also why was Exit 14 SB moved to its current location on both spurs with the long cattle chute into I-78? Was there back ups at the 14 plaza that caused congestion on the SB outer roadway?
The original dual-dual was only to Exit 10. Extending them to Exit 9 was the first extension. I rarely was on the Turnpike south of Exit 14 but looking at historicaerials.com, it looks like as built, the original Exit 10 configuration mirrored Exit 14 with access to/from only the outer lanes (1969 aerial). In the 1972 aerial, the additional ramps are under construction along with the dual-dual extension to Exit 9.
I think the current arrangement at 14 southbound gets the 14 traffic on their own roadway before the eastern and western alignments do their dance to become the inner and outer roadways. I don't recall any big backups (not on it all that much) so I suspect the reason for it was simply to reduce volume at the split and merge of the through traffic and avoid some weaving. Same northbound in reverse (14 entry traffic merges after the inner and outer split and merge to become the eastern and western roadways).
Anyway didn’t realize that getting on NB from I-78 led you into a cattlechute.One always got me was the former split at Exit 9 when the dual carriageways were first built and prior to the 8A and 9 extension. The NB split had two redundant ramps depart after the split, but the former SB Exit 14 ramp in Newark would diverge from the outer roadway with no access from the inner.
The Exit 9 NB ramps were immediately after the split, but the original SB Exit 14 ramp was about a mile after the split and it could have used the inner roadway own ramp for it.
Also why was Exit 14 SB moved to its current location on both spurs with the long cattle chute into I-78? Was there back ups at the 14 plaza that caused congestion on the SB outer roadway?
The original dual-dual was only to Exit 10. Extending them to Exit 9 was the first extension. I rarely was on the Turnpike south of Exit 14 but looking at historicaerials.com, it looks like as built, the original Exit 10 configuration mirrored Exit 14 with access to/from only the outer lanes (1969 aerial). In the 1972 aerial, the additional ramps are under construction along with the dual-dual extension to Exit 9.
I think the current arrangement at 14 southbound gets the 14 traffic on their own roadway before the eastern and western alignments do their dance to become the inner and outer roadways. I don't recall any big backups (not on it all that much) so I suspect the reason for it was simply to reduce volume at the split and merge of the through traffic and avoid some weaving. Same northbound in reverse (14 entry traffic merges after the inner and outer split and merge to become the eastern and western roadways).
Anyway didn’t realize that getting on NB from I-78 led you into a cattlechute.One always got me was the former split at Exit 9 when the dual carriageways were first built and prior to the 8A and 9 extension. The NB split had two redundant ramps depart after the split, but the former SB Exit 14 ramp in Newark would diverge from the outer roadway with no access from the inner.
The Exit 9 NB ramps were immediately after the split, but the original SB Exit 14 ramp was about a mile after the split and it could have used the inner roadway own ramp for it.
Also why was Exit 14 SB moved to its current location on both spurs with the long cattle chute into I-78? Was there back ups at the 14 plaza that caused congestion on the SB outer roadway?
The original dual-dual was only to Exit 10. Extending them to Exit 9 was the first extension. I rarely was on the Turnpike south of Exit 14 but looking at historicaerials.com, it looks like as built, the original Exit 10 configuration mirrored Exit 14 with access to/from only the outer lanes (1969 aerial). In the 1972 aerial, the additional ramps are under construction along with the dual-dual extension to Exit 9.
I think the current arrangement at 14 southbound gets the 14 traffic on their own roadway before the eastern and western alignments do their dance to become the inner and outer roadways. I don't recall any big backups (not on it all that much) so I suspect the reason for it was simply to reduce volume at the split and merge of the through traffic and avoid some weaving. Same northbound in reverse (14 entry traffic merges after the inner and outer split and merge to become the eastern and western roadways).
Your "cattlechute" is an additional three-lane roadway each way. Hard to call that a cattle chute. The Turnpike is essentially a dual-triple for that mile. It's been a long time since I've been there but I think it's a very good way to avoid what would otherwise be a major weaving area. I think many of the things the NJ Turnpike has done that people question are actually well thought out ways of avoiding weaves and keeping major flows separated (I've said it before but the arrangenent at the north end and preferring the western alignment for GWB traffic keeps I-95 traffic to/from the GWB completely separate from the I-80 to/from the Lincoln Tunnel traffic in the area from the Lombardi service area to I-80).
Whatever, it’s a long ramp indeed.
Yes I now understand the logic of it as I-287 in Bridgewater has a similar set up from US 202/206 ( Exit 17) and I-78. There are dual carriageways to separate traffic heading from Edison, Piscataway, Somerset, and Bound Brook to points west on I-78 from traffic entering I-287 from US 202/206 to Morristown and points north including I-78 East to avoid weaving and creating four lanes ( now 6) of multi lanes. Ditto SB as I-78 WB to I-287 SB merges to a different carriageway than I-78 EB to I-287 SB as the former is mostly going to Somerville and Bridgewater while the latter is heading to points south along I-287 from Bound Brook to Staten Island. The two carriageways merge after US 202/206 when the I-78 WB traffic distributes themselves to Routes 202 & 206.
Whatever, it’s a long ramp indeed.
Yes I now understand the logic of it as I-287 in Bridgewater has a similar set up from US 202/206 ( Exit 17) and I-78. There are dual carriageways to separate traffic heading from Edison, Piscataway, Somerset, and Bound Brook to points west on I-78 from traffic entering I-287 from US 202/206 to Morristown and points north including I-78 East to avoid weaving and creating four lanes ( now 6) of multi lanes. Ditto SB as I-78 WB to I-287 SB merges to a different carriageway than I-78 EB to I-287 SB as the former is mostly going to Somerville and Bridgewater while the latter is heading to points south along I-287 from Bound Brook to Staten Island. The two carriageways merge after US 202/206 when the I-78 WB traffic distributes themselves to Routes 202 & 206.
Yep. I forgot about that despite growing up near I-78 about 10 miles east of there (Berkeley Heights) during all the years when "Local Traffic Only" was the control city for an unsigned I-78 East at I-287 ("Local Traffic Only" should mean that if you aren't positive you're the local traffic they mean, you aren't). My opinion is other states would have been well-served to look at what NJDOT and the Turnpike have done for complex areas like those two. Having just ended 25 years living in the Chicago area, there are so many places ISTHA could have improved if they had stolen some ideas from NJ (the I-88/I-355 interchange in particular based - the section where the two run parallel should have been a dual-dual configuration (one route outside the other) with high-speed ramps for the moves between the two roads much like how the Turnpike goes from the dual-dual to the east/west alignments with all moves equally favored).
Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
This question came up during their public study period. While no longer linked on the NJ Turnpike's website, a Google Search will find documents relating to the widening at www.njturnpikewidening.com . On Page 12 of http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/Interchange6-9WideningProgramExecutiveOrderNo.172-PublicHearingReport.pdf (and possibly other places), they referenced why they designed the merge south of Interchange 6: They performed comprehensive analyses of alternative configurations, and this design was considered to provide the best operation and safety.
I remember being at a public hearing and asking someone about this also. They stated their analysis showed it was better to allow traffic to continue thru the interchange, and do the merging at a separate location. If done at the interchange, especially on the SB side, "Exit Only" lanes would need to be built, and they often have a tendency for traffic to merge in or out of them at the last moment.
I also recall it being mentioned that their analysis showed that only 5 lanes would be needed between Interchanges 6 & 7A, but after their experiences with 5 lanes between Interchanges 8A & 9, they decided to build 6 lanes throughout, which will significantly assist traffic when either the inner or outer roadway is closed.
The widening south of Interchange 6 is probably an unusual case in NJ where a highway was widened well beyond what was needed for traffic, but to accommodate a smooth merging process, they built it the way we see it.
It was interesting to note that the subject of 4 laning the Turnpike between Interchanges 5 & 6 did come up, which you have referenced often, but the Turnpike didn't deem it necessary. See Pages 34 - 35. It noted that their analysis expected the merge Southbound would start congesting in 2023. We're here in 2023, and that does not appear to be occurring.
"Why have the road become 3+3, and then have both the inner and outer 3's have exit 6?"
1: Future-proofing - if the dual dual section is extended southward, no additional road work is needed for the northbound exits.
2: Operational considerations - the whole point of fully separate roadways is that, when necessary, one of them can be closed with the other one handling all the traffic. If the car only roadway is closed, traffic still has access to exit 6. If the outer car+truck roadway is closed, traffic still has access to exit 6.
"Why have the road become 3+3, and then have both the inner and outer 3's have exit 6?"
1: Future-proofing - if the dual dual section is extended southward, no additional road work is needed for the northbound exits.
2: Operational considerations - the whole point of fully separate roadways is that, when necessary, one of them can be closed with the other one handling all the traffic. If the car only roadway is closed, traffic still has access to exit 6. If the outer car+truck roadway is closed, traffic still has access to exit 6.
What he was saying is have the same m/o as Exit 14 SB before the current configuration that it now has. The original SB Exit 14 only departed from the outer roadway and still actually does for the Eastern Spur. The split for the inner- outer on the Eastern Spur has Exit 14 split from the outer roadway immediately after the split, but before the western spur merges.
What he was saying is have the same m/o as Exit 14 SB before the current configuration that it now has. The original SB Exit 14 only departed from the outer roadway and still actually does for the Eastern Spur. The split for the inner- outer on the Eastern Spur has Exit 14 split from the outer roadway immediately after the split, but before the western spur merges.
"Why have the road become 3+3, and then have both the inner and outer 3's have exit 6?"
1: Future-proofing - if the dual dual section is extended southward, no additional road work is needed for the northbound exits.
2: Operational considerations - the whole point of fully separate roadways is that, when necessary, one of them can be closed with the other one handling all the traffic. If the car only roadway is closed, traffic still has access to exit 6. If the outer car+truck roadway is closed, traffic still has access to exit 6.
What he was saying is have the same m/o as Exit 14 SB before the current configuration that it now has. The original SB Exit 14 only departed from the outer roadway and still actually does for the Eastern Spur. The split for the inner- outer on the Eastern Spur has Exit 14 split from the outer roadway immediately after the split, but before the western spur merges.
So we're questioning why they didn't design Interchange 6 by copying a poor design from decades ago which had a very obvious operating deficiency and has since been corrected.
And i thought I wrote absurd stuff.
When the outer roadway was closed in the past, the flip panels at the East and West Spurs did allow local use for the outer roadway to access Exit 14 just as if the Eastern Spur gets closed, NB traffic is allowed to use the closed Eastern Spur up to the 15E split.So that's why they did the split before exit 6 with exits for 6 on both; in case either the car or car/truck is closed?
The flip panels for the closed Eastern Spur reflect partial usage to Exit 15E when in that configuration and the pull through flips at 15E would change from THRU TRAFFIC next exit 5 miles to ROAD CLOSED. Ditto for the outer roadway SB for 14 to 14C.
When the outer roadway was closed in the past, the flip panels at the East and West Spurs did allow local use for the outer roadway to access Exit 14 just as if the Eastern Spur gets closed, NB traffic is allowed to use the closed Eastern Spur up to the 15E split.So that's why they did the split before exit 6 with exits for 6 on both; in case either the car or car/truck is closed?
The flip panels for the closed Eastern Spur reflect partial usage to Exit 15E when in that configuration and the pull through flips at 15E would change from THRU TRAFFIC next exit 5 miles to ROAD CLOSED. Ditto for the outer roadway SB for 14 to 14C.
I seem to remember many years ago when the original dual roadways ended south of Exit-10, only the outer roadway northbound could access Exit-10 and the signs did show that. But I guess as J&N points out, some drivers probably missed it.
Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?It's so that the mainline is continuous, rather than have people make multiple decisions at the interchange (exit or stay on 95, then deal with merge). They wanted to separate the decision points by a mile for safety.
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
I seem to remember many years ago when the original dual roadways ended south of Exit-10, only the outer roadway northbound could access Exit-10 and the signs did show that. But I guess as J&N points out, some drivers probably missed it.
https://goo.gl/maps/wo4Tx6oG1wr8BvQL7
A truck in the Cars Only lanes.
Shame shame.
Also the removal of the mileage sign SB at the 91.9 mm is another distasteful thing. https://goo.gl/maps/JzfwJtsL2rBf15VY9
https://goo.gl/maps/pTbPwysUsoi3oVm37
https://goo.gl/maps/wo4Tx6oG1wr8BvQL7
A truck in the Cars Only lanes.
Shame shame.
Also the removal of the mileage sign SB at the 91.9 mm is another distasteful thing. https://goo.gl/maps/JzfwJtsL2rBf15VY9
https://goo.gl/maps/pTbPwysUsoi3oVm37
Last month I was in the cars only lane along the New Jersey Turnpike and saw a number of trucks in the lanes. I was wondering what was going on in how many trucks got into the car lanes. Do you think it’s because the other lanes may have been closed for an earlier incident or that the trucks are just getting around the rules and there’s no enforcement?
Last month I was in the cars only lane along the New Jersey Turnpike and saw a number of trucks in the lanes. I was wondering what was going on in how many trucks got into the car lanes. Do you think it’s because the other lanes may have been closed for an earlier incident or that the trucks are just getting around the rules and there’s no enforcement?
Hm. I've noticed pretty good compliance with the lane restrictions in the past. Wonder if this is more about drivers being just "steering wheel holders" in those cabs rather than truly trained truckers.
https://goo.gl/maps/wo4Tx6oG1wr8BvQL7
A truck in the Cars Only lanes.
Shame shame.
Last month I was in the cars only lane along the New Jersey Turnpike and saw a number of trucks in the lanes. I was wondering what was going on in how many trucks got into the car lanes. Do you think it’s because the other lanes may have been closed for an earlier incident or that the trucks are just getting around the rules and there’s no enforcement?
https://goo.gl/maps/wo4Tx6oG1wr8BvQL7
A truck in the Cars Only lanes.
Shame shame.
Also the removal of the mileage sign SB at the 91.9 mm is another distasteful thing. https://goo.gl/maps/JzfwJtsL2rBf15VY9
https://goo.gl/maps/pTbPwysUsoi3oVm37
Last month I was in the cars only lane along the New Jersey Turnpike and saw a number of trucks in the lanes. I was wondering what was going on in how many trucks got into the car lanes. Do you think it’s because the other lanes may have been closed for an earlier incident or that the trucks are just getting around the rules and there’s no enforcement?
The fact that they close carriageways for various reasons is probably why the Turnpike Authority doesn't generally refer to them as the "car lanes" or the "truck lanes" (except on signage, where it's necessary for clarity).
The fact that they close carriageways for various reasons is probably why the Turnpike Authority doesn't generally refer to them as the "car lanes" or the "truck lanes" (except on signage, where it's necessary for clarity).
Technically, they don't usually say that on signage either. Usually it's "Cars Only" and "Trucks-Buses-Cars", or "All Traffic" when one of the roadways is closed.
https://goo.gl/maps/wo4Tx6oG1wr8BvQL7
A truck in the Cars Only lanes.
Shame shame.
Also the removal of the mileage sign SB at the 91.9 mm is another distasteful thing. https://goo.gl/maps/JzfwJtsL2rBf15VY9
https://goo.gl/maps/pTbPwysUsoi3oVm37
Last month I was in the cars only lane along the New Jersey Turnpike and saw a number of trucks in the lanes. I was wondering what was going on in how many trucks got into the car lanes. Do you think it’s because the other lanes may have been closed for an earlier incident or that the trucks are just getting around the rules and there’s no enforcement?
I've noticed on Google maps that basically every night one of the carriageways of the turnpike is closed, sometimes two, which would lead to trucks in the cars lane
The fact that they close carriageways for various reasons is probably why the Turnpike Authority doesn't generally refer to them as the "car lanes" or the "truck lanes" (except on signage, where it's necessary for clarity).Yup. Inner Roadway and Outer Roadway. Makes it easier to figure out what to do when you're looking at plans.
The fact that they close carriageways for various reasons is probably why the Turnpike Authority doesn't generally refer to them as the "car lanes" or the "truck lanes" (except on signage, where it's necessary for clarity).
Technically, they don't usually say that on signage either. Usually it's "Cars Only" and "Trucks-Buses-Cars", or "All Traffic" when one of the roadways is closed.
Right, but I assumed everyone was familiar enough with the signs' verbiage that I didn't need to be quite that precise.
https://goo.gl/maps/wo4Tx6oG1wr8BvQL7
A truck in the Cars Only lanes.
Shame shame.
Also the removal of the mileage sign SB at the 91.9 mm is another distasteful thing. https://goo.gl/maps/JzfwJtsL2rBf15VY9
https://goo.gl/maps/pTbPwysUsoi3oVm37
Last month I was in the cars only lane along the New Jersey Turnpike and saw a number of trucks in the lanes. I was wondering what was going on in how many trucks got into the car lanes. Do you think it’s because the other lanes may have been closed for an earlier incident or that the trucks are just getting around the rules and there’s no enforcement?
I've noticed on Google maps that basically every night one of the carriageways of the turnpike is closed, sometimes two, which would lead to trucks in the cars lane
But in my post, the truck lanes were open and filled to capacity.
When the outer roadway was closed in the past, the flip panels at the East and West Spurs did allow local use for the outer roadway to access Exit 14 just as if the Eastern Spur gets closed, NB traffic is allowed to use the closed Eastern Spur up to the 15E split.So that's why they did the split before exit 6 with exits for 6 on both; in case either the car or car/truck is closed?
The flip panels for the closed Eastern Spur reflect partial usage to Exit 15E when in that configuration and the pull through flips at 15E would change from THRU TRAFFIC next exit 5 miles to ROAD CLOSED. Ditto for the outer roadway SB for 14 to 14C.
In part, yes. It's also much harder to convey to motorists, when both roadways are open, that they must use a specific roadway if the exit exists on only one roadway. Motorists will invariably miss the signage and will be on the wrong roadway, unable to access the ramp.
That would not be the case here.I seem to remember many years ago when the original dual roadways ended south of Exit-10, only the outer roadway northbound could access Exit-10 and the signs did show that. But I guess as J&N points out, some drivers probably missed it.
Here you go.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-sslz89PTT_A/URBhWT6PusI/AAAAAAAAAHg/FTt66NtYGbw/s640/exit%252010-2.jpg)
That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?It's so that the mainline is continuous, rather than have people make multiple decisions at the interchange (exit or stay on 95, then deal with merge). They wanted to separate the decision points by a mile for safety.
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added? Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?
Coming from the south it would be one roadway until exit 6 merges.
In part, yes. It's also much harder to convey to motorists, when both roadways are open, that they must use a specific roadway if the exit exists on only one roadway. Motorists will invariably miss the signage and will be on the wrong roadway, unable to access the ramp.
I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added? Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?
That would not be the case here.
Coming from the south it would be one roadway until exit 6 merges.
Coming from the north, BOTH the inner and outer would have access to exit 6 but as soon as exit 6 traffic leaves the NJTP, the merge would begin as opposed to now where the roadway stay split for a few more miles.That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?It's so that the mainline is continuous, rather than have people make multiple decisions at the interchange (exit or stay on 95, then deal with merge). They wanted to separate the decision points by a mile for safety.
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added? Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?
Perhaps, because the initial dual-dual was extended south, then extended south again, and yet again(? - I've lost track), the Turnpike decided to build Exit 6 as a full dual-dual interchange expecting that eventually, the dual-dual will be extended south even further. Why build it one way only to need to tear it apart and redo it in a few years? Their first belief that it was only needed to Exit 10 proved to be wrong so why believe that Exit 6 is as far as it will ever be needed.
I think the changeover of Exit-10 must have been part of the original dual-dual construction project in the early 1970's. Interchange-11 was expanded to include the G.S. Parkway along with US 9. The original Exit-10 (with the G.S. Pky) was eliminated and the newly built interchange with the new I-287 became the new Exit-10.
I think the changeover of Exit-10 must have been part of the original dual-dual construction project in the early 1970's. Interchange-11 was expanded to include the G.S. Parkway along with US 9. The original Exit-10 (with the G.S. Pky) was eliminated and the newly built interchange with the new I-287 became the new Exit-10.
I think the changeover of Exit-10 must have been part of the original dual-dual construction project in the early 1970's. Interchange-11 was expanded to include the G.S. Parkway along with US 9. The original Exit-10 (with the G.S. Pky) was eliminated and the newly built interchange with the new I-287 became the new Exit-10.
Correct. And adding about 1.5 miles to the NB Tpk to NB GSP and vice versa moves.
To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.
I always thought that the current Exit 11 was built as part of the Parkway and Route 9 tangle that is now.
Historic aerials does show that in 1969 that Route 9 was inside the Parkway with New Brunswick Avenue interchanging with The Parkway on the outside of Route 9 ( US 9 had no ramps to New Brunswick Ave then)at that time with modern 11 in use.
That explains why Exit 129 of the Parkway has NJ Turnpike bridge designs and piers with prime color girders at the stack crossing there instead of NJDOT designs of the early seventies at that location.
To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.
To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.
I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.
To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.
I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.
To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.
I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.
I’m aware what he said. I lived in NJ most of my child and some of my adult life and are aware of where the original 10 and 11 were. Both original exchanges are still visible if you know where to look.
The original 11 was a small trumpet to trumpet and I remember seeing the Exit 11 plaza for ages where the salt pile is located where the salt for many years was dumped on the toll booths.
I’m aware what he said. I lived in NJ most of my child and some of my adult life and are aware of where the original 10 and 11 were. Both original exchanges are still visible if you know where to look.
The original 11 was a small trumpet to trumpet and I remember seeing the Exit 11 plaza for ages where the salt pile is located where the salt for many years was dumped on the toll booths.
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying.
Anyway, I'm finding this interesting and trying to match it to some childhood memories. Looking at the 1966 Historic Aerials view of the old Exit 11, the current ramps to/from the turnpike north are right where the entire old Exit 11 was. I'd go far as to say that the US 9 bridge over the current Exit 11 ramps is in the same place (same bridge?) as the bridge over the old Exit 11 ramp leading to the far side trumpet. And perhaps most interesting, in 1966, the southbound turnpike went over US9 just as today's southbound outer lanes do (everything else goes under US 9) suggesting that today's southbound outer lanes are the original southbound lanes little changed.
In part, yes. It's also much harder to convey to motorists, when both roadways are open, that they must use a specific roadway if the exit exists on only one roadway. Motorists will invariably miss the signage and will be on the wrong roadway, unable to access the ramp.
I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added? Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?
That idea is even worse. Answer below...That would not be the case here.
Coming from the south it would be one roadway until exit 6 merges.
Coming from the north, BOTH the inner and outer would have access to exit 6 but as soon as exit 6 traffic leaves the NJTP, the merge would begin as opposed to now where the roadway stay split for a few more miles.That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?It's so that the mainline is continuous, rather than have people make multiple decisions at the interchange (exit or stay on 95, then deal with merge). They wanted to separate the decision points by a mile for safety.
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
You're not understanding the reason to separate decision points. Merging is still multiple decision points, especially when going from 6 lanes to 3. Even if you try to do 'Exit Only' lanes at Exit 6, you still have to make a decision to merge. With the Turnpike, they also have numerous signs in advance of the merge. If you try doing it within the Interchange 6 area, you'll have either overlapping signs with the exit, or fewer signs in advance of the merge.
A huge source of confusion and congestion is when these exits, on ramps, and adding/subtracting lanes occur in a small area. The Turnpike built this widening, and especially the parts from below Exit 6 to Exit 7A, to avoid as much confusion and congestion as possible. It works. Traffic flows freely. It seems odd that anyone would want to take away from what has proven to be a very successful project.I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added? Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?
Perhaps, because the initial dual-dual was extended south, then extended south again, and yet again(? - I've lost track), the Turnpike decided to build Exit 6 as a full dual-dual interchange expecting that eventually, the dual-dual will be extended south even further. Why build it one way only to need to tear it apart and redo it in a few years? Their first belief that it was only needed to Exit 10 proved to be wrong so why believe that Exit 6 is as far as it will ever be needed.
Exit 10 was first, then quickly Exit 9. Then Exit 8A. Then Exit 6.
Early on, highways were in their infancy. The Interstate highway system was being built. Early on, it was drastically underestimated how much traffic would use these highways, which were built primarily to get traffic from city to city. Suburban life, and sprawl, took over much faster and to a much greater extent than anyone in the 1950's imagined.
The major fault of the dual-dual widening to Exit 8A was creating a 2-3-3-2 traffic pattern between Interchange 8A - 9.
As suburban sprawl continued, congestion increased. As more people traveled further for vacations, congestion increased south of 8A. As the plans for the Somerset Freeway were officially cancelled, the Turnpike knew extending the duals down one more interchange wasn't going to suffice. So thus the massive 25 mile widening occurred.
The new duals from 6-9 have been open for 10 years now, and they appear to be flowing better than expected at this point in their lives. Traffic from 4 - 6 is moving with rare congestion, unlike how 6 - 8A was moving 10 years after the duals from 8A - 9 opened. It's going to take about 10 years from now to fully widen Interchanges 1 - 4. After that, then we'll get a sense of what widening, if any, needs to occur between 4 - 6, but I can't imagine a need for anything more than 8 lanes there in the next 30 - 40 years, and the Turnpike won't build a 2-2-2-2 dual, which would mean narrowing down the total lanes available from 3 to 2 Northbound, and 6 to 2 southbound, if a roadway was closed.
No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
Not only does bluecountry’s idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says “In one mile …,” they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.
I usually make sure I'm in the correct lane about a mile before the decision point, two miles if the traffic is heavy (I wouldn't say my lane changes are "panicked" but I don't know what they look like to other drivers). What's wrong with that?No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
Not only does bluecountry’s idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says “In one mile …,” they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.
Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.
I usually make sure I'm in the correct lane about a mile before the decision point, two miles if the traffic is heavy (I wouldn't say my lane changes are "panicked" but I don't know what they look like to other drivers). What's wrong with that?No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
Not only does bluecountry’s idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says “In one mile …,” they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.
Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.
Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.I usually make sure I'm in the correct lane about a mile before the decision point, two miles if the traffic is heavy (I wouldn't say my lane changes are "panicked" but I don't know what they look like to other drivers). What's wrong with that?
I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added? Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?
Perhaps, because the initial dual-dual was extended south, then extended south again, and yet again(? - I've lost track), the Turnpike decided to build Exit 6 as a full dual-dual interchange expecting that eventually, the dual-dual will be extended south even further. Why build it one way only to need to tear it apart and redo it in a few years? Their first belief that it was only needed to Exit 10 proved to be wrong so why believe that Exit 6 is as far as it will ever be needed.QuoteComing from the south it would be one roadway until exit 6 merges.
Seriously, you want one roadway until after the the 6 on-ramp merges? That would be a major CF of a weaving section. If 6 has so much traffic to/from the north that extending the dual-dual south of 6 will never be needed, then a weaving section is the last thing you need. And if 6 does not have so much traffic that a weaving section is OK, then the dual-dual will need to be extended further south. You can't have it both ways.
Hey you forgot Exit 14 from the north? It never had a ramp from the Inner Roadway. You have had all Exit 14 traffic ( as well as 14A-B-C) depart solely from the outer roadway with no issues. If they’re were it never got noticed and the driver, if he did, get into the inner roadway and then noticed that there is no exit from his roadway, he would learn that he should pay attention to the road and comprehend signage.
Hey you forgot Exit 14 from the north? It never had a ramp from the Inner Roadway. You have had all Exit 14 traffic ( as well as 14A-B-C) depart solely from the outer roadway with no issues. If they’re were it never got noticed and the driver, if he did, get into the inner roadway and then noticed that there is no exit from his roadway, he would learn that he should pay attention to the road and comprehend signage.
I'm not sure how relevant it is the NJTA did that with 14 over 50 years ago. I assume they realized it was a mistake given that the subsequently changed it at 14 and did not repeat it as they extended the dual-dual progressively south.
While I was too young to drive when the dual-dual started, I was a passenger in my parents car and when we used the Turnpike, it was always 14 to/from the north (we lived out along US 22 in those pre I-78 days). And having the 14 autos mixed with the outer roadway trucks was a pain, even 50+ years ago. The current extended ramps for 14 are a vast improvement.
How do you figure either??????No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
Not only does bluecountry’s idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says “In one mile …,” they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.
You are not familiar with the operations of the NJ Turnpike Authority. We are. So instead of questioning us, acknowledge we know better than you.How do you figure either??????No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
Not only does bluecountry’s idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says “In one mile …,” they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.
I don't know, first, normally on highways, they expand or reduce the number of lanes/split coincident with a major exit, not a few miles beforehand.
Second, exit 6 NB is not a much exit. Very few motorists going NB take exit 6, since it only goes WB.
Exit 6 overwhelming handles incoming traffic entering the TP to go up north and exiting traffic getting off SB.
So this of all exits would seem to not need decision points being separated.
Simply have it where NB, there is exit 6 for exiting traffic (minimal use), then split into car-car/truck then incoming traffic from exit 6 would separate into car-car/truck and merge.
SB, the car-car/truck would have the exit for 6, then the car/car-truck would merge with the minimal exit 6 SB traffic coming.
How do you figure either??????No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?
I don't know, first, normally on highways, they expand or reduce the number of lanes/split coincident with a major exit, not a few miles beforehand.
Second, exit 6 NB is not a much exit. Very few motorists going NB take exit 6, since it only goes WB.
Exit 6 overwhelming handles incoming traffic entering the TP to go up north and exiting traffic getting off SB.
So this of all exits would seem to not need decision points being separated.
Just accept the decision that was made. NJ has their own way of doing things as the NJTA too. Not saying I disagree with them nor agree either, but we should move on from this like many of us did with I-99 and I-87 in NC.
Your point is noted. Don’t obsess over things you have no control over. If you’re upset write a letter to the chief NJTA engineer. Not that he will change his mind and make the NJTA board invest money into doing the exchange your way, but at least you’ve made yourself heard by those who have control. One user here did with a route number in NC to NCDOT. As he hated the number chosen, as you dislike the Exit 6 design. However, he asserted himself despite the route number still the same.
Just accept the decision that was made. NJ has their own way of doing things as the NJTA too. Not saying I disagree with them nor agree either, but we should move on from this like many of us did with I-99 and I-87 in NC.
Your point is noted. Don’t obsess over things you have no control over. If you’re upset write a letter to the chief NJTA engineer. Not that he will change his mind and make the NJTA board invest money into doing the exchange your way, but at least you’ve made yourself heard by those who have control. One user here did with a route number in NC to NCDOT. As he hated the number chosen, as you dislike the Exit 6 design. However, he asserted himself despite the route number still the same.
Roadman, to the bolded, the snail mail address of the NJTA per https://www.njta.com/contact-us is
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, PO BOX 5042, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-5042.
Add Attn: Chief Engineer
Actually I know quite a lot about the NJTP, having driven it extensively throughout my life and especially the last seven years.You are not familiar with the operations of the NJ Turnpike Authority. We are. So instead of questioning us, acknowledge we know better than you.How do you figure either??????No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
Not only does bluecountry’s idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says “In one mile …,” they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.
I don't know, first, normally on highways, they expand or reduce the number of lanes/split coincident with a major exit, not a few miles beforehand.
Second, exit 6 NB is not a much exit. Very few motorists going NB take exit 6, since it only goes WB.
Exit 6 overwhelming handles incoming traffic entering the TP to go up north and exiting traffic getting off SB.
So this of all exits would seem to not need decision points being separated.
Simply have it where NB, there is exit 6 for exiting traffic (minimal use), then split into car-car/truck then incoming traffic from exit 6 would separate into car-car/truck and merge.
SB, the car-car/truck would have the exit for 6, then the car/car-truck would merge with the minimal exit 6 SB traffic coming.
I am not complaining, just wondering why pre-split the roadways going NB.Just accept the decision that was made. NJ has their own way of doing things as the NJTA too. Not saying I disagree with them nor agree either, but we should move on from this like many of us did with I-99 and I-87 in NC.
Your point is noted. Don’t obsess over things you have no control over. If you’re upset write a letter to the chief NJTA engineer. Not that he will change his mind and make the NJTA board invest money into doing the exchange your way, but at least you’ve made yourself heard by those who have control. One user here did with a route number in NC to NCDOT. As he hated the number chosen, as you dislike the Exit 6 design. However, he asserted himself despite the route number still the same.
bluecountry, to the bolded, the snail mail address of the NJTA per https://www.njta.com/contact-us is
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, PO BOX 5042, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-5042.
Add Attn: Chief Engineer
EDIT: Sorry roadman, my snail mail advice was directed to bluecountry.
So around mile 86 there is construction which on the car/truck lanes that splits the left lane separately from the other three car/truck lanes, the left lane is basically now in the car lane, albeit barricaded, and this is both NB and SB.
What is going on?
Is this the planned car/truck to car lane new access point?
Actually I know quite a lot about the NJTP, having driven it extensively throughout my life and especially the last seven years.
You are not familiar with the operations of the NJ Turnpike Authority. We are. So instead of questioning us, acknowledge we know better than you.Actually I know quite a lot about the NJTP, having driven it extensively throughout my life and especially the last seven years.
“familiar with the operations of the NJ Turnpike Authority” ≠ “know quite a lot about the NJTP”QuoteYou are not familiar with the operations of the NJ Turnpike Authority. We are. So instead of questioning us, acknowledge we know better than you.Actually I know quite a lot about the NJTP, having driven it extensively throughout my life and especially the last seven years.
Well anybody that thinks I don't know or am familiar with the NJTP has a reading comprehension problem.So around mile 86 there is construction which on the car/truck lanes that splits the left lane separately from the other three car/truck lanes, the left lane is basically now in the car lane, albeit barricaded, and this is both NB and SB.
What is going on?
Overpass/bridge deck replacement.Is this the planned car/truck to car lane new access point?
No.Actually I know quite a lot about the NJTP, having driven it extensively throughout my life and especially the last seven years.
Your observations over the years say otherwise.
You need to go back and read the thread again, since you're doubling down on a position under which there is nothing but open air. Your critics are not the ones with the reading comprehension problem.Well anybody that thinks I don't know or am familiar with the NJTP has a reading comprehension problem.So around mile 86 there is construction which on the car/truck lanes that splits the left lane separately from the other three car/truck lanes, the left lane is basically now in the car lane, albeit barricaded, and this is both NB and SB.
What is going on?
Overpass/bridge deck replacement.Is this the planned car/truck to car lane new access point?
No.Actually I know quite a lot about the NJTP, having driven it extensively throughout my life and especially the last seven years.
Your observations over the years say otherwise.
I have driven this road every month for the last several years from start to finish.
Well anybody that thinks I don't know or am familiar with the NJTP has a reading comprehension problem.
I have driven this road every month for the last several years from start to finish.
What's all the controversy about, I just wondered why the NJTP is the only road I know of that expands its lane capacity miles before an exit.Well anybody that thinks I don't know or am familiar with the NJTP has a reading comprehension problem.
I have driven this road every month for the last several years from start to finish.
That you are a regular customer of the Turnpike does not make you an expert on how it operates and in particular why some things are done the way they are done. I know in my former job, we learned what worked and what didn't and things that didn't work weren't repeated. No doubt others then wondered why we didn't do things that other that way that we had determined didn't work (it must have seemed like it should work or we wouldn't have tried it in the first place). But as is said in a famous quote from Goege Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I have no idea how old you are but those of us who have been around for a long time (the first time I rode as a passenger in my parent's car on the Turnpike, it was not dual-dual and there were no E exits as there was no western spur yet) know that many things you think the Turnpike should be doing has been done in the past but is no longer they way they do things. I start with the assumption that there are competent people working there and if they no longer do things as in the past, they must have a good reason for doing things differently now.
People told you. You then proceeded to keep arguing that your way was better.What's all the controversy about, I just wondered why the NJTP is the only road I know of that expands its lane capacity miles before an exit.Well anybody that thinks I don't know or am familiar with the NJTP has a reading comprehension problem.
I have driven this road every month for the last several years from start to finish.
That you are a regular customer of the Turnpike does not make you an expert on how it operates and in particular why some things are done the way they are done. I know in my former job, we learned what worked and what didn't and things that didn't work weren't repeated. No doubt others then wondered why we didn't do things that other that way that we had determined didn't work (it must have seemed like it should work or we wouldn't have tried it in the first place). But as is said in a famous quote from Goege Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I have no idea how old you are but those of us who have been around for a long time (the first time I rode as a passenger in my parent's car on the Turnpike, it was not dual-dual and there were no E exits as there was no western spur yet) know that many things you think the Turnpike should be doing has been done in the past but is no longer they way they do things. I start with the assumption that there are competent people working there and if they no longer do things as in the past, they must have a good reason for doing things differently now.
I definitely agree that having a 3+2 split would not work as the 3 section gets shut down making the 2 section congested.
What's all the controversy about, I just wondered why the NJTP is the only road I know of that expands its lane capacity miles before an exit.
I definitely agree that having a 3+2 split would not work as the 3 section gets shut down making the 2 section congested.
Apparently, we are. Personally, I could care less about it, given I come from a toll-less state. Let's change the subject before the moderator locks the thread again, and this time for good.Who's "we"? You haven't posted in this thread for weeks, if not months. :D
Not that I'm complaining, but when did the Turnpike Authority decide to start using "Philadelphia" as a SB control city on some of the mainline signs? And how much of the SB control city signage will change in the next couple of years?
Not that I'm complaining, but when did the Turnpike Authority decide to start using "Philadelphia" as a SB control city on some of the mainline signs? And how much of the SB control city signage will change in the next couple of years?
How do you figure either??????No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:
NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.
Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.
Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.
I don't. The Turnpike does. The NJTA used the 8A-9 congestion often seen when only 2 lanes were open as justification to be able to maintain at least 3 lanes at all times when possible. Their studies showed only 5 lanes per direction would be needed between Exit 6 & Exit 7A, but that would create the situations seen between 8A and 9. So they maintained the 3-3-3-3 roadway system, and gradually added/decreased lanes south of Exit 6 to prevent a 2 lane situation.So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?
I don't know, first, normally on highways, they expand or reduce the number of lanes/split coincident with a major exit, not a few miles beforehand.
This ignore that, normally on highways, there would simply be a 6-6 width, not a 3-3-3-3 width.
The NJ Turnpike does a great job seeing what's normally done, what does and doesn't work, and optimizes what can be done. In this case, there's a lot of swerving and congestion that occurs at a major exit with a lane reduction.Quote
Second, exit 6 NB is not a much exit. Very few motorists going NB take exit 6, since it only goes WB.
Exit 6 overwhelming handles incoming traffic entering the TP to go up north and exiting traffic getting off SB.
So this of all exits would seem to not need decision points being separated.
It's still a decision point.
I think 6 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Exit 4 should be enough (and will be difficult enough to accomplish).
I think 6 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Exit 4 should be enough (and will be difficult enough to accomplish).
Yeah that should be enough considering I-295 is closely parallel through South Jersey and traffic would rather use the latter anyway since it’s toll-free.
I've found Exit-4 is a good transfer point to go between the Turnpike and I-295. About a half mile on a main road between them.Not during peak periods it's not.
Yes it's convenient. The roads come so close together I wonder why they don't just build direct ramps between them.The logical spot would be at exit 6 where I-95/Ext crosses I-295
Yes it's convenient. The roads come so close together I wonder why they don't just build direct ramps between them.
It's not just because it's I-95. It would be the best way to get to the PA turnpike from southern NJ. I've used "Exit 6a" for this purpose on occasion.Yes it's convenient. The roads come so close together I wonder why they don't just build direct ramps between them.The logical spot would be at exit 6 where I-95/Ext crosses I-295
Granted, that I-95 routing is fairly new, but that has to be on a short list where a Parent 2di and Child 3di cross with no direct connection. Of course when both roads were built I-95 was not planned to be in the area
Did the NJTA ever build that road between Carteret and Linden as they had on their plans or did it get scrapped like Route 92 in South Brunswick?maps.google.com
It was supposed to allow truck access to Trembley Point from Exit 12 to avoid going through the streets of Linden as trucks have for decades.
Where exactly would one put this hypothetical interchange? After the US 130 interchange on Interstate 295, and the US 206 interchange on Interstate 95/NJT, the two roadways become too far apart for a freeway-to-tollway interchange to be practical. Ditto south of the Essex Rd. interchange on Interstate 295. One might as well utilize the existing interchanges to make such a connection.
Where exactly would one put this hypothetical interchange? After the US 130 interchange on Interstate 295, and the US 206 interchange on Interstate 95/NJT, the two roadways become too far apart for a freeway-to-tollway interchange to be practical. Ditto south of the Essex Rd. interchange on Interstate 295. One might as well utilize the existing interchanges to make such a connection.
Where exactly would one put this hypothetical interchange? After the US 130 interchange on Interstate 295, and the US 206 interchange on Interstate 95/NJT, the two roadways become too far apart for a freeway-to-tollway interchange to be practical. Ditto south of the Essex Rd. interchange on Interstate 295. One might as well utilize the existing interchanges to make such a connection.It's not hypothetical, but I will wait until they publish material related to it and point you there. You're on track with "too far apart".
Where exactly would one put this hypothetical interchange? After the US 130 interchange on Interstate 295, and the US 206 interchange on Interstate 95/NJT, the two roadways become too far apart for a freeway-to-tollway interchange to be practical. Ditto south of the Essex Rd. interchange on Interstate 295. One might as well utilize the existing interchanges to make such a connection.It's not hypothetical, but I will wait until they publish material related to it and point you there. You're on track with "too far apart".
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QnbkVi6SotySsbv26
What does NSX stand for on the mileposts?
What does the "S" denote in either case?
Edited to add: While you know New Jersey better than I do, if I’m not mistaken, in the link roadman65 posted the camera is facing away from New York (southbound). Pan it around the other way and look at the BGS to verify that.
Thanks. Seems convoluted, but if it allows them needed precision, that’s all that matters.
… Northbound is SNI and SNO.
It seems plausible those abbreviations, but hard to figure out until explained. Be better if it were NBX for NB Express and NBL for NB Local or NBE for NB Eastern Spur, etc.
If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.As I said, fastest way to get from Southern NJ to the PA Turnpike would be I-295N to I-95S to I-276W especially from parts of Southern NJ away from a Turnpike exit.
The NJ Turnpike released the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for the proposed improvements to the Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension between Interchanges 14 and 14A.I will just note here for now that the intent is for other projects to follow to continue widening east of Interchange 14A, but this is considered the priority - as has been mentioned in here, Newark Bay Bridge is in need of replacement.
https://www.njta.com/newsroom/nbhce-eis
Included on the page linked above are these general findings:
> The Project will eliminate congestion between Interchanges 14 and 14A, providing Level of Service C (free flow) and Level of Service D (minimally disrupted low) conditions to 2050 and beyond.
> The project will not cause residential displacements.
> The project will not impact community character or cohesion.
> The project will not encroach on or affect access to parks, community facilities, or places of worship.
Per the NJTA, construction on Interchange 14 in Newark to Interchange 14A in Bayonne and Jersey City will begin in 2026. It will last eight to 10 years.
The page includes a link for more detailed information, which is currently a dead link. Use https://www.njta.com/capitalprojects to view the EIS and other info regarding the project.
If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route.
It does connect, both at its southern terminus at I-95 / I-495 in Delaware, and also at its “northern” terminus at I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike across the river.If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route.
If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route.
Some argument can be made for connecting WB-SB and NB-EB at that point (going by roadway directions, not signed routes), but that would decimate the trucking industry at I-295 Exit 56 so I imagine that is why nothing will ever be proposed here.If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route.
95 and 895 in Baltimore doesn't either where they cross.
Ignoring that 95 was just designated here less than 10 years ago, this intersection of highways is less than a mile from the next Interchange on the Turnpike, making it difficult to construct properly.
Keep in mind also, further south you have the Turnpike have no connections to Route 42 either. So this is not the only place the NJ Turnpike has no access to a crossing freeway.
It’s a way of life in New Jersey and people for years have circumvented these spots with no problems. Exit 6 has Exits 5 and 7 to get to I-295 SB despite using local roads, however the connections are there. Route 541 for Exit 5 to I-295 or Exit 7 to Rising Sun Road for I-295 SB. Then Exit 7A provides a freeway between I-95 and I-295 if you want to remain on the freeways.
Not really a priority to get a direct connection between the Pearl Harbor Extension and I-295.
Keep in mind also, further south you have the Turnpike have no connections to Route 42 either. So this is not the only place the NJ Turnpike has no access to a crossing freeway.
It’s a way of life in New Jersey and people for years have circumvented these spots with no problems. Exit 6 has Exits 5 and 7 to get to I-295 SB despite using local roads, however the connections are there. Route 541 for Exit 5 to I-295 or Exit 7 to Rising Sun Road for I-295 SB. Then Exit 7A provides a freeway between I-95 and I-295 if you want to remain on the freeways.
Not really a priority to get a direct connection between the Pearl Harbor Extension and I-295.
I wouldn't say there were no problems with not having these connections. It is not convenient or efficient to take the current route from the NJT to the ACE. And similarly in Pennsylvania, it was a real pain not having the direct connection between I-95 and the Penn Tpk. all those years. So don't say it was no problem when there was a problem.
You are correct, and NJTA is looking at connectivity.Keep in mind also, further south you have the Turnpike have no connections to Route 42 either. So this is not the only place the NJ Turnpike has no access to a crossing freeway.
It’s a way of life in New Jersey and people for years have circumvented these spots with no problems. Exit 6 has Exits 5 and 7 to get to I-295 SB despite using local roads, however the connections are there. Route 541 for Exit 5 to I-295 or Exit 7 to Rising Sun Road for I-295 SB. Then Exit 7A provides a freeway between I-95 and I-295 if you want to remain on the freeways.
Not really a priority to get a direct connection between the Pearl Harbor Extension and I-295.
I wouldn't say there were no problems with not having these connections. It is not convenient or efficient to take the current route from the NJT to the ACE. And similarly in Pennsylvania, it was a real pain not having the direct connection between I-95 and the Penn Tpk. all those years. So don't say it was no problem when there was a problem.
Just the usual problems that we tolerate. I’m not saying that people enjoy having to use city streets to go from one freeway to another. I’m just saying we in the community outside this forum don’t get completely unglued when typical neglect happens.
For example, I lived in Fords where traffic on US 1 was a nightmare at times. Sure we all complained among ourselves, but we got by. Just like we have gotten by with jughandles for left turns on divided highways even though they were a pain.
It has just been announced that Governor Murphy will veto the NJTA's proposed toll increases.News article I found says "The move comes less than two weeks before Election Day, when all 120 seats in the Legislature are on the ballot. Democrats, who are stressing affordability issues on the campaign trail, are seeking to retain their majorities in both chambers." Make of that what you will.
It has just been announced that Governor Murphy will veto the NJTA's proposed toll increases.
It has just been announced that Governor Murphy will veto the NJTA's proposed toll increases.
It'll quietly get approved in December after the legislative elections are settled. No one wants this to be used as a political cudgel so close to the elections.
I think widening the stretch from Exit 4 to the southern end is far more important than an interchange with I-295.Disagree.
That is so far away as to not be relevant.It does connect, both at its southern terminus at I-95 / I-495 in Delaware, and also at its “northern” terminus at I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike across the river.If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route.
No reason, since 895 merges with 95 like a mile north.If they were considering connecting I-295 where it crosses the PA Extension, they'd only really need two ramps. I-295N to I95N and I95S to I295S. The traffic patterns at Exit 7 (I-295 Exit 56) and Exit 4 likely confirm this. The other connections can be done via Exit 6A if crossing to/from PA. From a regional perspective, I can't imagine too many people doing any of the other connections.I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route.
95 and 895 in Baltimore doesn't either where they cross.
Ignoring that 95 was just designated here less than 10 years ago, this intersection of highways is less than a mile from the next Interchange on the Turnpike, making it difficult to construct properly.
Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3
I think widening the stretch from Exit 4 to the southern end is far more important than an interchange with I-295.Disagree.
-Widening the west spur to six lanes fully
-Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3
-Having connections between the car and car/truck lanes
-Connecting the NJTP with RT42
-Connecting 295 to 95 at exit 6 are more important
No reason, since 895 merges with 95 like a mile north.It's 4 miles away. But you can't say...
I think there should be a full connection at Exit 6A between I-95 and I-295. It defies the interstate system to have a spur route not connect to the main route....and then give other spur/main intersections passes, regardless of distance. It's either one or the other. And your reasoning is basically "Because they have to"; not because there's an actual need. Sure, in normal highway building two major highways that intersect each other have an interchange. But there's no requirement to do so, including if they're parent/child.
but 3 lanes north of there :DWidening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3
4 lanes each way between exits 4 and 3?
New user joins, makes post basically verbatim to a recently banned user… seems normal to me :clap:I think widening the stretch from Exit 4 to the southern end is far more important than an interchange with I-295.Disagree.
-Widening the west spur to six lanes fully
-Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3
-Having connections between the car and car/truck lanes
-Connecting the NJTP with RT42
-Connecting 295 to 95 at exit 6 are more important
These sound like...suggestions certain others may have frequently posted in the past.
Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3
4 lanes each way between exits 4 and 3?
Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?
Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.
This question came up during their public study period. While no longer linked on the NJ Turnpike's website, a Google Search will find documents relating to the widening at www.njturnpikewidening.com . On Page 12 of http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/Interchange6-9WideningProgramExecutiveOrderNo.172-PublicHearingReport.pdf (and possibly other places), they referenced why they designed the merge south of Interchange 6: They performed comprehensive analyses of alternative configurations, and this design was considered to provide the best operation and safety.
I remember being at a public hearing and asking someone about this also. They stated their analysis showed it was better to allow traffic to continue thru the interchange, and do the merging at a separate location. If done at the interchange, especially on the SB side, "Exit Only" lanes would need to be built, and they often have a tendency for traffic to merge in or out of them at the last moment.
I also recall it being mentioned that their analysis showed that only 5 lanes would be needed between Interchanges 6 & 7A, but after their experiences with 5 lanes between Interchanges 8A & 9, they decided to build 6 lanes throughout, which will significantly assist traffic when either the inner or outer roadway is closed.
The widening south of Interchange 6 is probably an unusual case in NJ where a highway was widened well beyond what was needed for traffic, but to accommodate a smooth merging process, they built it the way we see it.
It was interesting to note that the subject of 4 laning the Turnpike between Interchanges 5 & 6 did come up, which you have referenced often, but the Turnpike didn't deem it necessary. See Pages 34 - 35. It noted that their analysis expected the merge Southbound would start congesting in 2023. We're here in 2023, and that does not appear to be occurring.
SB I understand, have the PATP traffic exit first, then merge from 6 to 3.
NB is what I do not understand.
Why have the road become 3+3, and then have both the inner and outer 3's have exit 6?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to continue NB with 3 lanes, adding one aux for exit 6 (which very few people from SB use) then have the 3 lanes split to 2+2 adding the 3rd lane with the PATP merge?
Also, I LOVE how it is 3+3 from exit 6 onward, because that part you can FLY!
One more thing, I long have said the NJTP should be 4 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4, then 3 lanes to exit 3, and then 2 lanes after through the rural part.
I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.wut?
I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.
wut?
No reason, since 895 merges with 95 like a mile north.It's 4 miles away. But you can't say...
I get that part - just not sure how it is relevant to the NJTP.I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.
wut?
Just an inside reference to another banned user who is no longer with us.
Yeah, it should be I-366.I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.wut?
I would prefer the non-Interstate segment of the New Jersey Turnpike to be numbered either Interstate 695 or Interstate 895, although it will likely always remain unsigned NJ 700.What is happening in this thread...
I would prefer the non-Interstate segment of the New Jersey Turnpike to be numbered either Interstate 695 or Interstate 895, although it will likely always remain unsigned NJ 700.They've assigned 695 to the Easterly Alignment, so only 895 is left.
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.Well, the ACE, anyway.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
BAM! No one steal my idea.
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.Well, the ACE, anyway.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Why not? From a numbering perspective, they'd be ramps. Long and wide ones, but ramps.BAM! No one steal my idea.
So what about the part of the outer lanes just south of exit 6?? Can't have those be blank. Since 895 might still be used for the new Burlington Bristol Bridge, I-1095?
Why not? From a numbering perspective, they'd be ramps. Long and wide ones, but ramps.BAM! No one steal my idea.
So what about the part of the outer lanes just south of exit 6?? Can't have those be blank. Since 895 might still be used for the new Burlington Bristol Bridge, I-1095?
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.Well, the ACE, anyway.
https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
I think the agreement was signed with the NJTA and the SJTA (who runs the ACE) a few years ago. The ACE might be the first one but it sounds like AET is coming to at least the Garden State Parkway not long after.
take it to Fictional (:Why not? From a numbering perspective, they'd be ramps. Long and wide ones, but ramps.BAM! No one steal my idea.
So what about the part of the outer lanes just south of exit 6?? Can't have those be blank. Since 895 might still be used for the new Burlington Bristol Bridge, I-1095?
AET is part of progress. It’s coming wether we like it or not. Get used to it.
Even the Will Rogers Turnpike in Oklahoma is getting it. Was talking to a toll booth collector at the Vinita plaza and she says her days are numbered. She was sad about it as she loved her job, but as we all know, automation is here and we have no choice but to go along.
I hope that all of the money spent on AET results in uniform per mile tolling on each of the various roads and does away with the current haphazard and inconsistent tolling.
Here are some examples: Traveling east on the ACE there is a toll getting off at Exit 9 but no toll if you stay on and get off at Exit 7. Traveling north on the GSP there is a toll getting off at Exit 165 but no toll if you exit further north.
Then on the NJT there is the inconsistencies in the northbound toll differentials between getting off at Exit 11 and getting off at Exit 10. Depending on at which exit you entered the Turnpike, you could pay (from Exit 8A) 10¢ or (from Exit 2) 95¢ just to travel those 3 miles. If you get on at Exit 1 the differential is 85¢ but if you get on at Exit 3 it is only 20¢. Assuming the toll to get off at Exit 10 covers the distance you've traveled from whatever exit, why are there these differences in how much more the toll is to get off at Exit 11? Hopefully this will be corrected with AET although there is no reason it couldn't be done now by the Turnpike.
Then on the NJT there is the inconsistencies in the northbound toll differentials between getting off at Exit 11 and getting off at Exit 10. Depending on at which exit you entered the Turnpike, you could pay (from Exit 8A) 10¢ or (from Exit 2) 95¢ just to travel those 3 miles. If you get on at Exit 1 the differential is 85¢ but if you get on at Exit 3 it is only 20¢. Assuming the toll to get off at Exit 10 covers the distance you've traveled from whatever exit, why are there these differences in how much more the toll is to get off at Exit 11? Hopefully this will be corrected with AET although there is no reason it couldn't be done now by the Turnpike.
ORT will likely solve most of the "free" sections on the GSP. Right now you can drive north from Exit 25 to Exit 50 without paying a toll! Even before the one-way conversion at the Great Egg Barrier, you had a free section from Exit 36 to 50. This is mostly due to the US-9 multiplex over the Mullica River needing to be free.
Closed ticket toll roads like the Turnpike can allow for those weird differentials. Exit 6 is a good example. Enter/Leaving the ticket system there is much more expensive than Exit 7 or 5 due to having to fund a river crossing. The real losers here are folks getting on/off at US-130/"Exit 6A".
The 129-140 section can never be tolled. It was stated upon purchase from NJDOT that the NJHA ( present NJTA) has to forever keep the part from the NJ Turnpike to Route 22 from being tolled.
The 129-140 section can never be tolled. It was stated upon purchase from NJDOT that the NJHA ( present NJTA) has to forever keep the part from the NJ Turnpike to Route 22 from being tolled.
I thought none of the segments that pre-existed the Parkway could ever be tolled. In addition to 129-140, that was the section around Toms River (80-83) and the former at-grade section around Cape May Court House.
I imagine that a lot of the gaps on the Parkway can be closed simply by reverting to two-way tolling on the mainline.I'll be curious to find out what the plan is for Parkway AET, given all of the exits that have tolling along one or more ramps (and not necessarily all ramps). There are a few different ways it could go, at least in my mind. Turnpike I think is straightforward but we will find out when it comes time to announce it, since we saw a couple of changes with MassPike and NY Thruway going AET so it's possible NJ will do the same. No way to know yet!
Them too. Those were first built and paid forand were intended as a free road even after toll bonds financed the rest.
The 129-140 section can never be tolled. It was stated upon purchase from NJDOT that the NJHA ( present NJTA) has to forever keep the part from the NJ Turnpike to Route 22 from being tolled.
I thought none of the segments that pre-existed the Parkway could ever be tolled. In addition to 129-140, that was the section around Toms River (80-83) and the former at-grade section around Cape May Court House.
However New York does it on MTA bridges, as the toll crossings pay for the free ones. Like the Triborough pays for the Queensboro.The Triboro doesn't pay for the Queensboro. It does, however, help subsidize the transit system. The free bridges are maintained by the City itself, not the MTA.
However New York does it on MTA bridges, as the toll crossings pay for the free ones. Like the Triborough pays for the Queensboro.The Triboro doesn't pay for the Queensboro. It does, however, help subsidize the transit system. The free bridges are maintained by the City itself, not the MTA.
It might have something to do with the Move NY Fair plan, which was very similar to the current congestion pricing plan, with the big difference being that there would have been no exemptions for FDR Drive or West Street, and the free East River bridges would have become true toll bridges.However New York does it on MTA bridges, as the toll crossings pay for the free ones. Like the Triborough pays for the Queensboro.The Triboro doesn't pay for the Queensboro. It does, however, help subsidize the transit system. The free bridges are maintained by the City itself, not the MTA.
My bad.
I tried to locate the article that said that the MTA operates the free bridges, but I can’t find it. According to Wiki, you’re right, but then again if it was Wiki the first time, it’s understandable that a road troll could have had a sense of humor or another person didn’t fact check himself the first time.
Well MTA doesn’t acknowledge they operate the freebie crossings.
https://new.mta.info/agency/bridges-and-tunnels
It probably was someone misinformed or a practical joker posting that on Wiki.
Traveling east on the ACE there is a toll getting off at Exit 9 but no toll if you stay on and get off at Exit 7.Exit 9 is the only exit that charges tolls in both directions. I believe it has something to do with the Atlantic City Airport, so I don't expect that to change. Exit 7 functionally divides the ACE into two tolled sections. You will always pay exactly one toll west of exit 7 and exactly one toll east of exit 7 (except the afore-mentioned exit 9) no matter where you enter or exit. The toll amount you pay will vary, however. I'm not sure why they went with this system instead of a ticketing one which they are attempting to emulate given that there are tollbooths at every ramp anyway.
Doesn't matter because ACE has already announced they're going All Electronic, so once that happens it'll be like normal.Traveling east on the ACE there is a toll getting off at Exit 9 but no toll if you stay on and get off at Exit 7.Exit 9 is the only exit that charges tolls in both directions. I believe it has something to do with the Atlantic City Airport, so I don't expect that to change. Exit 7 functionally divides the ACE into two tolled sections. You will always pay exactly one toll west of exit 7 and exactly one toll east of exit 7 (except the afore-mentioned exit 9) no matter where you enter or exit. The toll amount you pay will vary, however. I'm not sure why they went with this system instead of a ticketing one which they are attempting to emulate given that there are tollbooths at every ramp anyway.
Traveling east on the ACE there is a toll getting off at Exit 9 but no toll if you stay on and get off at Exit 7.Exit 9 is the only exit that charges tolls in both directions. I believe it has something to do with the Atlantic City Airport, so I don't expect that to change. Exit 7 functionally divides the ACE into two tolled sections. You will always pay exactly one toll west of exit 7 and exactly one toll east of exit 7 (except the afore-mentioned exit 9) no matter where you enter or exit. The toll amount you pay will vary, however. I'm not sure why they went with this system instead of a ticketing one which they are attempting to emulate given that there are tollbooths at every ramp anyway.
Traveling east on the ACE there is a toll getting off at Exit 9 but no toll if you stay on and get off at Exit 7.Exit 9 is the only exit that charges tolls in both directions. I believe it has something to do with the Atlantic City Airport, so I don't expect that to change. Exit 7 functionally divides the ACE into two tolled sections. You will always pay exactly one toll west of exit 7 and exactly one toll east of exit 7 (except the afore-mentioned exit 9) no matter where you enter or exit. The toll amount you pay will vary, however. I'm not sure why they went with this system instead of a ticketing one which they are attempting to emulate given that there are tollbooths at every ramp anyway.
You’re right. Exit 7 is like Exit 100 on the Parkway. You pay the Asbury toll north of it or go one exit south at Wall and pay the Exit 98 toll.
Then Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4's SB on ramp charges a toll too, probably for the same reason in reverse (soaking the Wildwoods-to-CMLF crowd, though NJ 47/US 9 shunpiking is available in this case too). Talk about strategic location. :)
Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4's SB on ramp charges a toll too, probably for the same reason in reverse (soaking the Wildwoods-to-CMLF crowd, though NJ 47/US 9 shunpiking is available in this case too). Talk about strategic location. :)
I think it’s to compete with Cape May County charging tolls on the drawbridge along Ocean Drive. I remember at one time there were billboards coming off the CMLF advertising to use Ocean Drive as the “best way to The Wildwoods.”
Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4's SB on ramp charges a toll too, probably for the same reason in reverse (soaking the Wildwoods-to-CMLF crowd, though NJ 47/US 9 shunpiking is available in this case too). Talk about strategic location. :)
I think it’s to compete with Cape May County charging tolls on the drawbridge along Ocean Drive. I remember at one time there were billboards coming off the CMLF advertising to use Ocean Drive as the “best way to The Wildwoods.”
I am pretty sure this is the reason. it is cheaper to take the Parkway to head from Wildwood to Cape May and back (1.40 round trip vs 5.50 to take the Middle Thoroughfare bridge). I never did quite understand why the Highway Authority (and later the Turnpike Authority) never tried to toll the ramps to and from 47 EB heading towards the Wildwoods, as they would bring in a lot of toll revenue (they could conceivably do the same at Exit 6 to prevent shunpiking unless travelers got off earlier and used Rt 9 to 147 or 47 instead).
Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4's SB on ramp charges a toll too, probably for the same reason in reverse (soaking the Wildwoods-to-CMLF crowd, though NJ 47/US 9 shunpiking is available in this case too). Talk about strategic location. :)
I think it’s to compete with Cape May County charging tolls on the drawbridge along Ocean Drive. I remember at one time there were billboards coming off the CMLF advertising to use Ocean Drive as the “best way to The Wildwoods.”
I am pretty sure this is the reason. it is cheaper to take the Parkway to head from Wildwood to Cape May and back (1.40 round trip vs 5.50 to take the Middle Thoroughfare bridge). I never did quite understand why the Highway Authority (and later the Turnpike Authority) never tried to toll the ramps to and from 47 EB heading towards the Wildwoods, as they would bring in a lot of toll revenue (they could conceivably do the same at Exit 6 to prevent shunpiking unless travelers got off earlier and used Rt 9 to 147 or 47 instead).
In theory, the former two-way Cape May Toll Plaza at MP 19 accounted for all SB tolling south of the point. But in reality the entire system has always suffered from an uneven tolling structure where not much made sense.
Exit 4 coming north on the Parkway charges a ramp toll but go north to the next following exit and no toll or any other exit before the mainline toll. I guess it’s to sock the ferry travelers to The Wildwoods as it’s a popular beach destination to get extra $$. However you can shunpike it by staying on US 9 and turn right at Route 47. That doesn’t make sense.
Exit 4's SB on ramp charges a toll too, probably for the same reason in reverse (soaking the Wildwoods-to-CMLF crowd, though NJ 47/US 9 shunpiking is available in this case too). Talk about strategic location. :)
I think it’s to compete with Cape May County charging tolls on the drawbridge along Ocean Drive. I remember at one time there were billboards coming off the CMLF advertising to use Ocean Drive as the “best way to The Wildwoods.”
I am pretty sure this is the reason. it is cheaper to take the Parkway to head from Wildwood to Cape May and back (1.40 round trip vs 5.50 to take the Middle Thoroughfare bridge). I never did quite understand why the Highway Authority (and later the Turnpike Authority) never tried to toll the ramps to and from 47 EB heading towards the Wildwoods, as they would bring in a lot of toll revenue (they could conceivably do the same at Exit 6 to prevent shunpiking unless travelers got off earlier and used Rt 9 to 147 or 47 instead).
In theory, the former two-way Cape May Toll Plaza at MP 19 accounted for all SB tolling south of the point. But in reality the entire system has always suffered from an uneven tolling structure where not much made sense.
North of Union it kind of makes sense. As you have Exits 143, 157, and 163 as midpoints between tolls, however not in the middle as the the former Highway authority charged mainly NB off and SB on tolling to get the most money out of commuters heading to and from North Jersey from more Central Jersey Points. Only SB 142 is the exception as I-78 was added later and very close to the Union Plaza.
Have all the ticket toll roads that switched to full ETC gone to having a mainline gantry after every entrance point? That is, did any of them retain the "closed ticket" form of E-ZPass transactions logging your enter and exit points?
Have all the ticket toll roads that switched to full ETC gone to having a mainline gantry after every entrance point? That is, did any of them retain the "closed ticket" form of E-ZPass transactions logging your enter and exit points?
Heck in Florida you have one toll facility that you can actually pay twice for traveling one exit. If you enter FL 417 NB from University Blvd you paid an an entrance ramp toll. Then drive one exit to Aloma Ave. and pay a toll to exit there too. Ditto driving from Aloma SB to University. One exit two tolls which is unheard of.
IL did something similar at O’ Hare for their tollways. Having the mainlines split by having a mainline north on I-294 of the airport and the SB I-294 counterpart south of the airport. This way you paid after entering all tollways including the Jane Addams tollway. Plus the Jane Addams mainline at O’ Hare is WB only as EB would pay at the mainlines on I-294 either SB or NB. Plus having the tolls split on I-294 allowed those traveling I-294 to I-90 WB to pay only at the Jane Addams mainline as well. However a ramp toll was placed entering the Airport or to exit at I-90 EB as those motorists yet haven’t reached any of the post airport mainlines, but the I-90/190 ramp tolls charged the same as the mainline tolls, but it was fair and a clever arrangement when first built.
...Oh never mind.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWQuQcLZu33sxq7A
It has new compliant signs.
1/4 mile sign belongs 1/4 mile before the exit gore, per MUTCD. NJTP chooses to have a long exit to facilitate decel....Oh never mind.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWQuQcLZu33sxq7A
It has new compliant signs.
I still disagree with the NJ Turnpike's approach that they say the exit is 1/4 mile ahead...when the decel lane is beginning.
Besides what Alps pointed out, NJTA puts the exit direction sign with the arrow overhead at the gore point. The more common placement on many highways for that sign is at the beginning of the deceleration lane. But because NJTA puts it at the gore point, the sign at the deceleration lane necessarily has to show distance such as a quarter mile. The Manual does not allow for two exit direction signs with the up arrow.
Interestingly New York State has an exception to that rule which does allow two exit direction signs in that configuration, both with the up arrow. I prefer New York's policy, but as Alps said, the NJTA set-up is does follow MUTCD spec's.
I think it’s there using their old gantries and just adding the signs to it rather than erect new signs.
I think it’s there using their old gantries and just adding the signs to it rather than erect new signs.
They're new gantries; the old ones were silver, the new are rust colored. And off the right shoulder it's a new concrete support. But otherwise it's in the same spot as before.
I think it’s there using their old gantries and just adding the signs to it rather than erect new signs.
Surprised that Philadelphia is removed from Exit 4, but that is most likely cause Exit 6 earlier connects to I-95 south for Philadelphia. NB you have I-95 from Farnhurst, DE or Exit 3 in Bellmawr to NJ 168, I-295, and I-76.
I think it’s there using their old gantries and just adding the signs to it rather than erect new signs.
Surprised that Philadelphia is removed from Exit 4, but that is most likely cause Exit 6 earlier connects to I-95 south for Philadelphia. NB you have I-95 from Farnhurst, DE or Exit 3 in Bellmawr to NJ 168, I-295, and I-76.
Nope, these are new. NJTA has been using the rust-colored sign structures (both gantries and cantilevers) since around 2000. The gantries that this replaced were from the early 1970s and were well beyond their service life.
I expect we'll eventually get new signs at the gore points where they remove the overhead gore point arrow signs (the "Exit 4" with the classic NJTA arrow) and replace it with a more standard gore point sign showing the route and control cities with a standard MUTCD arrow.
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?That was discussed on the forum somewhere, maybe even in this thread...
On a different subject, I was driving up the Turnpike from Pennsylvania earlier today and was surprised to see that the original Turnpike Authority Headquarters building near Exit 9 has been completely demolished. I didn't even know that was planned. How long ago was it torn down down?
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?From the article:
On a different subject, I was driving up the Turnpike from Pennsylvania earlier today and was surprised to see that the original Turnpike Authority Headquarters building near Exit 9 has been completely demolished. I didn't even know that was planned. How long ago was it torn down down?
“As a former NJ resident, this is the dumbest s*** ever. I don’t understand why widening the approach to a TWO LANE TUNNEL would make anything be better,” wrote another.
The explanation here is simple: The biggest chokepoint is the narrow, antiquated bridge over Newark Bay (officially the Vincent R. Casciano Memorial Bridge) because you have 2 lanes from I-78 and 3 lanes from the Turnpike merge into just 2 lanes across the bridge. Shoulders are needed due to the volume of truck traffic should anyone break down on the span. And there's a ton of industry in the area that needs this bridge for Turnpike access. Provide enough room for traffic to cross Newark Bay without the congestion, without the merging conditions that cause safety concerns, and it will get to NJ 440 and get to all of the industry in Bayonne. It's not to increase any traffic at Holland Tunnel, it's to get traffic flowing and save billions in wear/tear/pollution issues from current conditions.I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?From the article:
On a different subject, I was driving up the Turnpike from Pennsylvania earlier today and was surprised to see that the original Turnpike Authority Headquarters building near Exit 9 has been completely demolished. I didn't even know that was planned. How long ago was it torn down down?Quote“As a former NJ resident, this is the dumbest s*** ever. I don’t understand why widening the approach to a TWO LANE TUNNEL would make anything be better,” wrote another.
Clearly it's I-78.
The explanation here is simple: The biggest chokepoint is the narrow, antiquated bridge over Newark Bay (officially the Vincent R. Casciano Memorial Bridge) because you have 2 lanes from I-78 and 3 lanes from the Turnpike merge into just 2 lanes across the bridge. Shoulders are needed due to the volume of truck traffic should anyone break down on the span. And there's a ton of industry in the area that needs this bridge for Turnpike access. Provide enough room for traffic to cross Newark Bay without the congestion, without the merging conditions that cause safety concerns, and it will get to NJ 440 and get to all of the industry in Bayonne. It's not to increase any traffic at Holland Tunnel, it's to get traffic flowing and save billions in wear/tear/pollution issues from current conditions.I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?From the article:
On a different subject, I was driving up the Turnpike from Pennsylvania earlier today and was surprised to see that the original Turnpike Authority Headquarters building near Exit 9 has been completely demolished. I didn't even know that was planned. How long ago was it torn down down?Quote“As a former NJ resident, this is the dumbest s*** ever. I don’t understand why widening the approach to a TWO LANE TUNNEL would make anything be better,” wrote another.
Clearly it's I-78.
Is it a "narcissistic view", or is it the truth?
Interesting article about the NJ Turnpike. Call it click bait or old news but 101.5 radio published it sometimes and thought it's an interesting story.
https://943thepoint.com/most-expensive-new-jersey-toll-road/
Interesting article about the NJ Turnpike. Call it click bait or old news but 101.5 radio published it sometimes and thought it's an interesting story.
https://943thepoint.com/most-expensive-new-jersey-toll-road/
Seemed worthless to me. It compared average toll paid rather than toll per mile. Of course the PA Turnpike will have an average higher toll - it’s longer and doesn’t have the short commuter trips the way the NJ Turnpike does
Oh, it's worthless all right. By clicking on the source (AZ Animals, whoever that is) to view the 10 highest priced toll roads:
The website's #7 most expensive toll road is: The Delaware Turnpike, at $14.00. The claim: "The Delaware Turnpike is the seventh most expensive toll road in the United States, with an average cost of $14.00 for a passenger car. The turnpike is 67 miles long and runs from the New Jersey border to the Maryland border."
Oh, it's worthless all right. By clicking on the source (AZ Animals, whoever that is) to view the 10 highest priced toll roads:
The website's #7 most expensive toll road is: The Delaware Turnpike, at $14.00. The claim: "The Delaware Turnpike is the seventh most expensive toll road in the United States, with an average cost of $14.00 for a passenger car. The turnpike is 67 miles long and runs from the New Jersey border to the Maryland border."
Worse yet, it lists Illinois’ “Ronald Reagan Tollway” (I-88) with a distance that I believe is the total of the entire Illinois Tollway system and an average toll of $26.45. The actual total of the four mainline plazas on I-88 is $5.10 I-Pass / $10.20 Online. If an I-Pass car went through every mainline plaza (not that that’s possible in a single trip), it would total about $17. And the average is going to be much less. So less than worthless.
Oh, it's worthless all right. By clicking on the source (AZ Animals, whoever that is) to view the 10 highest priced toll roads:
The website's #7 most expensive toll road is: The Delaware Turnpike, at $14.00. The claim: "The Delaware Turnpike is the seventh most expensive toll road in the United States, with an average cost of $14.00 for a passenger car. The turnpike is 67 miles long and runs from the New Jersey border to the Maryland border."
Worse yet, it lists Illinois’ “Ronald Reagan Tollway” (I-88) with a distance that I believe is the total of the entire Illinois Tollway system and an average toll of $26.45. The actual total of the four mainline plazas on I-88 is $5.10 I-Pass / $10.20 Online. If an I-Pass car went through every mainline plaza (not that that’s possible in a single trip), it would total about $17. And the average is going to be much less. So less than worthless.
For the PA Turnpike, the average toll appears to have been calculated if the average traveler traveled from the PA/OH Border to the NE Extension, then North to Mt. Pocono, without an EZ Pass.
To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
Maybe if you're a truck.To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
Not related but from my understanding its pretty easy to shunpike the toll for the Delaware turnpike, although apparently you can get a ticket for doing that?
to avoid the traffic from NYC to richmond use I-78, I-81, and US 15 (or I-70 if you must) to I-270.To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
I’m not sure people are using those routes to avoid the tolls, but rather to avoid the traffic in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area and that segment of I-95 between Northern Virginia and Richmond.To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
Not related but from my understanding its pretty easy to shunpike the toll for the Delaware turnpike, although apparently you can get a ticket for doing that?
To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
Not related but from my understanding its pretty easy to shunpike the toll for the Delaware turnpike, although apparently you can get a ticket for doing that?
They only enforce that on truck traffic. Not worth the enforcement effort for $4 car toll, but it is for the very expensive truck toll. I shunpike the Delaware toll plaza all the time.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/uF9yFzWbcUSZAvdA8Anyone else read that sign as "DC 1000"?
Back in New Jersey. One of the things I find cool ( and the MUTCD should adopt this) is 1000 feet before an emergency median crossover between the carriageways is this small sign informing EMTs where the median break is located.
Oh, it's worthless all right. By clicking on the source (AZ Animals, whoever that is) to view the 10 highest priced toll roads:
The website's #7 most expensive toll road is: The Delaware Turnpike, at $14.00. The claim: "The Delaware Turnpike is the seventh most expensive toll road in the United States, with an average cost of $14.00 for a passenger car. The turnpike is 67 miles long and runs from the New Jersey border to the Maryland border."
Worse yet, it lists Illinois’ “Ronald Reagan Tollway” (I-88) with a distance that I believe is the total of the entire Illinois Tollway system and an average toll of $26.45. The actual total of the four mainline plazas on I-88 is $5.10 I-Pass / $10.20 Online. If an I-Pass car went through every mainline plaza (not that that’s possible in a single trip), it would total about $17. And the average is going to be much less. So less than worthless.
For the PA Turnpike, the average toll appears to have been calculated if the average traveler traveled from the PA/OH Border to the NE Extension, then North to Mt. Pocono, without an EZ Pass.
I can't come up with a plausible way to get to $26.45 on the Illinois Tollway. Since all online tolls are double the I-Pass toll, online has to be a multiple of $0.10. And the sum of all the mainline plazas (not that you can get to all in one trip) is less than $20 I-Pass; the most expensive continuous trip you can make without leaving the Tollway is about $6 I-Pass / $12 Online.
To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
Not related but from my understanding its pretty easy to shunpike the toll for the Delaware turnpike, although apparently you can get a ticket for doing that?
They only enforce that on truck traffic. Not worth the enforcement effort for $4 car toll, but it is for the very expensive truck toll. I shunpike the Delaware toll plaza all the time.
There's nothing to enforce. There's nothing illegal about exiting a toll road, using state highways in 2 different states, and returning to the highway.
What they're enforcing on truck traffic isn't evading the toll; they're enforcing a 4 Ton weight Limit on Route 4. If a trucker wanted to exit 95 prior to the toll plaza, go to US 40, cross the state light, then return to I-95, there's still nothing illegal occurring.
To play devils advocate here, atleast with PA you have a free freeway alternative (I-80, keystone shortway) with the NJ Turnpike you cant go the full N-S length of NJ on a non-tolled freeway (I-295 gets about halfway through the state)
Delaware the same thing. I-95 has no freeway alternatives. That’s why most to avoid the tolls from NYC to Richmond use I-78, I-81, and I-64, going hundreds of miles out.
Not related but from my understanding its pretty easy to shunpike the toll for the Delaware turnpike, although apparently you can get a ticket for doing that?
They only enforce that on truck traffic. Not worth the enforcement effort for $4 car toll, but it is for the very expensive truck toll. I shunpike the Delaware toll plaza all the time.
From what I've heard, it is fairly easy to get a speeding ticket along the most common shunpike routes there, which I suppose is fairly understandable. As has been noted, there's nothing illegal about bypassing a toll plaza (unless the roads you would use are somehow restricted in a way that makes it illegal for you to use them, such as a truck restriction), but there's also nothing illegal about the police knowing that people do this and targeting those people for stricter enforcement of traffic laws like speeding, running red lights, whatever, and it's hardly a surprise the police would do so.The speed limit is 50 mph on Rt. 4, DE's standard limit. In my times using the road, I can't recall seeing any police along the route dealing with speed enforcement. Normal speeds tend to be about 60 mph or so by many, which is the normal speed in the overall Rt. 4 corridor from 896 towards DE 7, other than in the more congested areas of the highway.
Interesting article about the NJ Turnpike. Call it click bait or old news but 101.5 radio published it sometimes and thought it's an interesting story.
https://943thepoint.com/most-expensive-new-jersey-toll-road/
Seemed worthless to me. It compared average toll paid rather than toll per mile. Of course the PA Turnpike will have an average higher toll - it’s longer and doesn’t have the short commuter trips the way the NJ Turnpike does
Oh, it's worthless all right. By clicking on the source (AZ Animals, whoever that is) to view the 10 highest priced toll roads:
The website's #7 most expensive toll road is: The Delaware Turnpike, at $14.00. The claim: "The Delaware Turnpike is the seventh most expensive toll road in the United States, with an average cost of $14.00 for a passenger car. The turnpike is 67 miles long and runs from the New Jersey border to the Maryland border."
There's also two other left turns you can make before getting to 4, though the recent median closure on MD 279 kinda killed the benefits of using those instead.From what I've heard, it is fairly easy to get a speeding ticket along the most common shunpike routes there, which I suppose is fairly understandable. As has been noted, there's nothing illegal about bypassing a toll plaza (unless the roads you would use are somehow restricted in a way that makes it illegal for you to use them, such as a truck restriction), but there's also nothing illegal about the police knowing that people do this and targeting those people for stricter enforcement of traffic laws like speeding, running red lights, whatever, and it's hardly a surprise the police would do so.The speed limit is 50 mph on Rt. 4, DE's standard limit. In my times using the road, I can't recall seeing any police along the route dealing with speed enforcement. Normal speeds tend to be about 60 mph or so by many, which is the normal speed in the overall Rt. 4 corridor from 896 towards DE 7, other than in the more congested areas of the highway.
It should also be noted that this is a normal route for Delawareans as well to get between a large shopping center and development on the south end of DE 4 and the U of D and other residential/commercial area from 896 and points north. There's a lot of cross traffic at 896 and 4 also showing how much traffic is local, vs toll-bypass traffic.
DE has posted 'Strictly Enforced' signage on the speed limit signs on the past, which is more threat than promise. These signs have been used elsewhere throughout DE in attempts to get people to slow down, including on 65 mph DE 1. Unless it's a small town like Newport, the leeway for speed is pretty great throughout Delaware in my observations and experiences.
DE does have a red light camera on 896 approaching Rt. 4, but it gets people going both left and straight. In the immediate area, there's 5 right light cameras, with the other 4 not positioned along the toll-bypass route. Throughout the state, over 3 dozen locations have cameras, most of them targeting local traffic.
There's also two other left turns you can make before getting to 4, though the recent median closure on MD 279 kinda killed the benefits of using those instead.From what I've heard, it is fairly easy to get a speeding ticket along the most common shunpike routes there, which I suppose is fairly understandable. As has been noted, there's nothing illegal about bypassing a toll plaza (unless the roads you would use are somehow restricted in a way that makes it illegal for you to use them, such as a truck restriction), but there's also nothing illegal about the police knowing that people do this and targeting those people for stricter enforcement of traffic laws like speeding, running red lights, whatever, and it's hardly a surprise the police would do so.The speed limit is 50 mph on Rt. 4, DE's standard limit. In my times using the road, I can't recall seeing any police along the route dealing with speed enforcement. Normal speeds tend to be about 60 mph or so by many, which is the normal speed in the overall Rt. 4 corridor from 896 towards DE 7, other than in the more congested areas of the highway.
It should also be noted that this is a normal route for Delawareans as well to get between a large shopping center and development on the south end of DE 4 and the U of D and other residential/commercial area from 896 and points north. There's a lot of cross traffic at 896 and 4 also showing how much traffic is local, vs toll-bypass traffic.
DE has posted 'Strictly Enforced' signage on the speed limit signs on the past, which is more threat than promise. These signs have been used elsewhere throughout DE in attempts to get people to slow down, including on 65 mph DE 1. Unless it's a small town like Newport, the leeway for speed is pretty great throughout Delaware in my observations and experiences.
DE does have a red light camera on 896 approaching Rt. 4, but it gets people going both left and straight. In the immediate area, there's 5 right light cameras, with the other 4 not positioned along the toll-bypass route. Throughout the state, over 3 dozen locations have cameras, most of them targeting local traffic.
1/4 mile sign belongs 1/4 mile before the exit gore, per MUTCD. NJTP chooses to have a long exit to facilitate decel....Oh never mind.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWQuQcLZu33sxq7A
It has new compliant signs.
I still disagree with the NJ Turnpike's approach that they say the exit is 1/4 mile ahead...when the decel lane is beginning.
3% toll hike on the Turnpike system starting on March 1st (it's been approved by Gov. Murphy)... Going up another 15 cents!
3% toll hike on the Turnpike system starting on March 1st (it's been approved by Gov. Murphy)... Going up another 15 cents!
Yet the Parkway is only going up five cents.
Any news on the I-695 for the spur? Or is that just an official office use thing?I believe it has been officially approved for the Easterly Alignment by FHWA.
What Interstate 695 spur? The only Interstate 695 spur in New Jersey history was the one between Interstate 95 and Interstate 287 that was killed when the Somerset Expressway was canceled in 1982. While I would like the Exit 1-to-Exit 6 segment of the New Jersey Turnpike to be renumbered from NJ 700 to Interstate 695, I acknowledge that it has as much of a chance of happening as making NJ 42 and the Atlantic City Expressway an extension of Interstate 76, logical as it may seem.
What were the determining factors in which alignment (East or West) would be the I-695.
What were the determining factors in which alignment (East or West) would be the I-695.
Through I-95 traffic is encouraged to use the western roadway. At the north end, the ramp configuration is designed for the main flows to be western roadway to/from the GWB and eastern roadway to/from I-80. Hence, it would make sense for the western roadway to carry the I-95 number.
What were the determining factors in which alignment (East or West) would be the I-695.
Through I-95 traffic is encouraged to use the western roadway. At the north end, the ramp configuration is designed for the main flows to be western roadway to/from the GWB and eastern roadway to/from I-80. Hence, it would make sense for the western roadway to carry the I-95 number.
That’s correct. I know a friend of a friend of a friend that has access to Turnpike employees and I’m told that there were two simple reasons. First is as you stated. The southbound through movements in what they refer to as the “Northern Mixing Bowl” has 95 from the bridge form the West and the east in formed from I-80. This theory minimizes the weaving and lane changes approaching the mixing bowl. Secondarily, was to keep the through movement away from Lincoln Tunnel commuters.
I do wonder though if the application reroutes 95 off of the East because the east was the original alignment. To my knowledge, when 95 shields starting showing up on signing on the West I don’t think they asked.
I like the Eastern Spur because it’s got six lanes and less traffic than the Western Spur with only four overcrowded lanes.
I never did understand why they built the western spur at four lanes north of Exit 16W, considering the amount of traffic being in a large metropolitan area. Even in 1971, when it opened, they already had the eastern Spur built to six lanes due to traffic demands of the time. Yet they built this part of the spur to this configuration.
I like the Eastern Spur because it’s got six lanes and less traffic than the Western Spur with only four overcrowded lanes.Same. Whenever I'm estimating trips, Google shows more congestion on the Western than the Eastern, so I take the Eastern. With ORT now on the Eastern as well as the Western, it's no contest. Hopefully the widening will fix that.
I never did understand why they built the western spur at four lanes north of Exit 16W, considering the amount of traffic being in a large metropolitan area. Even in 1971, when it opened, they already had the eastern Spur built to six lanes due to traffic demands of the time. Yet they built this part of the spur to this configuration.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7As of today, I-95 splits in two, which isn't supposed to happen. And there are loops that are shorter; just look at I-277 in Charlotte.
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
As long as the NJ Turnpike shield stays, everyone will be fine.
Just look at Delaware and the number of people going towards the NJ Tpk rather than 95. They figure it out. Those using GPS couldn't care if it was a dirt path...they're gonna follow what the electronic machine says to do.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
As long as the NJ Turnpike shield stays, everyone will be fine.
Just look at Delaware and the number of people going towards the NJ Tpk rather than 95. They figure it out. Those using GPS couldn't care if it was a dirt path...they're gonna follow what the electronic machine says to do.
I concur. Too many people get bent out of shape if every i is dotted and every t crossed, even when there is a good reason for an exception. Think of the eastern and western roads as similar to an express/local configuration or a C/D road. They just get father apart than most but take you to the same place. And if they take you to the same place a short distance (for some definition of short) down the road, a separate number just confuses things, particularly to those of us who are old school who consider the number secondary to the named toll toad.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
As long as the NJ Turnpike shield stays, everyone will be fine.
Just look at Delaware and the number of people going towards the NJ Tpk rather than 95. They figure it out. Those using GPS couldn't care if it was a dirt path...they're gonna follow what the electronic machine says to do.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
As long as the NJ Turnpike shield stays, everyone will be fine.
Just look at Delaware and the number of people going towards the NJ Tpk rather than 95. They figure it out. Those using GPS couldn't care if it was a dirt path...they're gonna follow what the electronic machine says to do.
I don't think I-95 needs to be approved for a reroute as long as it goes through all of the listed control cities. This is from existing freeway to parallel existing freeway, so can probably be done anytime. Just guessing.What were the determining factors in which alignment (East or West) would be the I-695.
Through I-95 traffic is encouraged to use the western roadway. At the north end, the ramp configuration is designed for the main flows to be western roadway to/from the GWB and eastern roadway to/from I-80. Hence, it would make sense for the western roadway to carry the I-95 number.
That’s correct. I know a friend of a friend of a friend that has access to Turnpike employees and I’m told that there were two simple reasons. First is as you stated. The southbound through movements in what they refer to as the “Northern Mixing Bowl” has 95 from the bridge form the West and the east in formed from I-80. This theory minimizes the weaving and lane changes approaching the mixing bowl. Secondarily, was to keep the through movement away from Lincoln Tunnel commuters.
I do wonder though if the application reroutes 95 off of the East because the east was the original alignment. To my knowledge, when 95 shields starting showing up on signing on the West I don’t think they asked.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
As long as the NJ Turnpike shield stays, everyone will be fine.
Just look at Delaware and the number of people going towards the NJ Tpk rather than 95. They figure it out. Those using GPS couldn't care if it was a dirt path...they're gonna follow what the electronic machine says to do.
Looking at GSV, it appears new overhead hybrid VMS signs are going up / have gone up at the east / west spur splits with a blank placeholder for 695. Going southbound on the turnpike at the split past US 46, signs now list "TPK South / Lincoln Tunnel" for the eastern spur (with a blank slot to the left of the turnpike symbol) and "TPK/95 South / Trenton" for the western spur, which replace signs with the limited exit numbers (16W, 17, etc). Similarly going northbound the signs now list "95 North / 280 West / George Washington Bridge" for the western spur and "80 West / Lincoln Tunnel" for the eastern spur (with a blank slot to the left of 80 west), which replace signs that listed all of the exits for each spur (exits 15W-16W-18W etc..). I guess most people use GPS now but wonder if not having the exit numbers will be an issue. Also, the "80 West" (and not "TO 80 West") may be confusing as the primary route for the eastern spur until they add 695. Not sure if things have changed since these GSV pictures.
I'll take a guess that the NJTA determined that today's generation of drivers finds the destinations and route numbers more useful and easier to read than all those exit numbers. And I would tend to agree with them.
Not all of them. They're not used near Rochester or Syracuse (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0959764,-76.1655557,3a,75y,276.81h,87.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3-Dc7b36Wr1HFGFA44s9PA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).I'll take a guess that the NJTA determined that today's generation of drivers finds the destinations and route numbers more useful and easier to read than all those exit numbers. And I would tend to agree with them.
Then you got the nearby PTC and NYSTA that signs the exits from every on ramp entering their toll roads. I’m not saying do that, but if your looking for Secaucus Junction now it would be harder without the 15X exit number.
Not all of them. They're not used near Rochester or Syracuse (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0959764,-76.1655557,3a,75y,276.81h,87.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3-Dc7b36Wr1HFGFA44s9PA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu).I'll take a guess that the NJTA determined that today's generation of drivers finds the destinations and route numbers more useful and easier to read than all those exit numbers. And I would tend to agree with them.
Then you got the nearby PTC and NYSTA that signs the exits from every on ramp entering their toll roads. I’m not saying do that, but if your looking for Secaucus Junction now it would be harder without the 15X exit number.
I like the Eastern Spur because it’s got six lanes and less traffic than the Western Spur with only four overcrowded lanes.Same. Whenever I'm estimating trips, Google shows more congestion on the Western than the Eastern, so I take the Eastern. With ORT now on the Eastern as well as the Western, it's no contest. Hopefully the widening will fix that.
I never did understand why they built the western spur at four lanes north of Exit 16W, considering the amount of traffic being in a large metropolitan area. Even in 1971, when it opened, they already had the eastern Spur built to six lanes due to traffic demands of the time. Yet they built this part of the spur to this configuration.
I like the Eastern Spur because it’s got six lanes and less traffic than the Western Spur with only four overcrowded lanes.Same. Whenever I'm estimating trips, Google shows more congestion on the Western than the Eastern, so I take the Eastern. With ORT now on the Eastern as well as the Western, it's no contest. Hopefully the widening will fix that.
I never did understand why they built the western spur at four lanes north of Exit 16W, considering the amount of traffic being in a large metropolitan area. Even in 1971, when it opened, they already had the eastern Spur built to six lanes due to traffic demands of the time. Yet they built this part of the spur to this configuration.
I think at that time in 1970, they thought building a whole separate road would've been enough. The equivalent of widening the eastern with 2 extra lanes each way. But today, it seems to be the very last thing they will touch. Why IDK. I'd widen that before Exits 6-1.
I like the Eastern Spur because it’s got six lanes and less traffic than the Western Spur with only four overcrowded lanes.Same. Whenever I'm estimating trips, Google shows more congestion on the Western than the Eastern, so I take the Eastern. With ORT now on the Eastern as well as the Western, it's no contest. Hopefully the widening will fix that.
I never did understand why they built the western spur at four lanes north of Exit 16W, considering the amount of traffic being in a large metropolitan area. Even in 1971, when it opened, they already had the eastern Spur built to six lanes due to traffic demands of the time. Yet they built this part of the spur to this configuration.
I think at that time in 1970, they thought building a whole separate road would've been enough. The equivalent of widening the eastern with 2 extra lanes each way. But today, it seems to be the very last thing they will touch. Why IDK. I'd widen that before Exits 6-1.
As for why the westerly roadway up north wasn't built to 3 lanes each way originally - I'll go with the reasoning I've used other times: 50 years ago, it was probably tough to imagine how traffic would increase in 50 years. That was an era where people thought flying cars would be up and coming. Or at least automatic cars. Flying cars never happened, and they're not exactly succeeding with self-driving cars either.
And also: Predict 50 years from now how traffic will be. Be accurate and precise.
We can probably take somewhat of a guess what'll happen in the future, and how traffic will grow. But I can also look back at reports from just 20 years ago and see how wrong some of them are, so it's always a gamble what the future will bring.
Someone here already posted the plans for the widening. It had some pretty crazy ramps at the Pulaski Skyway.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7As of today, I-95 splits in two, which isn't supposed to happen. And there are loops that are shorter; just look at I-277 in Charlotte.
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
What is odd is there is no 19E but a 19W, however 17 exists fine as non suffixed. They have to add a W to create 19 which is odd.
One of the quirks with some of the northeastern toll roads is that the "exit number" for the end of the ticket system is the toll plaza, not the interchange just past it, which is not numbered. So 18E and 18W are actually the toll barriers, while US 46 has no number northbound and is 68 southbound. That does still leave the question of 17, but I think they wanted to differentiate it from 16E since it's a fixed-rate toll while keeping 18 the end of the turnpike for both directions. The number also predates the eastern/western split and they probably didn't feel the need to change it. 19W came later and historically was an event-only toll-free interchange that lacked a number, so different people making different decisions.What is odd is there is no 19E but a 19W, however 17 exists fine as non suffixed. They have to add a W to create 19 which is odd.
Odder to me is that 19W, while physically north of the 18W toll plaza, is south of what was, at least as built, actual Exit 18 (U.S. 46). And if they are going to justify it because it's north of the 18W plaza, that's not consistent with the east side where 17 is north of the 18E plaza.
One of the quirks with some of the northeastern toll roads is that the "exit number" for the end of the ticket system is the toll plaza, not the interchange just past it, which is not numbered. So 18E and 18W are actually the toll barriers, while US 46 has no number northbound and is 68 southbound. That does still leave the question of 17, but I think they wanted to differentiate it from 16E since it's a fixed-rate toll while keeping 18 the end of the turnpike for both directions. The number also predates the eastern/western split and they probably didn't feel the need to change it. 19W came later and historically was an event-only toll-free interchange that lacked a number, so different people making different decisions.What is odd is there is no 19E but a 19W, however 17 exists fine as non suffixed. They have to add a W to create 19 which is odd.
Odder to me is that 19W, while physically north of the 18W toll plaza, is south of what was, at least as built, actual Exit 18 (U.S. 46). And if they are going to justify it because it's north of the 18W plaza, that's not consistent with the east side where 17 is north of the 18E plaza.
Unless I'm missing one, the only toll roads left with sequential exit numbers are the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway...
Unless I'm missing one, the only toll roads left with sequential exit numbers are the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway...
The Delaware Turnpike is sequentially numbered too. If they were converted to Milemarker based numbering, each Exit number would roughly double (Exit 1 would be Exit 2, Exit 3 would be Exit 6, etc).
In the days when I was living north of Wilmington and going to the University of Delaware, there were multiple entire years in a row when I either drove on the Delaware Turnpike or was driven on it, and never paid a toll, since there was no reason for us to take the road west of DE 896 (I went to Baltimore or DC very rarely in those days). Obviously this was after the time when there were toll booths on each exit (which I do remember).Unless I'm missing one, the only toll roads left with sequential exit numbers are the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway...
The Delaware Turnpike is sequentially numbered too. If they were converted to Milemarker based numbering, each Exit number would roughly double (Exit 1 would be Exit 2, Exit 3 would be Exit 6, etc).
Yeah, the description is for roads following, but still, no signed exit numbers. This is particularly obvious at the other end with US 40. No "exit 1" signage to be seen.One of the quirks with some of the northeastern toll roads is that the "exit number" for the end of the ticket system is the toll plaza, not the interchange just past it, which is not numbered. So 18E and 18W are actually the toll barriers, while US 46 has no number northbound and is 68 southbound. That does still leave the question of 17, but I think they wanted to differentiate it from 16E since it's a fixed-rate toll while keeping 18 the end of the turnpike for both directions. The number also predates the eastern/western split and they probably didn't feel the need to change it. 19W came later and historically was an event-only toll-free interchange that lacked a number, so different people making different decisions.What is odd is there is no 19E but a 19W, however 17 exists fine as non suffixed. They have to add a W to create 19 which is odd.
Odder to me is that 19W, while physically north of the 18W toll plaza, is south of what was, at least as built, actual Exit 18 (U.S. 46). And if they are going to justify it because it's north of the 18W plaza, that's not consistent with the east side where 17 is north of the 18E plaza.
My history with NJ Turnpike (as a child, not a driver) goes back to when the numbers just went 15-16-17-18, there being only one roadway north of Newark Airport. And while the 18 plaza was at 16 (we moved to NJ in 1967 so the original 18 plaza was before that), I am fairly certain that toll tickets at the time (I always asked my father to let me see the ticket) had US 46 in the description of 18 (and the road north of 46 was not yet built either so 46 was end of road - I remember us taking US 46 to the GWB as there was a gas station along there where my father liked to fill up). Even today, the description of both 18E and 18W is the roads (US46, I-80, GWB), not the plaza.
Unless I'm missing one, the only toll roads left with sequential exit numbers are the NJ Turnpike and the NY Thruway so "some of the northeastern toll roads" is only 1 (0 would be none, 2 would be all, and this discussion doesn't really apply to mileage based exits). The NY Thruway clearly differentiates between toll plazas and exits of the same number, particularly with 15 (plaza is Woodbury, exit is Suffern 15 miles away - and that made sense at the time as when they did the change to make Woodbury the end of the ticket section and converted Spring Valley (14 for toll purposes even though it was north of 14A) to a fixed price toll, the toll to Woodbury was the same as the old toll to Exit 15 at Suffern - you paid for those 15 miles at Woodbury - tolls by the exit/plaza numbers did not change and neither 14B nor 15A existed).
As built, I am fairly certain they called the trumpet end of road "Exit 18" just as the Mass Pike called it's end of road interchange at what would become I-93 (pre-Big Dig) "Exit 24" (of course, that was not in the ticket section so there was never a 24 on Mass Pike toll tickets). I guess now they just want 18 to apply to the plazas and they just hope us old-timers can't remember how they used to do it.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZZrUqcx4zpQjiqRG7As of today, I-95 splits in two, which isn't supposed to happen. And there are loops that are shorter; just look at I-277 in Charlotte.
Wonder if this I-95 shield will soon be replaced.
I think changing this out would add confusion as I-95 is the straight through route and the eastern spur isn’t long enough of a loop to warrant its own number.
277 might be shorter but it has way more exits
If they absolutely have to assign an Interstate route number to both legs, why not simplify it by calling them 95W and 95E ?I've always thought that, but the ship has sailed. I-35 has not one, but two, E/W splits on its route, so there'd be a precedent to this.
The MassPike used to do something similar. What is now exit 131 used to be exit 18 EB and 20 WB. Where was 19? That was the mainline toll plaza in the middle. Exit 123 used to be split between 14 and 15, depending on whether one paid the ticket toll from the west or the barrier toll from the east.
The Ohio Turnpike is an interesting example of a toll road doing this with distance-based exit numbers. 2 is Westgate, not OH 49, which doesn't have an exit number. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike gets in on the action! "Exit 20" on I-476 SB (and the Turnpike mainline (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1140318,-75.2714506,3a,25.3y,263.15h,94.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXU6_oItBAhhQRq7GY0m3Ow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) too :ded:) is for the Mid-County toll barrier, while the interchange between I-276 and I-476 lacks a number from either route.
Then you had the NYS Thruway that had two exit 15’s in the ticket days. The Woodbury Plaza was Exit 15 for the ticket system and for I-287 into NJ as an overall ramp exit number.
The Thruway solved this problem by using names for anything that wasn't an interchange barrier on the ticket system. Sure, the ticket said 15 and 50 for the ends of the ticket system, but those were the exit numbers just beyond the ticket system. The actual barrier names were Woodbury and Williamsville. The fixed-rate portion of the barrier at exit 16 was Harriman. Extending that to the MassPike, the 18/19/20 thing would likely be Allston/Brighton/Cambridge for the barriers and just 18 for the exit number.The MassPike used to do something similar. What is now exit 131 used to be exit 18 EB and 20 WB. Where was 19? That was the mainline toll plaza in the middle. Exit 123 used to be split between 14 and 15, depending on whether one paid the ticket toll from the west or the barrier toll from the east.
The Ohio Turnpike is an interesting example of a toll road doing this with distance-based exit numbers. 2 is Westgate, not OH 49, which doesn't have an exit number. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike gets in on the action! "Exit 20" on I-476 SB (and the Turnpike mainline (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1140318,-75.2714506,3a,25.3y,263.15h,94.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXU6_oItBAhhQRq7GY0m3Ow!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) too :ded:) is for the Mid-County toll barrier, while the interchange between I-276 and I-476 lacks a number from either route.
The old Mass Pike 18/19/20 numbering made sense given the three separate fixed barriers there. There was no 1:1 correspondence between exit and toll plazas so something had to give.
As for the old Mass Pike 14/15, that was logically the same as the NJ Turnpike 16E/17/18E and the Thruway 15/16 complexes. While each implemented it different physically, they were all a “between the ramps” higher toll for traffic to/from the end of the ticket system (NJ 18E, NYT 15, Mass 15), a lower ticket toll for traffic exiting the ticket system at that complex (NJ 16E, NYT 16, Mass 14), and a fixed rate barrier for traffic going from the exit within the complex away from the ticket section and v.v. (NJ 17 (used to be tolled both way), NYT 16 fixed, Mass 15 fixed). NYT made it a little more complex with traffic entering NB at 16 paying the fixed toll, then getting a ticket at second plaza (the lanes on the east side of the 15 Woodbury plaza) that was discounted for the amount already paid (I once went 16 to 17 just for the fun of exiting at 17 and paying no toll as the pre-paid amount equaled the toll for that segment).
As for the Ohio Turnpike, it’s been eight years or so since I drove that but I thought at least then there were exit numbers at OH 49. But I’m rarely looking for exit numbers when I’m on a road I know. In my home area, I may not even be reading signs (I know the exit to go home from the curve leading to it - no need for signs).
And I’ve given up on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Once they decided to go with numbering by route rather than a co-ordinated system for the entire road, the road lost its identity as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. And that 20 on the mainline using the number for 476 is just wrong. But it’s been about 20 years since I was on any part of the PA Turnpike.
I've always thought that, but the ship has sailed. I-35 has not one, but two, E/W splits on its route, so there'd be a precedent to this.