AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: 1 on December 22, 2013, 09:04:24 PM

Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on December 22, 2013, 09:04:24 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on December 22, 2013, 09:19:52 PM
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?

i can answer 3 and 4

3: There is a section that is being rebuilt between 6 and 8A where they're extending the truck lanes, north of there there is also a section where the lanes are abandoned due to a similar project, several decades ago.

4: Safety
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2013, 09:54:57 PM
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.)
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. Sound traffic engineering policy.
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.
4. Interchange 6-8A widening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 26, 2013, 09:15:27 PM
I agree with Steve. Having 6 lanes across with mixed vehicle types would be unnerving as is the Parkway south of the Raritan River Bridge. Or maybe I'm just getting too old for this! Hope not!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 26, 2013, 09:35:09 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 26, 2013, 09:42:15 PM
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).

That's between Exit 8A and Exit 9 near the Joyce Kilmer service area. The abandoned lanes are there from when they extended the "dual-dual" setup south from its former terminus at Exit 9 (if memory serves, the construction took place in the late 1980s). Because the Turnpike provides access to the service areas and interchanges from both carriageways, they had to build a flyover ramp at each end. The abandoned pavement there is left over from before the widening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 26, 2013, 09:42:38 PM
I believe that's the set of lanes that I read is used for State Police training. How to do car stops, set-up at accident scenes, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 26, 2013, 11:34:18 PM
@1995HOO: Yep! That's where those lanes are! It looks like a testing area for line striping and what not as well. As for when the dual-dual was extended southward, I'd definitely say the end of the 1980s. My first time on the New Jersey Turnpike was Friday, August 25, 1989. I distinctly remember the construction was well underway on both sides of the road...and that we stopped at a rest stop in Cherry Hill soon afterwards (on an escorted weekend tour to Washington DC, with our hotel in Arlington, VA).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 27, 2013, 02:35:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 27, 2013, 03:00:16 PM
I think the "X" in this case is referencing a cross or transfer, hence the Lautenburg Transfer Station at that exit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on December 27, 2013, 04:33:14 PM
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.)

I've never heard X was for eXchange.  I've heard 15EX to maintain the E for Easterly, which is why the giant space exists between the exit number and the distance on the guide signs.  But as this tidbit confirms, the X was for a criss-cross made up by a politically appointed Executive Director lawyer-type whom must have thought that he had a background in transportation.

http://www.graveinfo.com/NJ/Secaucus/hcbg/news/JJ050703.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 27, 2013, 04:37:24 PM
They could've given it "Exit15FrankLautenburg" for the money he sucked from the state (and country) for his pet projects, including that transfer station.  Part of the project was a high-rise office building over the station that never got built.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on December 27, 2013, 05:27:09 PM
http://www.graveinfo.com/NJ/Secaucus/hcbg/news/JJ050703.html
Quote
"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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on December 27, 2013, 05:47:45 PM
Hell, within his own club of toll agencies he can talk to Florida's Turnpike Authority for a counterexample.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2013, 07:04:59 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 27, 2013, 07:35:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2013, 08:52:36 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on December 28, 2013, 10:42:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 28, 2013, 11:30:42 AM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on December 28, 2013, 11:34:13 AM
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!

Those EXIT gore signs... what the actual fuck? Might as well as use Series B to cram everything into the sign. Love the use of an upside down 'M' for 'W'. (I was kidding.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on December 28, 2013, 11:37:39 AM
More like Skunken Meadow State Parkway: Exit SM3LL.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on December 28, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
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?
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on December 28, 2013, 06:24:48 PM
Quote
Surely you can't be serious!
Don't call him Shirley
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mc78andrew on December 28, 2013, 07:15:45 PM
"There's a problem on the turnpike."

"The turnpike?  What is it?"

"It's a big road that runs through NJ, but that's not important right now."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 28, 2013, 08:37:33 PM
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 LOL

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2013, 12:37:44 AM
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.

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.

Quote
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?

Not always.  Along with the 35 mph limit mentioned above, I've seen 55 mph and 50 mph limits on occasion.  I've even seen a speed limit on those changeable speed limit signs that generally isn't used in NJ: 60 mph.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jemacedo9 on December 29, 2013, 12:21:30 PM
There was a bad accident that day southbound just north of Exit 7...an overturned tractor-trailer in the left lane.  I got on at Exit 7A around 1:30 and the backup was already north of Exit 7A.  Speed Limit 35 was already posted though traffic was stop and go...it took me almost an hour to go the 7 miles to get to the scene.  After the scene, Speed Limits were posted at the normal 65.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on December 29, 2013, 01:35:19 PM
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.

I should have phrased the question, "Why 35 as opposed to 45 or 55?"  That pushes the boundary of temporary speed limit conventions.  From what I've observed, most DOTs and toll road authorities, when signing a construction zone on a freeway, only drop the speed limit by between 10 and 20 MPH.  A 10 MPH reduction is commonly used for minor construction, while a 20 MPH reduction is sometimes employed for more extreme cases, such as reducing traffic to one lane in a given direction.  And even at that, the lowest construction zone speed limit I've seen for a freeway that is normally signed for 55 or higher, has been 45.  (The largest difference between normal speed limit and construction zone speed limit I've observed has been a 25 MPH reduction from 70 to 45.)

Now, I do realize that, currently, a 35 zone between Exits 6 and 9 would be a reduction of an already extant reduction, as that is a construction zone with a temporary speed limit of 55.  But the question still stands, why drop it by 20 instead of simply another 10?  35 may be warranted for extreme cases where traffic is reduced to a single lane and drivers are mere feet from construction workers, but why is it deemed necessary for more typical occurrences?  Another thing: if the issue is a collision that brings traffic to stop-and-go conditions, why does the speed limit matter?  The speed limit won't even be reached, regardless of whether it's 35, 45, or 55.

I'm not questioning the practice of reducing the speed limit.  I'm not even questioning the idea of a reduction from an already reduced speed limit.  I'm questioning the specific number 35.  What calculation produced this number?  It seems that most typical incidents would warrant a reduction from 65 to 55 or 55 to 45.  Whether it's an collision, a traffic jam, or a minor construction zone, a 10 MPH reduction would send the message to drivers that there may be a reason to slow down ahead, although the variable message signs are really better suited to this task.  I think a 20 or 30 MPH reduction in the speed limit introduces the potential for some drivers to see "SPEED LIMIT 35" and immediately try to slow down to that while the rest of traffic is cruising by at 70, which could simply result in further tie-ups, although this may be an unfounded fear, because most people don't read signs anyway.

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.

Isn't setting unrealistic speed limits considered bad traffic engineering?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2013, 01:57:41 PM
The speed limit in this stretch of the Turnpike is 65 mph.  Because of construction, the limit is reduced to 55 mph.

As for further reductions (and these are generally true in 65 or 55 limit zones on the Turnpike), generally: if there is a lane taken out due to construction the limit usually falls to 45 mph.  If there is construction in the middle of the highway that warrants a lane split (ie: 1 lane to the left, 2 lanes to the right) the limit falls to 35 mph.  Variations do occur - I've seen limits of 55 mph in construction zones, 50 mph in snowy conditions, etc

As for other limit reductions, it's dealt with case-by-case, based on the circumstances. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 30, 2013, 01:07:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on December 30, 2013, 08:51:43 PM
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.

I suppose I wouldn't be so skeptical of the 35-MPH speed limit if it wasn't for my having recalled seeing an ignored 35 zone in both directions on separate days and hearing from other people who seem to have encountered similar situations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2013, 12:12:32 AM
Realize the 65 mph limit is ignored daily as well.  Realize that nearly every highway speed limit is ignored daily. 

And then realize that everyone who has talked about it, you will probably find no one that has received a ticket (or even given a warning) in a drastically reduced speed zone area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 31, 2013, 10:18:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on January 01, 2014, 03:17:09 AM
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.
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on January 01, 2014, 05:10:47 AM
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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 01, 2014, 06:54:17 AM

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

The original NJ plaza was very identical, location wise, to the PA side. What you see on the connector there is a rebuilt plaza that moved the tolling point further east of its original location. It was also NJ's first express EZ Pass location.

The new location has to do with the interchange with US 130. Originally, there was no connection between the 2 roads. On the PA side, if one wanted to exit at that first interchange,  one currently gets a ticket, immediately exits, then hands that ticket in. The NJ setup eliminates that short-distance ticket exchange.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 01, 2014, 09:28:01 AM

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.

Yes. Also, there are "left 2 lanes" signs for the 4-lane sections from 11-14.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 01, 2014, 08:51:18 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hbelkins on January 01, 2014, 10:11:21 PM
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.

I wouldn't necessarily say those things exceed standards. "Different than," yes. "Exceed," not so much.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on January 01, 2014, 10:38:56 PM
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.



Perhaps it was to future proof the road? that way if they wanted to add more lanes they would not have to clear more ROW, just build in the median. Also the only other major extension from that time period would be the newark bay, which was built to a different standard due to being mostly elevated.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2014, 11:19:17 PM
I often wondered about the NJTA using different areas of the road to experiment with different things.  Like the Penn Extension having the wide grassy medians and two bridge underpasses, you have the Newark Bay Extension having the bent pole street lamps as supposed to the traditional truss style mast arm poles. 

I remember the current Newark Bay Extension poles were added when the NJTA went from Mercury Vapor lights to High Pressure Sodium Vapor lamps.  I assumed that was an experiment and perhaps the NJTA wanted to try it out on that during the intitial construction period.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 02, 2014, 08:34:47 AM

 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.


The Penn extension was built between 1954 and 1956 and the median was designed the same way as the existing Turnpike median was then - no barrier at all.  The mainline did not receive the metal guard rails until the early 1960s (1962 I believe).  About a year ago I started a thread "Old NJ Turnpike Photos" and there are some picture there I think of the old medians without anything.  Yes the Turnpike seems ahead of others but this is not always the case -how long did it take to replace those old red neon signs with true full VMS?  That 3rd generation red neon set was installed way back in 1983!.

It's still surprising though that parts of the Penn extension still have no barriers - not even metal guard rails - even though some sections are as narrow as the mainline Turnpike median.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2014, 08:41:04 AM
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.

Adding to Steve's comments:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 02, 2014, 08:42:17 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
BTW, here's the original location of the original toll plaza on the connector: http://goo.gl/maps/en09T .  Firehouse Road would've been used by the toll employees to access the plaza.  Using historicaerials.com, one can view the original plaza clearly in the 1995 photo - even the housing development just behind the plaza was there at that time.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 02, 2014, 08:57:48 AM


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.

The mainline concrete barrier was added in sections between 1983 and 1990 at a cost of $1 million per mile.  It was even added to the Newark Bay extension but as Jeff points out the Penn extension still is oddly without any upgrade in places.

It's interesting that you point out that the NJ Turnpike would never (EVER) sacrifice the left shoulder for a travel lane.  It's always fun to compare to how loose the Pennsylvania Turnpike is with their standards - on several widening projects in the 1980s that expanded the mainline from 2 to 3 lanes they simply took out both the left AND right shoulder to fit the mainline under existing bridges - something the NJ Turnpike would never allow in a million years.  It seems the Pa. Turnpike is getting better now with their standards and many newer widening projects go the full length to redo everything, but historically their efforts always seemed second class to that of the NJ Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2014, 09:09:26 AM

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.
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. 

For years all the exits on the system received the overhead "EXIT X" sign in lieu of the traditional exit gore sign you see on interstates.  Yet, Exit 6 did not get them NB, nor did it have the "THRU TRAFFIC NEXT EXIT X MILES" neither.  It had all ground mounted signs and the only interchange to have them exclusively up until now.  Even 1-4 modernized in the 1980's when they added overheads to the system. Before the early 80's the Turnpike had all button copy signs on the side for Exits 2-3-4 on the two lane part, as the sign bridges north of Exit 4 were only included for 6 or more lane sections.  In fact both Exits 2 and 3 did not have route numbers and control cities at the 2 mile guides as well as Chester being not mentioned NB at Exit 2 either. 

It was why Exit 6 was overlooked when the 4 and up overheads were first added that I am questionable about.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 02, 2014, 10:29:42 AM
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.

Jeff, there was access westbound from the local road on the north side of the extension (the neighborhood) to the rightmost lane of the toll plaza heading towards Pa.  There was an exact change booth for this lane only.  This setup (including the eastbound one you described) is officially called (but unsigned) exit 6A and was in place from day one for the local residents to access Pennsylvania without backtracking all the way to exit 7 or 5.   Cars and trucks going beyond the neighborhood to/from route 130 had a very complex trip through the local streets, winding roads, and bridges.  The whole thing was re-done in the 1990s as you point out to provide a direct connection to route 130 and help grow the local area, which by the way I don't think happened as planned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2014, 11:50:23 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 02, 2014, 07:09:07 PM
Roadman65's point about the toll for the Delaware Valley Interchange is well taken. (I had incorrectly called it the Levittown Interchange in my previous post)

And Jeffandnicole's explanation of the higher, stronger than usual Jersey Barrier used on the mainline Turnpike is a perfect example of what I referred to earlier about the NJTA building their infrastructure to exceed typical interstate standards. Which again makes the absence of such a barrier on the Penn. Connector all the more puzzling.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 02, 2014, 07:11:54 PM
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.

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.
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.
The ramp went in sometime around 1965 or so, based on aerials (1963 shows a little bit of clearing).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on January 02, 2014, 09:43:07 PM
Quote
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2014, 11:12:12 PM
I had a map once that was Rand McNally.  It showed a table list of all interchanges at the time and it skipped Exit 8A, but did not for Exit 6A.  That means I was looking at a map printed within the short time that was in between both exits opening.

I had always assumed that Exit 6A was always there.  Exit 8A, obviously, I knew of that one hence the A suffix and of course the map.  What is interesting is from Hightstown to New Brunswick was the longest gap between exits on the original turnpike at about 15 miles.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2014, 08:21:02 AM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hbelkins on January 03, 2014, 01:12:57 PM
Base for a cable barrier, perhaps?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2014, 04:04:36 PM
NJ doesn't use cable barrier as a general rule. The turnpike definitely wouldn't use it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2014, 06:06:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on January 03, 2014, 06:25:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 04, 2014, 12:16:13 AM
It was along the entire median from what can be seen from 295, not in one spot. They have started building those new sign structures - one can be seen just before the older retro structure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on January 05, 2014, 10:50:48 PM
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??
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 05, 2014, 10:59:44 PM
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.

News to me.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 06, 2014, 09:15:13 AM
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??

I'm so glad we finally have someone with expertise on the NJ Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 06, 2014, 09:38:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 07, 2014, 08:46:12 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 07, 2014, 07:42:09 PM
T-w-o  y-e-a-r-s?????!!!!!!!! Give me a break!!!!! But, thanks for the info anyway. I'll have to reprogram myself to stop at the next one further south on the way back to Long Island. Or see if the diner is still open at Richmond and Forest Avenues a short distance off the Staten Island Expwy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on January 08, 2014, 12:25:56 AM
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on January 08, 2014, 08:58:41 AM
(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.

It will be interesting to see the plans, as the NJTP is currently evaluating a complete modernization of all the areas to maximize revenue based on pressure from the state government.  The plazas themselves are very old, many are the originals from the 1950s with makeovers in the 1980s and/or 1990s.    I read that one legislator called them an "eyesore" which may be true as they do look old and dirty for the most part.  Maryland is currently replacing the Chesapeake and Maryland House rest areas on I-95 with a complete demolish and re-build approach so it will be interesting to see if the Grover Cleveland area is part of a new design by NJTP too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on January 08, 2014, 08:59:20 AM
Note how close the plaza is to the Kill Van Kull river.  So putting it on higher ground seems in order.

I believe that the Kill Van Kull is a strait, not a river, since I'm pretty sure that it doesn't flow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2014, 09:07:47 AM
Here's a news story regarding the plaza's rebuild:  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/nj_turnpike_rest_area_closed_since_sandy_to_be_demolished_and_rebuilt.html

2 years is a long time.  Having that that, it's not like this was a planned construction project, where a lot of the planning has already taken place (which takes several years itself normally).  Someone doesn't dream up of a building and 3 hours later it's designed.  It will take time to design the building.  The current building will have to be demolished.  And then construct the new building.  Oh, don't forget the permits and such, as well as fighting with the insurance companies. 

It would be nice to see a building built with modern conveniences...like a ton of outlets for recharging electronics!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 08, 2014, 03:42:04 PM
Somehow the Thomas Edison service plaza across the highway escaped flooding despite being along the same body of water. NJ in general could use some new service plazas or rest areas. 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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on January 08, 2014, 06:54:38 PM
So that means NORTHBOUND on the N.J. Turnpike after the Joyce Kilmer Service Area; The NEXT service area would be at the NORTH END of the MAINLINE at the Vince Lombardi Service Area!!! OUCH!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on January 08, 2014, 07:00:13 PM
Does anybody have pics of the NEW EXIT 8 on the N.J. Turnpike along with new signage ?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on January 08, 2014, 07:42:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on January 08, 2014, 08:35:05 PM
They just rebuilt all the plazas in the 1990s and 2000s. Surely they were built to last more than 20 years...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 08, 2014, 08:56:18 PM
Reading the news story in jeffandnicole's above link, it seems that the northbound service area was flooded by a sudden surge from previously unnoticed Woodbridge Creek, not the Kill Van Kull which appears on a map to be about 3/4 of a mile east of the Turnpike. According to the story, the surge came so suddenly that people had to be rescued from car roofs in the parking lot.

What's also surprising in the article is the NJTA says this is the 2nd least used service area, second only to the Alexander Hamilton S.A. southbound in Secaucus. I've been stopping there at Grover Cleveland S.A. for 30 years on most trips home from Penna. and Virginia.

Friggin' Hurricane Sandy caused so much havoc as none before in the NYC metroplex. I hope we never see another one like it in my lifetime!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 09, 2014, 09:02:34 AM
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. 

BGS' read:

EXIT 8
33  133
Hightstown
Freehold
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on January 11, 2014, 05:26:26 PM
I am curious if they will replace all of the existing the old bridge decks, and install the ones which have grooves in the pavement and make a high pitched noise when driving over them like this: http://goo.gl/maps/tTVXm  ... though if you notice northbound, it is different pavement. Also, the cars only lanes between exit 13 and 13A have newer bridge decks seen here (around 2006 or so): http://goo.gl/maps/eO6eo  However, the cars, trucks and buses lanes have the older bridge decks: http://goo.gl/maps/bAmOT

I think I have found the answer here: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Contracts-Anticipated-Advertisements-11-2013___10-2014.pdf
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 15, 2014, 02:17:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 15, 2014, 02:37:57 PM
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pennsville+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.684071,-75.482286&spn=0.000397,0.000711&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=pennsville,&t=h&hnear=Pennsville+Township,+Salem,+New+Jersey&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.684071,-75.482286&panoid=TMThsAz0oLJ8ydtq0Ukz7g&cbp=12,102.44,,1,-0.45  The NJ and Delaware Turnpike's are now one road.   This is the entrance ramp sign for I-295 SB from NJ 140 in Deepwater, NJ for Turnpike South to use the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 15, 2014, 03:13:20 PM
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?

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2014, 03:59:19 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 15, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
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?

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
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.

Yeah that CR 551 sign is lacking I-295 shields and Delaware Bridge signage, and makes it look like its exclusively for CR 551 South.  Maybe it was made for the across a street ramp that is only for Hook Road and CR 551 and placed there by accident.

Then there is the erroneous NJ 40 shield at the NJT SB ramp from US 40.  There the sign is for NJT SB as well, but it is the Turnpike up to NJ 49.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on February 16, 2014, 12:09:31 PM
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 could probably be easily be rectified by the following assembly...
(http://i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag88/Zeffyboy/Signs/NJ140-Assembly_zpseba5874e.png)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on February 16, 2014, 12:34:06 PM
It's not 'to 551'; the routes overlap.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2014, 08:56:00 AM
There is a more proper sign prior to the ramp, as one approaches the ramp: http://goo.gl/maps/AR0qN.  It further leads me to believe the proper sign at the gore point went missing, and the resulting current sign was meant for the opposing ramp.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 17, 2014, 09:43:29 AM
If I-95 was originally routed along the entire length of the NJ Turnpike as it should have been, none of this would have been needed.

Also the above link Jeff has an erroneous "TO I-295" instead of a "SOUTH I-295" as it is for it directly.  Somebody did not care and just erected the right signs in the wrong spots. Most likely the one who posted the mileage sign on US 9 NB at CR 526 in Lakeland did that job.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on February 17, 2014, 10:34:47 PM
This should be reported to NJDOT, since Route 140 is a state highway. This is actually a major navigational issue.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2014, 12:26:27 AM
This should be reported to NJDOT, since Route 140 is a state highway. This is actually a major navigational issue.

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.
Recommend not pointing out any sign errors, only omitted signs. I like US 140.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2014, 01:32:14 PM
[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.]

Press of Atlantic City: New Jersey taps rest areas in bid for more revenue from toll roads (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic/new-jersey-taps-rest-areas-in-bid-for-more-revenue/article_ec2dec6e-e9f3-5140-bb32-ddcf07cfade6.html)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2014, 09:24:13 PM
[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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 19, 2014, 08:44:38 AM
In Florida they're referred to as Plazas.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2014, 09:16:18 AM
They are offically known as Service Areas on the NJ Turnpike, but nearly the entire universe will call them rest areas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2014, 09:40:24 AM
[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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2014, 11:58:39 AM

[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.

What non-travel-related businesses belong there?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Brandon on February 19, 2014, 01:20:25 PM
[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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2014, 02:11:40 PM
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. Depending on how snarky they were with me, I would tell them that the NJ Turnpike doesn't have Rest Areas, we have Service Areas, so it was impossible to see a sign that said Rest Area.  They didn't care.  (They would also tell me the signs said there was a McDonalds, which don't exist on the NJ Turnpike.)  I could never figure out what signs they were referring to, unless they horribly misread the lodging sign for hotels at Exit 3.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2014, 05:38:18 PM
[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.
"Oasis" is the Illinois term. My general public is NJ-centric.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 19, 2014, 06:34:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 19, 2014, 10:34:46 PM

[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.

I lived in New Jersey a lot of years, and both there and here, "rest area" is pretty common vernacular.  I've heard "Vince Lombardi Rest Stop" more than once in NJ

I don't think many people devote a whole lot of thought to the appropriate terms for a place to pull off on the highway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2014, 11:05:16 PM
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.

This was back in 2001 - 2004, so most people didn't have GPSs.  It was more around the MapQuest era, which could provide me with a few toll stories on its own.  This was also at Interchange 3, and interestingly enough, most people were travelling north.  A few were coming south though, which would mean they past the Service Area just 3 miles prior to the exit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 18, 2014, 09:55:13 PM
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 18, 2014, 10:14:36 PM

(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'm amazed that they still put up these analog-panel signs.  Is this some kind of insurance against power loss?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2014, 08:54:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on March 19, 2014, 02:48:09 PM
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorway on March 19, 2014, 05:16:01 PM
Well well look at NJTA kicking it old school...I approve! Now they just need to curtail their newfound MUTCD enthusiasm and we'll be all set.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 19, 2014, 05:38:33 PM

(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.

Ones like it have sprung up all over the Parkway (and presumably the Turnpike) the past couple of years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 19, 2014, 05:53:06 PM
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2014, 09:04:20 PM
Speaking of MUTCD crap on the Turnpike. Here are the underwhelming arrows on the Exit 6 BGSs... (Apologies for the dirty windshield & sunglare)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/9756F919-53CB-4BC2-8152-B14CDEEEB915.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/9756F919-53CB-4BC2-8152-B14CDEEEB915.jpg.html)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/CC67BF84-273B-4A1D-B1A7-122FBB82FCF0.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/CC67BF84-273B-4A1D-B1A7-122FBB82FCF0.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on March 19, 2014, 09:20:35 PM
I used to think I wanted the NJTP to adopt MUTCD-style signage. Keyword: used to. They should go back to how they signed it originally - the New Jersey Turnpike is a symbol of New Jersey, and the NJTA should pride itself from being 'different from the rest' - After all, you have to grow up in Jersey to love Jersey (or hate it). 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on March 19, 2014, 09:28:06 PM
They should go back to how they signed it originally
Round exit tabs popping out of the middle?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 19, 2014, 09:38:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on March 19, 2014, 09:41:27 PM
I would rather have them stay the way they are, instead of changing to the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2014, 10:14:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on March 19, 2014, 10:22:01 PM
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://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/n5.jpg)
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/2.html

The down arrows seem to only be used on the 'THRU TRAFFIC' signs that accompany all exit direction signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 19, 2014, 10:33:33 PM
I stand corrected. They've been using standard down arrows for a while at some other exits. (like 16E northbound)  And now I'm not sure about those up arrows either. They might be standard spec, and just look different due to camera angle or whatever.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 20, 2014, 08:31:16 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2014, 08:39:06 AM
I am sad that NJT has gotten rid of some of its unique signing practices, but on the other hand it is interesting to see control cities for a change.  I know many would prefer Baltimore over Wilmington, though, but I see nothing wrong with Wilmington being used.  Too bad NJT won't sign the Penn Turnpike for Harrisburg, even if it gets changed for Philadelphia once I-95 gets routed across the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge and PA gets going with getting the long awaited I-95/ I-276 interchange completed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 08:45:17 AM
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.)

They do have gates that block off the lane as well when the ramp is closed (similiar to the HOV road gates in VA on 95 below DC), but since the comment was regarding power loss, I figured those gates wouldn't be of use during a power failure.

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.

I'd go further out and say a year or two.  I would imagine a lot of people use the Turnpike once a year - around Thanksgiving or Christmas - and will get a bit confused at that time. 

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?

It's a bit tough to tell, but I think the arrows are made to spec...they're just undersized from what we're used to seeing on a highway. 

Usually the sign manufacturers just do what they're told to do, so if the NJTA plans had small arrows, the sign manufacturers make the signs with small arrows.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 20, 2014, 08:56:34 AM
(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'm trying to figure out what messages will be in the VMS space, other than an arrow.  The NJTA likes to keep signs and messages to the bare-bone, so I'm not sure what's not already covered by the rotating drums: "All Traffic/No Traffic/Roadway Congested/Cars Only/Cars-Trucks-Buses" etc..
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on March 20, 2014, 09:46:38 AM
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

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 20, 2014, 09:56:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 11:09:52 AM
I could understand why, if the sign did say that.  The Turnpike is extremely unique in that there are two carriageways that serve every interchange and every Service Plaza.  Even more so, the exits are always on the right.  It's an expensive design, but something the Turnpike determines is money well spent.

(OK, there's one exception to this: The northbound split for the western & eastern spurs)

Usually when there's two roadways, one is a express, bypassing some exits.  Or the inner roadway will have left ramps.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 20, 2014, 11:26:37 AM
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.

I definitely remember that "ALL TRAFFIC FOR ALL EXITS" too (going northbound at exit 9) from when I lived in NJ.  On the southbound side it is/was slightly different - as exits 14 to 14C (prior to 1995 I believe) were only accessed through the truck/bus lanes, the "All traffic for all exits" was used when the cars only lanes were closed, but when the reverse happened (truck/bus lanes were closed) the sign said "NJ Turnpike South" for the cars only lanes and "To Exits 14 to 14C only" for the trucks/bus lanes.  Since 1995 I believe this only happens on the eastern spur, as the western spur had a new access ramp for 14 to 14C built in the 1995 widening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on March 20, 2014, 12:45:34 PM
To a few of the different posters immediately above:

The southbound arrows at Exit 6 are to spec.  While the signing was designed prior to the Authority's adoption of the MUTCD, the pull-through sign style recognizes the major split and (future) routing of I-95 off of the mainline.

The southbound sequence used (down arrows followed by right up arrows) was adapted from what is at Exit 11 southbound, just adding more information to the panels.  I think the Exit 11 arrows are larger ones than the Exit 6 ones.

Harrisburg was considered for a destination at Exit 6, replacing Penn Turnpike (and adding the keystone logo in the route marker line).  It was nixed during design, though.  You won't see Harrisburg until crossing the river into Pennsylvania.  Philadelphia is hidden under the overlay in the blank bottom line.

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.

Finally . . . both spurs southbound have access to a dedicated roadway over the rail yards to Exits 14-14C, so neither the car lanes nor the truck lanes have the exit any longer.  The south side of the "mixing bowl" has six different roadways (northbound has a separate roadway for Exit 14 entering traffic).

Thanks for giving me a lot to talk about in this post!

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 20, 2014, 01:03:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 20, 2014, 02:31:49 PM
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.

Very interesting.  This is a significant change in operations that may be confusing when in place.  Will the old signs between exit 8A and 14 need to be replaced to accomodate?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 03:32:23 PM
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.

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!!!!)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 20, 2014, 03:39:49 PM
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!!!!)



I would think the operation needs to include the ramp terminals and the confirmation that the ramp gate arm went down.  If a truck is illegally parked on a ramp to snooze and then wakes, the truck driver has no way of knowing that proceeding ahead would be a bad idea.  All these "illegals" have to be chased.  That is why i thoguht it would take 3 hours +/-.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 20, 2014, 03:57:17 PM
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.

The new scenario is when traffic can enter both roadways from the mainline diverge at exit 6, but only one of the roads is fully open all the way north (the cars only, for example, says "EXITS 6 to 8 ONLY" if the work is just past exit 8, the cars/trucks/buses says "ALL EXITS"). I think many people will still take the cars only lanes and be surprised they have to exit at exit 8.  This is certainly a departure from what happens today, although when the eastern/western spurs close they do sometimes allow traffic only for certain exits, such as "EXIT 15E ONLY", "EXIT 15W ONLY", "SPORTS COMPLEX ONLY".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on March 20, 2014, 07:14:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2014, 10:06:51 PM
No.  In fact, the merge/diverge area is already gone. They moved it temporarily about 2 miles north to reconstruct the former split.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 21, 2014, 12:27:29 AM
(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.

Quote
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.

In all honesty, I don't think they necessarily close or barrel off one of the entire roadways as it stands these days. I think they'll do it north or south of where they're doing work (say on a bridge or overpass) but beyond where the work is done, they will actually allow traffic onto the either roadway at all interchange entrances. I think it depends on the work they're doing obviously, as there are some projects where it makes more sense to have the entire roadway closed from one end of the dual-dual to the other.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 21, 2014, 01:06:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 21, 2014, 06:20:45 AM
(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.

Going south, these ramps were still under construction last year.  This panel is very new - within the past week or 2. 

You may have been thinking of the panels going North, which right now I can't exactly recall what I've seen lately.  The ramp though has a nice little roller coaster feel to it!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2014, 06:26:40 AM
The NJ Turnpike 511 alerts now reference the inner (and outer) roadways down to Interchange 6:

"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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2014, 07:31:52 AM
The NJ Turnpike 511 alerts now reference the inner (and outer) roadways down to Interchange 6:

"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."

NJ 511 gets its alerts from the NJ Turnpike Authority, so it's up to the NJTA what roadways get mentioned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2014, 08:50:12 AM
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.

BTW, Exit 11 has the largest toll plaza on the system with more lanes than its mainline plazas, so I am assuming that it has the most volume out of all the interchanges on the system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2014, 09:06:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2014, 09:10:10 AM
Yeah that does create a scenario for some, but we are all adults we will get by having to share a road with trucks.

What you said is true either way, you could not avoid the trucks with whatever project was taking place that particular day, so to fill another roadway up is not an issue. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 28, 2014, 09:15:32 AM
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 know there are people who do that and I've always found it a little amusing because I tend to opt for the outer carriageway to avoid the cars. Over the years I've found that it seems (I emphasize "seems"–this is based solely on my own observation) that the more serious accidents that snarl traffic seem to occur more often on the inner carriageways, perhaps because the most aggressive of the car drivers feel freed-up by the lack of trucks. For the most part, I think truck drivers tend to be better drivers than the average car driver as well. Of course, the flip side of all this is that for the past two decades, for someone coming up from (or going home to) Virginia, using the outer carriageway meant dealing with the narrower segment between Exits 8A and 9, so that was always a potential negative that would cause me to use the inner lanes if truck traffic were especially heavy on a given day (let's face it–even if they're better drivers, the trucks can still be a nuisance due to simple physics). I guess that will no longer be an issue when the widening is done.

I'm curious what other folks prefer as to which lanes to use in that situation. Back in the days of paying cash at toll plazas I always opted to go to the far right with the trucks as well because their lines were shorter (you might have three or four trucks in the amount of space it takes to fit ten cars) and the truck drivers usually knew what their toll would be due to repeated travel, whereas it wasn't unusual to get a car driver who had no clue and would seemingly wait to dig for cash until pulling up to pay (much like old ladies who use a check at the grocery store but don't get out the checkbook until the cashier announces the total.....)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2014, 09:55:07 AM
...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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 28, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
...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.
^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2014, 11:24:52 AM
As far as truckers knowing the toll rates when they travel, I did run into (or behind one) on the PA Turnpike NE Extension at the Wyoming Valley Mainline (Ticket terminus) where I was waiting behind an 18 wheeler for more than five minuets because the driver had no money to pay the toll.  The collector never ran into this one before and told us all about it after we waited that long period.

There is always a first time for everything including cab drivers out there who will ask directions to a major hotel.  Then you have the truck drivers on I-287 in NJ who are totally unaware of the lane drop at NJ 27 in Edison and many move over making that typical last minuet lane change as they should know the traffic patterns before anyone.  Plus that large overhead sign that reads EXIT ONLY should be obvious.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 28, 2014, 12:18:24 PM
Yeah, one would think truckers are smart when it comes to roads.  And many if not most of them are.  But the dumb ones are the ones that lead to come great stories.

I had one in my days of working NJ Turnpike's Interchange 1 that was complaining about the tolls (not terribly unusual).  I freely suggest to those people that 295 is right next door.  This trucker shouted back that 295 is tolled too.  Then it becomes a whole "No it's Not", "Yes it Is" ordeal...with the people stuck behind the trucker getting impatient as well wondering what's taking so long.

In those cases...it's easier to say "whatever dude".  Pay your toll and move along.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 28, 2014, 12:28:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 28, 2014, 12:35:34 PM
Yeah, I wasn't saying ALL truckers are necessarily more aware of the toll rates or the like than all car drivers are, just that in general I'd expect the average truck driver to be more aware and savvier.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 28, 2014, 01:02:09 PM
Going southbound, when you were in the truck lanes approaching the former merge, you have the availability of staying in the right lane through the merge and not have to merge with anyone. That was my reasoning for generally always using the truck lanes especially since whenever I was driving alone on the Turnpike, I was getting on at 9 anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 28, 2014, 04:04:42 PM
I once nearly got run over by a truck on the Thruway that wanted to move over to micropass another truck while I was still passing him.  Had to lay on the horn for 5-10 seconds and swerve into the left shoulder.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 28, 2014, 04:17:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 28, 2014, 09:48:43 PM
I'm surprised that so many here prefer the truck lanes. I'll always take the car lanes so as not to have to play tag with the 18-wheelers. The truckers may be more skillful drivers, but I'd rather play with others my own size.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 28, 2014, 10:06:53 PM

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 have also followed this logic.  My question -- one I've forgotten the answer to in my years away from regular turnpike use -- is whether cops are more prevalent in the car or truck lanes. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2014, 11:05:29 PM
What I've noticed is that most of the time, the car lanes have much less backup going into the 8A merge than the truck lanes. Probably because you have three car lanes and two truck lanes, but I've seen 4-mile backups on the Outer and maybe 1/3 mile on the Inner. That'll be rendered moot soon, so:
I vastly prefer the Inner lanes. I'm among the faster drivers in the traffic flow, and when you have a lot of trucks, the left lane becomes clogged with slower cars who are faster than the trucks but just not fast enough. The car lanes function more like the Garden State Parkway, and I'm much more in my element there. If I were a speed limit-type driver, the truck lanes would probably suit me better.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on March 29, 2014, 11:19:21 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 29, 2014, 01:22:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 29, 2014, 01:31:20 PM
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.

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.
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.

I am glad that I am not the only one who prefers this spur.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on March 29, 2014, 03:28:49 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 29, 2014, 06:04:36 PM
I've only been on the western; when I tried to clinch the eastern, it was closed, so the next time I'm going though there, I'm gonna do my darndest to take the eastern spur.

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.

I prefer the car lanes since I like to fly by on the Turnpike at 75-80 mph, though if I go to NYC, I might take the truck lanes since my tires are wearing out and I don't trust my current car at those speeds (even 65 is iffy sometimes)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on March 29, 2014, 06:39:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 29, 2014, 06:59:33 PM
The western alignment has historically been quick to back up at the 18W tolls.  It also sucks when people exit after a Giants game or during a Jets game. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 30, 2014, 12:20:24 AM
E vs. W: Depends on the exact time and date. Westerly Alignment (official name) is faster during rush hours, barring any major incidents, although it's not all THAT much faster because the 3-2 lane drop eats up capacity. Easterly is faster during event times, unless it's also a NYC peak (weekday AM/PM or weekend early afternoon). The only real way to know is to check real-time traffic reports.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 30, 2014, 10:04:53 AM
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.

The NB lanes were widened near the beginning of the project. The SB lanes were left at 2 lanes wide because it would only further congest the merge in a construction zone.

Which the project is complete, the entire dual-dual zone will be 3-3-3-3.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2014, 06:52:00 PM
Some pics of the NJ Turnpike widening: These are all on or related to the Interchange 6 - PA Turnpike Extension (also but rarely known as the Pearl Harbor Memorial Turnpike Extension), plus some pictures near the Interchange 6 toll plaza area heading west towards PA.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/AD55A88F-5C2B-4834-BA1D-EB246BC17DB9.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/AD55A88F-5C2B-4834-BA1D-EB246BC17DB9.jpg.html)

Heading South, approaching Interchange 6.  What I noticed this time about this sign which I didn't notice before: '1 Mile'.  It seemed like an awfully short mile, so I measured it.  Sure enough...from this sign to the gore/take off point was barely 0.8 miles...and that's being generous. 

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/3A7ED20B-5B0C-4A24-92CE-4975E1C2983A.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3A7ED20B-5B0C-4A24-92CE-4975E1C2983A.jpg.html)

The takeoff point for Interchange 6, Inner Roadway.  The lane(s) are fully separated by the short skip lines...another MUTCD feature that the Turnpike is picking up.  Note the covered signage over the Outer Roadway to the right.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/B1F0D875-696D-4776-986A-C992EA4CEC80.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/B1F0D875-696D-4776-986A-C992EA4CEC80.jpg.html)

The Interchange 6 SB Inner Roadway ramp meets up with the Outer Roadway ramp to the right. (The ramp isn't as sharp as the picture makes it out to be)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/73EB2539-E0B2-406A-AFD2-40C45182A381.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/73EB2539-E0B2-406A-AFD2-40C45182A381.jpg.html)

The new VMS/CSLS that greets traffic on the Extension (like many of the new ones in/near the construction zone, the speed limit isn't generally displayed yet).

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/66DF48EA-10F4-4C3D-9C69-A194FADAF505.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/66DF48EA-10F4-4C3D-9C69-A194FADAF505.jpg.html)

At the Interchange 6 Toll Plaza.  There's 1 Express Lane per direction.  What's interesting to note here is that lonely pole you can barely see on the jersey barrier which appears to disappear into the clouds (it's not that tall, I swear).  That used to have a "EZ Pass Speed Limit 45" sign. Then it was revised to "EZ Pass Speed Limit 55".  Now, the speed limits are missing completely, which I'm guessing makes the speed limit 65 mph thru the single express lane.  On a side note, technically, there was no speed limit posted at all on the extension...which for the NJ Turnpike isn't all that unusual.  As the older variable speed limit signs wore out, one could go many, many miles without seeing a speed limit at some times.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/6FB86881-4AEA-4E3A-807F-C6FEF000E339.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/6FB86881-4AEA-4E3A-807F-C6FEF000E339.jpg.html)

After the toll plaza, this variable message sign on the right displayed the time to PA Turnpike's US 13 Exit (3 Miles, 4 minutes). 

(Edited to use the correct term (Inner/Outer Roadway, not Inner/Outer Drive), and to fix the sizing of the pictures)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on April 16, 2014, 07:15:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2014, 07:20:54 PM
Heading East on the PA Turnpike Extension towards the NJ Turnpike Northbound:

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/D5991630-C25B-401F-B3A9-4FF941194CF3.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/D5991630-C25B-401F-B3A9-4FF941194CF3.jpg.html)

The new overhead sign for the NJ Turnpike Mainline North/South split.  Originally, the Southbound exit was going to split to the Inner & Outer Roadways, but they reduced it to just a ramp to the Outer Roadway (it's only about 3/4 mile before the carriageways merge).

(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 Roadways.  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. 

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/B356E403-79C6-4780-AF2D-1786953B6391.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/B356E403-79C6-4780-AF2D-1786953B6391.jpg.html)

Approaching the 2nd set of Inner/Outer Roadways signs.  Notice the rarely seen (on the NJ Turnpike) static Speed Limit 50 sign to the right. (Speed Limit 35 signs are also found on the roadways leading to/from a few of the Service Areas).  When finished, this area will be 3 lanes wide, Left & Center splitting left to the Inner Roadway, Center & Right to the Outer Roadway.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/BD0F0A6A-1C98-4C25-A96D-C19EE2AD8A1A.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/BD0F0A6A-1C98-4C25-A96D-C19EE2AD8A1A.jpg.html)

Approaching the NJ Turnpike Northbound Inner Roadway.

(Edited to use the correct term (Inner/Outer Roadway, not Inner/Outer Drive), and to fix the sizing of the pictures)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2014, 07:24:03 PM
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 Turnpike was permitted to use their style signage.  Of course, they could've conformed if they wanted to...

The 2 Mile Ahead signs do exist for Interchange 6 in both directions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on April 16, 2014, 07:35:27 PM
Quote
Since the Exit sign conformity requirement occurred after the designing of this widening project

Funny - I thought it had been a requirement since the 1971 MUTCD.

Quote
  The 2 Mile Ahead signs do exist for Interchange 6 in both directions.

My bad - shows you how long it's been since I last drove the entire length of the NJ Pike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hbelkins on April 16, 2014, 08:08:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on April 16, 2014, 09:10:26 PM
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.
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.

Galaxy S3

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 16, 2014, 09:46:49 PM
If you are coming from I-80 and US 46 then the Eastern Spur is signed for the Turnpike while the Western Spur is signed for "TO Exit 16W Rutherford."

If I-95 is signed for both spurs going NB then it must be new as in the past it was always US 46 & I-80 for the Eastern Spur while I-95 got signed for the Western Spur only.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2014, 10:38:59 PM
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.


(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. 
My guess is "Roadway Divides 1000 Feet" (or whatever distance).

Finally... the correct terminology is Inner Roadway, Outer Roadway, Easterly Alignment (and Westerly).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2014, 06:24:40 AM
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.


(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. 
My guess is "Roadway Divides 1000 Feet" (or whatever distance).

Finally... the correct terminology is Inner Roadway, Outer Roadway, Easterly Alignment (and Westerly).

Thanks...I knew 'drive' wasn't right, but then started writing it and forgot about the true term. (I have now gone back and revised the terminology)

And just an FYI...The PA Turnpike Extension is generally referred to as the PHMTE by Turnpike people. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on April 17, 2014, 07:34:47 AM
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



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 17, 2014, 07:58:36 AM
Outer Roadway = truck lanes
Inner Roadway = car lanes
Easterly Alignment = Eastern Spur (even though it's not a spur, because it comes back)
W = W

Why? Same reason that US 1&9 through Newark is "US 1&9" and not Pulaski Skyway (which, technically, starts down by the airport). The public has their terminology, and that's what reporters use.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on April 17, 2014, 08:00:11 AM
How has access to the service plazas been affected during the Exit 6-9 widening project?  Did any of them close?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2014, 08:32:49 AM
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

Yeah, they don't pronounce the PHMTE...they just say it or write it.

The actual Turnpike terms are rarely used outside of the Turnpike.  Most people know the lanes as the car lanes and truck lanes, and that's the everyday use you'll hear most often.  But since all traffic can always use the outer roadway when open and all traffic can use the inner roadway when the outer roadway is closed or has restricted access, I went with those terms for the updates above.  (Well, originally used the wrong terms (drive, not roadway), so I corrected them after the fact!)

On your bus trip next month: If you're coming from the south, the construction starts about 4 miles after Interchange 5. After that, for someone interested in construction, it's nearly 25 miles worth of eye candy.

How has access to the service plazas been affected during the Exit 6-9 widening project?  Did any of them close?

ixnay

Everything remained open.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 17, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
Looks like the NB outer drive isn't open yet.  Are both SB roadways open?

Forgot to answer this...

Neither outer roadway is open yet.  There are a few areas where traffic shifts to the outer roadway, but at no time are there more than 3 lanes going in any direction.  (There is a lane open from the PA Extension to the NJ Turnpike South that utilizes the outer roadway, but that's just a construction-related lane)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on April 17, 2014, 06:19:33 PM
Thanks times 2, jeffandnicole.  Now I know what to look for (I'll probably be the only road semigeek in our group).

Yes, our bus will be coming from the south (crossing the DMB and heading up to and through the Lincoln Tunnel).  Looking forward to seeing and enjoying the "eye candy".  Heck, I enjoyed it 3 years ago.

ixnay

P.S.  Just used Google Maps' little man device and it looks like they replaced the "N.J. TURNPIKE/Pa.-Del.-Md." sign with "(NJ Tpk. logo) (I-95)/N.J Turnpike" at the NJ 495-NJ 3 transition coming from the Lincoln Tunnel.  :-(

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on April 19, 2014, 11:51:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2014, 12:06:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 20, 2014, 01:17:54 PM
Do they not illuminate properly? That's the only reason light fixtures exist.

Agreed. 

Those "cutoff" luminaires seem to work pretty well, and have been around for a long time.

VDOT has installed "armless" ones (similar or identical to the second example linked above, near Turnpike Exit 7) along long sections of I-66 in Northern Virginia.  For all of the bad things associated with I-66, the "new" lighting (less than 10 years old) is not one of them.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on April 22, 2014, 07:06:45 PM
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.




They illuminate terribly. Tons of them are not working also, especially at interchanges 10 and 11.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2014, 07:22:28 PM
They seem to be the typical arm mast light found everywhere. The only issue I have is sometimes they're a bit low, but I don't know if that affects their performance. If they don't work at all, it's not because of the design, but because of a wiring issue.

At any rate, the Turnpike is installing and converting many lights to LEDs
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 23, 2014, 09:09:37 AM
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.

While much of the inner roadway will be reconstructed this summer when all traffic is shifted to the outer roadway, this overpass required a lot more time, and thus got a bit of special treatment.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 23, 2014, 10:11:44 PM
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)

Quote
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP – Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Gotcha.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on April 23, 2014, 10:40:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on April 23, 2014, 10:44:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on April 23, 2014, 10:49:32 PM
Unless you're trying to get out of New Jersey by crossing the Hudson or Delaware.

True. Well for the Delaware, you can use I-95 north of Trenton which is a free ride into Pennsylvania. The Hudson? Pfft, crossing that river is almost 1/3 of the price to fill your gas tank..
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2014, 06:21:37 AM
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)

Quote
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP — Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Gotcha.

Quote
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.

As mentioned before: Poorly worded title to the article (No more free rides).  What they're doing to catch toll cheats has been in place for a long time.  The article simply publicized it.  In a way, it's probably more of a PR move by the Expressway to let people know they are watching you.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: froggie on April 24, 2014, 06:47:45 AM
Quote
Unless you're trying to get out of New Jersey by crossing the Hudson or Delaware.

As long as you're not originating in South Jersey (say, south of I-195), crossing the Delaware is easy, as Zeffy alluded to (and there are more ways than just I-95 Scudders Falls too).  Crossing the Hudson?  Might as well pay the toll, as you'd burn more in gas getting up to Albany than you would in paying the toll.  Especially from the Bear Mountain Bridge north...as those bridge tolls are only $1.50 ($1.25 with EZPass).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 24, 2014, 06:57:55 AM

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.

Excellent from a marketing perspective, as New Jersey has land exits on relatively little of its perimeter, i.e. a captive market for toll bridges.  And as noted above, those land exits don't often make good substitutes for the bridges.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 24, 2014, 09:52:37 AM
What's odd about exit 9 is that all movements are tolled, entering and exiting the ACE. That means if you are coming from the west and exiting at exit 9 or entering there to go west, you are paying two tolls whereas using exit 7 further east is free, so you are only paying why toll. I believe that is the only irregularity in the system (you pay exactly once up to $3 between the western terminus and the GSP and again up to $.75 between the GSP and exit 2 no matter where you exit or enter), one I was not aware of and lost 75 cents to it (that might not sound like a lot, but it completely wiped out the savings on using the gas station on Delilah Road, the reason I was entering there). Why is this the case?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2014, 10:57:41 AM
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.

BTW, this interchange is supposed to be undergoing a major reconstruction in the future.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 24, 2014, 11:44:12 AM
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?
Quote
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2014, 06:46:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on April 24, 2014, 08:17:14 PM
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.

The rail line, originally the historic Camden & Amboy and later Penn Central, used to run all the way south to Bordentown.  The line was severed in the '60s near the now-leveled passage under US-130, and the section from Hightstown to the current end-of-track was lifted in 1983.  Any glimmer of hope railfans may have had of it being restored someday was dashed by the construction of NJ-133, whose earthen elevated route runs across the right-of-way unabated.  I think there's a historical marker.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2014, 09:42:14 AM
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.

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.

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)

Quote
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP – Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.

Quote
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...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...

While researching the above Exit 9 reconstruction, I came upon this article from 2011...which references the beginning of the toll evasion crackdown:  http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/police-cracking-down-on-atlantic-city-expressway-toll-evaders/article_ab25e2d6-78c0-11e0-9c1c-001cc4c03286.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 25, 2014, 10:58:06 AM

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)

Quote
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP – Be careful, motorists, someone may be watching you.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Gotcha.

Quote
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.

For reasons I cannot identify, I picture someone along the lines of the Hamburglar crouched down in there.

In Massachusetts, several years went by after the introduction of electronic toll collection before someone came out and said "The payment verification cameras were not turned on up until now, but now they are."  I still had my doubts at that point.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 26, 2014, 12:07:23 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 27, 2014, 10:28:52 AM

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 listed here:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:48:21 PM

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 listed here:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html
From the PDF, they're just realigning the EB-SB ramp and adding an offshoot ramp for 37.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2014, 08:15:57 AM
R.I.P. 1956-2014

http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M

http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on April 28, 2014, 08:53:44 AM

R.I.P. 1956-2014

http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M

http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz

So sad.  The one at the Holland Tunnel was still there two weeks ago, at least.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 28, 2014, 02:44:48 PM
R.I.P. 1956-2014

http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M

http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz

Those were almost as iconic as the neon-tube DMS units and the green KEEP AWAKE signs in the median of the Turnpike.

Wish the Turnpike Authority had been able to replace the panels but save the structures.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hubcity on April 28, 2014, 03:26:40 PM
Seriously: Aww! Those were so durn cool.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on April 28, 2014, 03:40:43 PM
R.I.P. 1956-2014

http://goo.gl/maps/Me35M

http://goo.gl/maps/wv8rz

But those signs and the gantries look functional still.  :-( Whyyyyyyyy?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2014, 05:57:37 PM
They're saving the mainline SB split. Because of that, they decided not to worry about the Penn Extension ones. Probably not about the Newark Bay ones either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beeper1 on April 28, 2014, 10:40:27 PM
I thought the SB mainline one was already gone.  Most recent Google areal does not show it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2014, 11:48:41 PM
I thought the SB mainline one was already gone.  Most recent Google areal does not show it.
Saving as in museum.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 29, 2014, 11:44:03 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on April 29, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
Is there such a thing as a New Jersey Turnpike Museum?

It could be added to the state museum in Trenton.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2014, 12:15:20 PM
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?

They have had travelling exhibits in the past, which for a roadway was pretty decent in size.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2014, 11:23:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on May 19, 2014, 10:42:21 AM
New Jersey Turnpike widening project reaches new milestone: http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2014/05/23b_nj_turnpike_widening_project_reaches_new_milestone_diverting_traffic.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 19, 2014, 12:08:24 PM
Caught me by surprise when I drove over the Turnpike this morning and saw the new lanes being utilized. It was only about two weeks ago there were still lots of construction vehicles on the outer lanes (at least in my area).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2014, 12:38:20 PM
I drove it this morning from 4 to 7A. 

If you expected the Turnpike to welcome you with banners and balloons to the new roadways, you were badly mistaken. 

If you expected them to put out a sign - any sign - stating anything regarding the new traffic pattern, you were badly mistaken as well.

As one approached the diverge prior to Interchange 6, there was nothing that would tell motorists of the upcoming move to the outer roadway.  The CSLS sign prior to the merge showed the standard work zone limit of 55 mph (Actual results may vary).  Then the roadway was restriped with 3 normal lanes, complete with skip lines (passing zone lines) slowly sending people to the outer roadway.  Once on the outer roadway, things were completely normal.  At least the roadway was a bit smoother, compared to the chewed up pavement found on the inner roadways.

One noticable difference: The left shoulder of the outer roadway isn't a full left shoulder much of the time.  Rather, it's about 5 - 8 feet wide.  Even the right shoudler appears to be a bit tight on occasion...but is probably at least 10' wide.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2014, 12:59:59 PM
What exactly is there to warn about? You still have 3 lanes, the construction is still going on, you can still access all the exits, pretty much the same way as you could before. Did they have warnings when there were temporary reroutings to portions of the outer roadways in the past (other than those lanes shift signs)? I don't recall seeing any.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2014, 01:08:20 PM
There's the normal "New Traffic Pattern" ahead signage, which is generally used whenever a traffic pattern has changed.

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). 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2014, 01:20:12 PM
A few pics of the diverge approaching Interchange 6:

What will be the 1 mile ahead sign for the split. You can see the traffic coming off of the outer roadway in the background.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/380E5309-CCC9-4015-98FE-9C76D50BAE9D.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/380E5309-CCC9-4015-98FE-9C76D50BAE9D.jpg.html)

The split:

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/9BD01F9B-9217-433C-B046-00673F83098D.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/9BD01F9B-9217-433C-B046-00673F83098D.jpg.html)

Almost fully within the outer roadway:

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/1F530516-E147-4285-863A-B1D69600A11F.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/1F530516-E147-4285-863A-B1D69600A11F.jpg.html)

Note the Turnpike is using a (very) thin black border on either side of the skip lines on the concrete overpasses. 

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/3C42C6E1-238F-4006-AE45-F407F23CCE62.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3C42C6E1-238F-4006-AE45-F407F23CCE62.jpg.html)

The not-to-common combo of a service area sign alongside an advanced bgs sign (and an 2 1/2 mile ahead sign to boot too!)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/F9ED96A1-E61F-4DFB-AB53-22016EED664D.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/F9ED96A1-E61F-4DFB-AB53-22016EED664D.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on May 19, 2014, 03:31:20 PM
Nice pics, that'll tide me over until GMSV magically updates the imagery on the Turnpike, since I can't ever ride it myself...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on May 19, 2014, 03:47:51 PM
There's the normal "New Traffic Pattern" ahead signage, which is generally used whenever a traffic pattern has changed.

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). 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2014, 05:55:49 PM
If the northbound NJTP's not a parking lot this Friday night; I'll have an opportunity to check it out.  If I need to bypass most if it, like I've had to do on most of my recent trips & use US 130; I'll check out the southbound lanes next Monday night.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2014, 07:27:17 AM
And some pics going South from Int 7:
The look coming from Rt. 206 towards the toll plaza at Int. 7:

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0213DFCC-0F7B-4B1E-8EB7-13395066F1A3.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0213DFCC-0F7B-4B1E-8EB7-13395066F1A3.jpg.html)


Approaching the ramps for the Turnpike South:

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0480DFED-ACBE-4A7D-AAD1-19904D923520.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0480DFED-ACBE-4A7D-AAD1-19904D923520.jpg.html)

Next 3 pics are the Turnpike South, South of Int. 6, approaching the merge:

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/A0F019AC-59FA-467D-ABFE-6E1609DE1664.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/A0F019AC-59FA-467D-ABFE-6E1609DE1664.jpg.html)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/CCD858DA-78DF-42AF-B568-0F59AEDB7ADE.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/CCD858DA-78DF-42AF-B568-0F59AEDB7ADE.jpg.html)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/3D83BC8A-E770-46A5-B716-093665C76C61.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3D83BC8A-E770-46A5-B716-093665C76C61.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 20, 2014, 10:05:26 AM
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)

Per this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=87.msg169354#msg169354), the sign apparently was fixed but the photos showing the new sign are unavailable.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on May 20, 2014, 01:27:17 PM

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2014, 07:12:35 PM

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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on May 21, 2014, 05:56:09 PM
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8a
With 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 21, 2014, 06:58:36 PM
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8a
With 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.

The turnpike at exit 7 for US206 has a similar column arrangement. Just inner ones for the new bridges, and on either side for the originals.

http://goo.gl/maps/WPnHa
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on May 21, 2014, 10:29:39 PM

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
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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2014, 09:20:36 AM
- All new overpasses for local roads over the mainline between exit 6 and 8a
With 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.

If it wasn't officially on the books, it was definitely getting a look.  Before they decided to go with the dual-dual design, the Turnpike did say they looked at alternatives, such as just going 4 or 5 lanes wide on a single roadway.

Quote
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.

None.  Some will be repaired as necessary, but none will be rebuilt. If any overpasses needed to be reconstructed, that was done during the previous 4 years (I know of one between Interchange 8 & 8A that was done...there may have been another one or two reconstructed as well).

Per the minutes of the August 20, 2013 NJ Turnpike meeting:

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Unlike in the past when each span just went over one roadway, there are numerous casesin this widening project where a single span will go over two roadways.  In some cases, the double span goes over the inner lanes of both directions; in other cases the support is between the inner lanes, and the double span goes over the inner/outer roadways.  Guess it's due to better steel/concrete uses...and a decision not to be too anal about a uniform look up and down the entire dual-dual zone.

As the turnpike goes over roadways, such as in the NJ 33 & US 206 examples, similiar differences can be found as well.  Honestly though, the chances of those roads being widened are probably extremely nill.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 23, 2014, 01:42:32 PM
Not your normal test sign...especially when you have a full-color VMS at your disposal.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/939D3A2B-394B-4393-9040-1A4D2003E7C5.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/939D3A2B-394B-4393-9040-1A4D2003E7C5.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2014, 02:16:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 23, 2014, 03:03:56 PM
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.

SB between 4 & 3.  The overpass beyond the sign is NJ 70.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on May 23, 2014, 03:09:28 PM
Are those NJTP and GSP markers actually part of the display? That's awesome. Interesting to see what that can be used for...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 23, 2014, 04:01:59 PM
They use shields on the signs when they are showing travel times. Usually they are interstate and state routes though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 23, 2014, 08:00:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 23, 2014, 08:13:06 PM
The great thing about those signs is that they can just plop a BGS with all the usual fonts, logos, etc. on them as needed.  I wish we had them here, but mostly because they look cool, which probably doesn't justify the expense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 24, 2014, 02:40:22 AM
The Turnpike Authority is starting to make more and more use of the higher end graphics capability of the VMS's they've installed on both the Turnpike and the Parkway. For example, going southbound past exit 12, they have a VMS showing the time to Exit 6 and they include a I-276 shield in it. I also saw one around exit 11 for time to I-195, both going via the Turnpike to 7A and the Parkway to 98, although I'm not sure how useful that really is, because the part of 195 you end up on will really depend on where you're heading. If you're going to the Trenton area, going down the Parkway to Exit 98 and then taking 195 would be very out of the way since you'd have to travel the entire length of 195 just to get back. Although, if traffic is **really** bad through the Merge, maybe it's still faster (though I'd probably take 1 to 295 at that point).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2014, 07:59:34 AM
Six Flags Great Adventure (exit 16) will advise motorists to use either highway to 195. Otherwise, probably just a guideline of the time it'll take to 195, which is pretty much the midpoint of the state.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on May 24, 2014, 04:49:30 PM
I hate how some bridges have one side with this pavement (but the shoulder is different): http://goo.gl/maps/vrJbr

and the other side has this (with a high pitched sound when driving over it): http://goo.gl/maps/tTXeq

as well as between exits 13 and 13A, the "cars only" lanes both NB and SB have the concrete bridges, but the outer lanes are just like the first link I gave. When you are driving the inner lanes between these exits, you are riding over various streets in Elizabeth, and you keep hearing the high pitched noise. They should repair all of the bridges this way.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 27, 2014, 09:12:21 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on May 27, 2014, 10:59:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 27, 2014, 01:01:20 PM
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. 

It's possible that somebody down the line reinterpreted those signs to be more of regulatory nature rather than a guidance nature.  Who that somebody is remains to be the question and whether or not those new white signs were indeed a fluke.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2014, 01:23:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on May 27, 2014, 04:47:48 PM
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.

Come to think of it, which other signs has the Turnpike Authority not put online (excluding overhead guide signs, though the ones I have in my Standard Drawings are NOT the older-style ones, and are much more MUTCD oriented) in some way or another?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 28, 2014, 12:37:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on May 28, 2014, 07:26:35 AM
I'll miss those variable speed limit signs that had italicized numerals made up of flippable panels.

Same for the neon sign "REDUCE SPEED" signs announcing hazardous conditions.

They were so NJ Turnpikeish. 

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2014, 08:15:51 AM
I'll miss those variable speed limit signs that had italicized numerals made up of flippable panels.

Same for the neon sign "REDUCE SPEED" signs announcing hazardous conditions.

They were so NJ Turnpikeish.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2014, 02:30:11 PM
I'll miss those variable speed limit signs that had italicized numerals made up of flippable panels.

Same for the neon sign "REDUCE SPEED" signs announcing hazardous conditions.

They were so NJ Turnpikeish.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 30, 2014, 02:46:14 PM
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.
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. 

From a constructability & maintenance standpoint, such would make sense because having different numerals in neon would require separate elements (bulbs) for each different numeral whereas the scoreboard layout utilized the same standard 88 setup for all numerals (key bulbs would light up as appropriate).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 31, 2014, 09:03:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on June 02, 2014, 09:04:42 AM
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?

Standards have probably been changed since 1956 when the original 6 opened. The new ones may also be overbuilt to allow them to last 50+ Years as well, just like the original.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 02, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
Personally, I'm a bit disappointed with some of the features found on the new outer roadway, especially when it comes to the acceleration lanes.  While the Turnpike has traditionally used the taper type accel lane, where the motorist is supposed to speed up and enter the travel lanes at one point, I was hoping they were going to switch to a parallel accel lane, where a lane of upwards of about 1,000 feet or so in length is provided to merge in.  In fact, I even brought this up at one of the public meetings.

The Turnpike went with the taper design instead.  I feel especially on the outer roadway, which will be heavily used by truck traffic, the design won't provide trucks (and cars) with the flexibility necessary to properly merge onto the highway.

Also, the distance from the accel lane for traffic entering from the Service Area just south of Int. 7A, to the decel lane for 7A, is only a 1/2 mile.  They would've been better off utilizing a 4th lane here to give motorist more maneuverability.

It's also interesting to note that approaching this service plaza near 7A, the list of restaurants over the inner roadway is different from the list over the outer roadway.  I'm guessing they figured since both signs could be seen from both roadways it would allow additional 'conveniences' to be shown, although some could be confused thinking there is two different service areas and what they want to visit is on the opposite roadway's service area.  (Yes, I know, motorists *should* know that both ramps lead to the same service area.  Then again, motorists *should* know a lot of stuff they screw up all the time.)

And finally - entering the outer roadway southbound from Interchange 7 results in a tight right turn, then an immediate sharp incline...which may pose a problem for some trucks.  I haven't driven the Interchange 7 to Northbound Outer Roadway ramp yet to see if the same conditions exit, but I do know there has been at least one truck that overturned on that ramp already.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 02, 2014, 08:13:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2014, 09:21:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on June 04, 2014, 02:12:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on June 04, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
They still need to implement merge signs
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 04, 2014, 10:22:27 PM
Sunglare was being a pain the morning I took this pic of the hybrid lane control sign. I don't really care for Turnpike to be in small letters, especially next to North in small caps. And the spacing between letters in NJ Turnpike is different than in North. Whatever happened to the turnpike's nearly perfect signage??

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/D7E99C98-00CA-4CB3-9DA5-1F3CE516ED16.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/D7E99C98-00CA-4CB3-9DA5-1F3CE516ED16.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Revive 755 on June 04, 2014, 10:33:13 PM
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.

My experiences with the tapered acceleration lanes are that the painted, debris-filled gore almost always goes on too long, the actual area to merge is way too short, there's almost always some slowpoke who can't merge in front and much faster traffic in the rightmost through lane on the highway, and many drivers will just go ahead and ignore the large painted gore and merge early.  Maybe it's just the many examples I frequent, but I'd prefer the tapered design to be banned for new construction/major reconstruction. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 05, 2014, 09:16:56 AM
...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.

When I stated my opinion about the taper vs. parallel accel lanes, I actually used this report from Nebraska that looked at both types: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/45000/45000/45083/Final_Acceleration_Lane_Report_3-23-11.pdf

At the beginning of Chapter 5 (Report page 31, PDF page 38) the findings state that the tapered design is better under free flow, 65 mph and above design speeds.  The parallel method is better for moderate-heavy traffic, with design speeds of 60 mph and less. 

The NJ Turnpike is a mixture of the two: Over a 65 mph design speed, but moderate to heavy traffic. 

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.

This was mentioned also.  While the perferred parallel acceleration length should be about 1300 feet (1/4 mile), rarely is that length ever used. The report states this for the tapered design though: "...consideration should be given to paving a full-depth, 12 ft wide surfaced shoulder at least 300 ft beyond the end of the taper on both tapered or parallel installations to allow drivers of cars or trucks to exceed the painted end of the acceleration lane if needed to accomplish a merge into through traffic."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 23, 2014, 07:19:35 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on June 23, 2014, 09:47:59 AM
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'd guess there would be plenty of other issues that would make the Turnpike as we know it impossible to build. I'm certain federal wetlands regulations would make it extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to build the highway across the Meadowlands; such regulations might also come into play in the area around where NJ-42 crosses the Turnpike (I believe, but am not certain, wetlands issues have occasionally been cited as one barrier to an interchange there). Stronger community opposition, coupled with the "modern" view as to the undesirability of ramming a highway through an urban area, would be an issue in Elizabeth and probably some of the surrounding areas (one area that comes to mind is the area between Exits 11 and 12).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: machias on June 23, 2014, 05:30:22 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on June 23, 2014, 07:06:30 PM
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 23, 2014, 08:52:28 PM
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.

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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 25, 2014, 06:18:02 PM
Strange Turnpike sighting of the month:
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on June 26, 2014, 03:17:00 PM
Strange Turnpike sighting of the month:
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!
Perhaps the goat was hitchhiking to Alanland.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ctrabs74 on June 29, 2014, 06:20:56 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 10:03:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on July 01, 2014, 01:35:08 PM
It clearly originally said I-276, but apparently at some point they put that NJTP shield on it. I guess someone thought that was a good way to say "To NJTP." :pan:

It's back to I-276 now, and there's now a sign saying something like "To NJTP use I-276" further back on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 01, 2014, 10:49:11 PM
The MUTCD signs are spreading...
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ian on July 02, 2014, 12:41:36 AM
^ Even though I'm going to miss the Turnpike's former standard of signs, I do think the new ones are decent looking.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on July 02, 2014, 12:59:21 AM
^ Even though I'm going to miss the Turnpike's former standard of signs, I do think the new ones are decent looking.

Agreed. It's sad to see those start to go, but at the same time, if the replacements aren't fugly, then no harm done I guess. Although, what's up with the extra light numerals in the NJ 3 and NJ 495 shields?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 02, 2014, 01:29:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2014, 06:29:58 AM
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?

Yes and yes.  Actually, look closely - this gantry is one of the new VMS gantries - you can see the back of the VMS is on the SB side.  The Turnpike & Parkway, even when they were separate entities, heavily used rusted steel (by design...not to be confused with rusting steel). 

The Turnpike also has had a history of not using the black background, but not in all cases.  NJ 140 at Exit 1 has the black square behind the white circle, for example.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 02, 2014, 07:56:59 AM
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?

The 3 should be Series D and the 495 should be Series C.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on July 02, 2014, 03:57:32 PM
What I can't understand is this: Are the gantries intentionally done with that rusted look?

Yes, and I think it ends up looking awful after a while. Not the weathered steel itself, but the concrete under it. Within a short time, water running off the steel carries the iron oxide onto the concrete and stains it horribly. In the example of the posted pic, the large concrete block on which the vertical portion of the gantry is mounted will be stained with large brown streaks within a few months.

PennDOT uses this material extensively, as do many other state DOTs.

I can't stand it; I think the staining of the concrete looks messy and unkempt, looking like something that's been abandoned or poorly maintained. But opinions may vary.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 02, 2014, 04:06:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 02, 2014, 09:02:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 02, 2014, 11:03:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 02, 2014, 11:12:13 PM
I am impressed NJTA is now realizing that NJ 495 exists. Wow!  It took them over 30 years and even longer if you count the brief tenor of I-495.

However, sad to see the old Exit number within the sign go, but at the same time the new gantries and the new panels look awesome!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2014, 08:52:11 AM
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.

Some applications it sucks for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omni_Coliseum

It never stopped rusting.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2014, 10:48:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on July 05, 2014, 09:25:15 AM
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.

There's some Corten towers crossing the very subject road of this thread between exit 8A and the Joyce Kilmer service plaza.

Yes, Corten leaves browning - but the name is cool IMO.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2014, 03:35:40 PM
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.

SHA does not maintain anything within the corporate limits of Baltimore City, except its headquarters complex at 707 North Calvert Street. 

Those Corten sign gantries on I-83, I-95 and I-395 were probably installed by Interstate Division for Baltimore City (IDBC), though since then, maintenance of all of I-95 and I-395 in the city has been transferred to the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA). 

The only Interstate in Baltimore that is still maintained by the city is I-83 (Jones Falls Expressway), and it seems that the city would like for the SHA to take that over.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 07, 2014, 09:53:08 AM
Is Secaucus Junction mentioned at all for exit 15X anymore? I expect that's the main reason anyone would use that exit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2014, 07:48:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 07, 2014, 08:51:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 08, 2014, 11:36:50 AM
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.


Now I'm confused.
(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.

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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on July 08, 2014, 01:33:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 08, 2014, 01:42:34 PM
Quote
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".

I'll have to look next time I go through, but the photo (didn't see it before) definitely looks newer after the recent construction was complete.  I'm probably so used to seeing "Secaucus Junction" that I didn't notice the new sign.  For an exit built with the station in mind, the signage from the exit to the station is absolutely terrible.  It's not all that clear from the exit ramp which side is for drop-off/pick-up (N/W side) with the other side for buses.  I've always used the exit to get to a business in the adjacent industrial area, but I recently had to pick-up somebody from the station, and it was not immediately evident which of the two left turns from the ramp was for the pick-up area.  It's almost as if they tried their hardest to discourage this use, as was the original intent of the station for transfers only.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on July 08, 2014, 05:58:43 PM
The two appear to be at the same general location, but the scenery around the signs doesn't match up.

The pic from vdeane was taken from further back than the Google Maps pic, but with a long (telephoto) lens. The Google Maps pic used a wider angle lens.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 08, 2014, 10:40:07 PM
The pic I took is also less than two weeks old.  The street view is from January 2013.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 09, 2014, 12:39:03 AM
If it were X being after W, they would have used F because this is the Easterly Alignment. :pan:
As for the rock, it hasn't gone anywhere.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 09, 2014, 09:27:01 AM
Ok, yeah, that's true, but 15X is north of 15W, so there is that. They could have called it 16D, I suppose.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 09, 2014, 09:53:05 AM
Or turn the road into a mileage-based system, call it Exit 111E and have a nice day! :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2014, 12:47:43 PM
Or using strictly I-95's mileage, it could be Exit 65E.  :spin:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 09, 2014, 03:20:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 09, 2014, 08:19:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 10, 2014, 03:04:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 10, 2014, 03:07:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 10, 2014, 04:04:38 PM

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2014, 10:09:07 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 10, 2014, 10:34:59 PM
I actually received one of those yesterday, now that you mention it! The funny thing is? I don't own an EZ-Pass tag. Hell, I don't even drive!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 11, 2014, 02:23:01 AM

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?

There are those on this forum who would know better than myself. I know Alps had a whole thread about it a while back. It's starting to pick up now as more signs show up, but I think they're putting up new signs piggybacking on the continued replacement of the old neon VMS's with the new LED ones.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 11, 2014, 07:36:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 11, 2014, 01:57:54 PM
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

The PA Turnpike was warning of the same EZ-Pass scam on the various news channels around here yesterday as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 11, 2014, 05:22:41 PM
I got an e-mail from VDOT warning about the E-ZPass scam.

The Washington Post's Dr. Gridlock blog ran an item about it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2014/07/09/e-zpass-agencies-warn-of-phishing-scam/). I found the following part quite amusing, especially considering I don't work for any government agency:

Quote
To me, the most chilling thing is that the scammers spell “E-ZPass”  right. Almost nobody outside of government can do that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 12, 2014, 08:38:36 AM
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.

That's no Newark.  Newark is west-southwest of this point, behind the viewer.  Straight ahead are the illustrious skylines of Secaucus, North Bergen, and their environs.

How boring all this MUTCD signage looks.  The Turnpike is better than that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 12, 2014, 05:58:02 PM
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.

IIRC, it was because the signs for that portion of the roadway were already designed and in fabrication when they decided to replace all the signs north of there. They also replaced most of the signs south of there with older Turnpike standard signs before that which is why they won't be replaced either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 12, 2014, 06:40:16 PM
I hope now that the SB Eastern Spur finally gets proper signage for Exit 15E which never had guide signs stating where the road goes.  All signs always referred to it as plain ole Exit 15E.

It will be interesting to see the Turnpike signed with tabs north of Woodbridge and the usual NJT style south of it without tabs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 12, 2014, 07:38:40 PM
Yeah, I never understood either how a heads-up agency like NJTA could have overlooked proper signing for Exit 15E. And yes, maybe they'll fix it now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 13, 2014, 10:42:52 AM
I wrote to NJTA once and they (or the corresponding engineer told me) that it was not a big deal and the Passaic River Bridge gave no room for the large panel signs it needed.

In fact this very same engineer thinks that I-95's exit numbers north of US 46 are a continuation of I-80's numbering scheme, so it goes to show you how much the NJTA's engineers do actually know about the roads in general.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2014, 11:57:02 AM
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.

Especially the one south of the Interchange 1 toll barrier (now removed), which implied that the toll and "free" roads ahead were somehow inferior to the N.J. Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on July 14, 2014, 01:05:12 AM
The Turnpike needs to update more of its guide signs, as well as implement more reassurance route markers since it is designated as I-95. When I drive on it, I don't feel like I am on I-95. Other states you have that feel, but not in NJ. The unusual exit signage, the lack of merge signs, the old crappy lighting. These need to be upgraded. The lighting needs to be improved. 70 % of the lighting do not work, on ramps, on the highway itself, at tolls, etc. I wonder why they installed LED lights at exit 13A, yet some are already broken. I hope this is in some future plans to upgrade lighting as well, and pavement resurfacing between 1 and 5.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2014, 06:25:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2014, 08:29:24 AM
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2013_Audited_Financial_State.pdf

The above links to the audited financial statements for the NJ Turnpike (if you're an investor, you can read and understand those reports.  Most other people never look at them).  Page 12 of the PDF (Page 10 of the report) lists 'Payments to the State of New Jersey'.  In each of the past 2 years, over $350 million was diverted from the Turnpike to the State; money that could have easily been used for a lot of the maintenance issues on the Turnpike & Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 14, 2014, 06:25:04 PM
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.

This should not be allowed to happen, but according to that audit that was linked, it's allowed. Unfortunately, the idea of raising the gas tax to properly fund the TTF is a major third rail in NJ (and admittedly, gas is super expensive as is, who wants to pay even more) and no politician is going to touch it. It's easier to play political tricks to find money like this.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2014, 09:34:02 PM
Last I checked, NJ gas was dirt cheap.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 14, 2014, 09:43:27 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on July 14, 2014, 11:40:46 PM
I think there is also the belief in NJ that they are getting some kind of deal because the price of gas is less than neighboring states and they get "full service."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 14, 2014, 11:45:17 PM
Don't forget that the merger of the NJ Highway Authority with the Turnpike Authority was used to shore up the finances of the Garden State Parkway. Like raising gas taxes, raising the tolls on the Parkway was always a political no-no and they have been kept artificially low over the years. Merging the two allowed funds from the Turnpike to be used. People tend to not complain too much about the tolls on the NJTP since "mostly out of staters" pay it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on July 14, 2014, 11:46:40 PM

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 15, 2014, 10:16:24 AM

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.
Due keep in mind that whenever the cost of gas goes up and stays up; the cost of everything else typically follows. 

The double-digit inflation that crippled the nation's economy during much of the 1970s and early 1980s was largely due to the skyrocketing cost of gasoline that took place at the time.  Increased fuel costs = higher transport costs = higher prices for transported goods.  Economics 101 here.

However, when gas prices started falling (& even crashing) during the mid-80s and later in the mid-90s; the cost of everything else that previously increased did not decrease due to the drop in fuels costs.  As a result, the cost of gasoline relative to everything else became lower.  Long story short, and the linked article completely overlooks this; the cost of gas wasn't too low; the cost of everything else was/is too high.

Back to the topic at hand; in a perect world, the best time to increase a gas tax (for road/highway funds) would be to enact such when the overall cost of gas is going down.  The general public only cares about the price on the pump not the percentage allocation of said-price.  If an increase to a gas tax is offset by a decrease in the wholesale price of gasoline; nobody's going to raise too much of a stink.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 15, 2014, 10:37:16 AM
....

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.

Virginia has had a version of a percentage-based tax since last year, though it's based on the wholesale price rather than the price at the pump. The risk, as you say, is that the prices could fall. I didn't really notice any difference in the price at the pump when the old 17.5¢-per-gallon tax ended and the new percentage-based tax took effect. Fuel prices seem considerably lower than in DC and Maryland, but that's in part because Maryland raised their per-gallon tax last year at the same time ours was repealed.

I think you have the right solution to the "problem" of prices falling: x percent but not less than y cents per gallon. The logical starting point for the floor would presumably be whatever the current per-gallon tax is now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on July 15, 2014, 01:28:24 PM
The PA Turnpike was warning of the same EZ-Pass scam on the various news channels around here yesterday as well.

...as was MassDOT.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 15, 2014, 09:16:15 PM

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.
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 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.


People also tend to neglect to realize inflation exists when their paychecks are static.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 15, 2014, 09:57:34 PM


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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 16, 2014, 09:00:20 AM
Bold emphasis added:


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.
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.

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.
Hear Hear. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 16, 2014, 11:28:17 AM
Bold emphasis added:


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.
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.

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.
Hear Hear. 

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.

I paid something like $1.17 at a Delta in Bergen County.  Aside from bridge/tunnel price wars, the cheapest gas in the state tends to be well south of there, below the Raritan.  Extrapolate as you see fit.  Either way, the shit was cheap.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 16, 2014, 12:12:55 PM
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.

Is there a Sam's Club that sells gasoline (and sometimes Diesel) nearby?

Sam's usually has pretty decent prices on fuel (though I don't know if they "drive down" the prices at nearby places that sell fuel).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 16, 2014, 04:10:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 16, 2014, 10:26:21 PM
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.

I remember that wonderful yet brief time in late '08 when gas in Jersey went back to 1.30 or so a gallon. It was superb.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on July 17, 2014, 01:31:22 AM
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.

I am probably guilty of having paid attention to this from a much younger age than is normal, but I remember things like my father pulling into a Hess station near Strasburg, PA in 1993 (age 5) and pulling out immediately because the prices were ridiculous. The ridiculous price was $1.89 for 89 octane (which our car at the time demanded). Side note: we had also already had to bypass a couple of gas stations because my parents were low on cash and those stations neither had an ATM nor accepted any form of plastic payment (which in those days was not ubiquitous as it is today, especially not in rural areas).

I remember seeing gasoline for 93 cents a gallon at a Gulf station on route 7 in northern Delaware in the late 90s (age ~10), and several other stations in the area that were under a dollar as well.

I also remember first playing Streets of Simcity in the late 90s and commenting that gas in the game was expensive. Their price: $2 per gallon

I remember when gas first went above $2 per gallon (age 15) assuming it was a temporary spike caused by oil fields in Iraq being set on fire and that it would drop when that war ended (which I assumed would be in a few months because surely America could crush such a puny country quickly... hey, this is why 15 year olds don't vote :P).

I remember seeing prices break $3 per gallon after Katrina (age 17) and feeling sorry for all the people who had cars and were driving them around, thinking "wow, these gas prices must be making them go broke".

When prices broke $4 per gallon in 2008 (age 20) I was aware enough of what going on to realize that it was a speculative bubble and that it would pop, but being quite stressed out over it nonetheless since while it didn't impact me personally I still saw it as a brick in the backpack of the economy that was worth being concerned about.


Nonetheless, by the time I got my own car in the summer of 2009 (age 21) and was for the first time in my life paying for gasoline out of my own pocket, gas being multiple dollars per gallon was normal and I simply budgeted in my mind accordingly. I may vividly remember gas prices being a third of what they are now but I don't have any internal concept of what it's like to actually pay those prices.

Besides, what I spend in a year on gas is still less than what I spend in a year on food, and much less than what I spend in a year on rent. So y'know what, in the greater scheme of things gas prices really aren't a huge issue for me, and they are not impacting my ability to afford driving places.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2014, 06:29:27 AM
After I started my job, I remember a Wawa opened up near Six Flags Great Adventure in 1999 or 2000, and Wawa being relatively new to the convenience store gas station concept, put on a mini price war with the only other gas station in that area.  I recall gas prices as low as 69 cents a gallon!  At the time, Wawa was known for their cheap gas. Today, some people swear they still have the cheapest gas, but clearly those people are blind as to other nearby station's prices. In some cases, their gas prices can even be quite high. The biggest advantage today though is they refuse to do the separate cash/credit pricing thing.

In 2001 or 2002, I started looking at doing the carpool thing, as my commute was 41 miles each way.  Gas was getting pricey as well...at nearly $1.50 a gallon!  As much as the other guys annoy me, I'm in that same carpool today that I was in 12 or so years ago.  Considering I normally drive once, maybe twice a week rather than 5, it's saved a lot of money in gas and car maintenance.  Ironically, one guy in the carpool has the same last name as me and lives on the other side of my neighborhood, but otherwise no relation. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 08:57:52 AM
Found a couple of Sunoco gas credit card receipts from late Dec. 2008 (prices for 87 Octane gas).

12/20/08 Sunoco along NJ 73 in Marlton: $1.499

12/31/08 Sunoco in Aldan, PA (not too far from where I live): $1.659
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2014, 09:22:19 AM
You know its funny you all should bring up what gas was a few years back as recently I have found old receipts of my own from way back in 95 with me filling up my tank for only $12.01.  Now its over $70 for a tank fill up.

Then a friend of mine posted something on his facebook page of how gas went from average $1.89 a gallon in 08 to now $3.69 average.  It was an add bashing one nameless individual, but it is so odd that all these things are happening at once.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 09:32:47 AM
Lowest price I remember since I've been old enough to drive was 73¢ a gallon in July 1998. When I got my license in 1989 it was around 99¢ a gallon. (Both prices for 87 octane. If you asked me the price now, I'd give you the price for 93 because two of our cars specify premium and the other car doesn't get filled up very often.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 09:36:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2014, 09:41:34 AM
I remember when traveling in 97-98 when FL had it at 93 cents a gallon, but Augusta, GA it was 89 cents a gallon there.  Georgia back in the 90's was always cheaper than Florida.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 17, 2014, 10:49:41 AM
I remember a a kid when the normal price of gas in NJ was in the 90s with 99 cents being the mark of expensive gas stations. It was like this for a long time too, maybe a decade. As prices fluctuated, there were more or fewer stations that charged 99 cents per gallon, and the cheap ones went as far down as the low 70s sometimes if memory serves, but there were always stations that charged 99 and never more than that. Except once you crossed into Pennsylvania and then there was nothing *below* 99 cents it seems.

There were also expensive brands (Mobil, Exxon, Sunoco) and cheap brands (Citgo, Amoco, local no-name stations), and this was pretty consistent geographically. They all proudly proclaimed "cash or credit same price!" even though nobody ever charged more for credit. I recall there being a lone full service Mobil in Northeast Philadelphia that proudly announced "We pump your gas! Same Price!" which charged 99 cents. I was impressed by that, first because they had full service, and second because it was a Mobil, so this was the price you often payed if you went to a Mobil in NJ (which of course had full service just like everything else in NJ).

Now the brand/price correlation is much weaker, though it's still somewhat there. In later years Mobil had some of the cheapest gas stations even before it was locally replaced by Lukoil and Valero, cash only, of course. The cheapest credit card prices are still with Citgo, but also with those attached to convenience stores like Wawa.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: spooky on July 17, 2014, 11:42:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 12:11:18 PM
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.

I was somewhat amused last month to see a lot of billboards on I-75 in Georgia listing the price per gallon simply for "unleaded." Not "regular unleaded," just plain old "unleaded." The billboards didn't look like old ones that would have survived from the leaded-gas days, either.

I seem to recall in the DC area leaded gas was already gone by 1989 and the middle grade (89 octane) was introduced because it was claimed it would work in cars that took leaded gas because it was the same octane rating as the typical leaded gas had been, though of course that ignored the fact that said cars didn't have the catalytic converter required and so typically needed a lead additive as well.

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).



Now, as long as we're talking about expensive gas versus cheap gas, check out the answers these guys gave on Family Feud:

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 17, 2014, 01:26:40 PM
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).

Yes, I am talking about the 90s. I wonder what lead to the fall of the cash/credit price difference and its subsequent rise. It's not universal even today. The Cleveland area, for example very rarely has any difference and when it does, it's only a few cents. New Jersey routinely has 10 cents or more difference in many places.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2014, 01:34:32 PM
I saw one station on US 130 once with a cash/credit price difference of a penny!  I don't get up that way often, so next time I do I'll have to see if it holds true.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 03:00:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: spooky on July 18, 2014, 07:52:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 18, 2014, 08:33:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2014, 08:53:30 AM
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!!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 18, 2014, 01:30:42 PM
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). 

IIRC, one used to be able to get higher octane fuel than what was offered elsewhere at some airport gas stations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 18, 2014, 05:39:23 PM
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.

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 21, 2014, 10:47:53 AM
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.
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)
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on July 22, 2014, 09:36:39 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 22, 2014, 10:44:40 PM
Haha...hey, topics go off subject occasionally. Just a simple post will bring it back on topic.

As for the GSV, they seem to do specific areas every few years or so. And when they do record a road, it'll be several months before the images are uploaded and available for viewing. 

Even if the GSV drove the outer lanes on day 1, you probably wouldn't see the images until autumn at the earliest.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 22, 2014, 11:02:28 PM
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...


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on July 22, 2014, 11:06:33 PM
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...

Do link that! The GMSV car captured one of my sisters who no longer lives at my current house as she walked our dog back in 2011. Boy was I shocked when I found that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on July 24, 2014, 10:07:29 AM
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=)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ATLRedSoxFan on July 24, 2014, 12:14:25 PM
The new gantry signs don't look bad, but I wish there was some way to include Art-deco in the new gantry design.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 24, 2014, 03:17:02 PM
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=)
Quote
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.


And they don't care about Tito's Burritos? (http://www.titosburritos.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TB_NJTBmensTee2.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on July 24, 2014, 10:49:30 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2014, 11:10:49 PM
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=)
Quote
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.


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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 25, 2014, 05:12:38 PM
Now I have to check them out. Morristown's nice and close.

Go to the original in Summit, you will approve of it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 25, 2014, 09:10:22 PM
Is this all the NJTA's lawyers have to worry about? Everything else at NJTA must be running pretty darned well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2014, 02:37:48 PM
Is this all the NJTA's lawyers have to worry about? Everything else at NJTA must be running pretty darned well.

Right?

I hope they're not big enough dirtbags to go after WFMU:

(https://www.wfmu.org/marathon/images/FF_2009_gardenstate_75x75.gif) (http://www.wfmu.org)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 29, 2014, 05:44:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on July 29, 2014, 06:43:17 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 29, 2014, 07:02:05 PM
Despite my usual dislike of the NJ Turnpike, I have this weird desire to drive it. I have no reason to go that far north though. :(
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 31, 2014, 08:53:39 AM
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. 

I've seen such done before on other highways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 19, 2014, 10:56:04 PM
I recently noticed this seemingly random stretch of lighting on the outer roadway in both directions between exits 12 and 13: 
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.6224,-74.216887&spn=0.000004,0.002468&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.6224,-74.217396&panoid=OenJ74M4PUqz3zkX2XsLVA&cbp=12,210.63,,0,-3.94 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.6224,-74.216887&spn=0.000004,0.002468&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.6224,-74.217396&panoid=OenJ74M4PUqz3zkX2XsLVA&cbp=12,210.63,,0,-3.94)
It doesn't seem to directly serve a purpose for a merge or exit lane, as the usual lighting mounted on the right shoulder side begins for the outer roadways a little bit to the north at 13.  Was the lane drop a little north of 13 a bit further south in this area at one time?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: okroads on August 21, 2014, 04:20:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on August 25, 2014, 07:56:24 AM
....

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 25, 2014, 09:54:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2014, 08:50:43 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/14471780757/in/set-72157646259913074/
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 9'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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on August 26, 2014, 09:51:15 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/14471780757/in/set-72157646259913074/
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.
Typo alert: the gantry in that photo is the one for Exit 9.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2014, 10:05:39 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/okroads/14471780757/in/set-72157646259913074/
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.
Typo alert: the gantry in that photo is the one for Exit 9.
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.

The guide panel for Exit 9, I believe was changed in the 1990's as I always remembered that one particular sign to be a button copy to only use New Brunswick as sole control point.  When they revised it to add East Brunswick to it is why the newer button copy has been added.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on August 26, 2014, 02:38:15 PM
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.
Nice shots - they did well for the time...outer CWs looking pretty good.  :nod:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 29, 2014, 12:32:39 AM
I drove up from the PA Turnpike through the new outer roadway the other night, and I noticed something nifty. The barrel signs about which roadway to take are internally illuminated. It looks quite nice with the LED VMS's also built into those signs. I wonder if we'll see these signs north of 8A when they start doing the MUTCD conversion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on August 29, 2014, 09:51:32 AM
Too bad it looks like crap when the LED lip casts an ever-so-annoying, slight shadow on the face.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2014, 10:07:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on August 29, 2014, 10:25:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 29, 2014, 10:44:07 AM
I see this is how the southern car/truck lane split looks like now, south of Exit 6 in Mansfield. I was coming back from a day trip to Philadelphia:

(http://i.imgur.com/7UkQp4V.jpg)

And then the advance Exit sign soon after the first picture:
(http://i.imgur.com/RmBf76C.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 29, 2014, 10:58:49 AM
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...)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2014, 11:25:06 AM
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...)

There's a supplemental sign for Florence approaching Interchange 6.  The actual Interchange 6 Sign will also state Philadelphia.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2014, 12:01:36 PM
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.
NJ Turnpike does not like to sign county routes for some reason.  Look at Exit 5 for CR 541? 

Right Exit 8 should be resigned and US 130 could be without.  However I would use South Brunswick instead of Cranbury.  Cranbury is better served now with Exit 8 to NJ 133 WB to US 130 NB.  Even in pre NJ 133 days most would use NJ 33 WB to CR 539 NB into Cranbury. 

Just like Laurelton being changed to Brick on road signs, Jamesburg should be Monroe as well.  The same with Singac, being part of Little Falls, was changed on NJ 23 signs to "Little Falls" was also redone.  It seems the townships are more important than the communities that lie within it.  Only Toms River lucked out when residents changed the official Township of Dover name to Township of Toms River, so it now is not a part of a larger community as now that change made Toms River the actual community merge with the township so to speak.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on August 29, 2014, 12:37:35 PM
And then the advance Exit sign soon after the first picture:
(http://i.imgur.com/RmBf76C.jpg)
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.

Note to PennDOT & PTC: the above is how an I-276 shield should look like in terms of shape & font (Series C).   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 30, 2014, 11:00:33 AM
Maybe you should email both PennDOT and PTC a copy of the above photo saying what you said here LOL!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 02, 2014, 09:13:11 PM
It was strange when the outer lane was speed limit 55 and the inner lane was 65 near exit 12.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on September 03, 2014, 02:42:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on September 04, 2014, 12:15:39 AM
Is there a "field guide to freeway overpass piers" out there somewhere?  If there is, or someone is putting one together, here is the entry for the NJ Turnpike.

Most bridges over the NJTP have the following signature style:
A handful of overpasses, most notably in the Exit 7A area, have a cap that extends beyond the piers with a smooth curve underneath.  Both the original and the new ones rebuilt for the widening project share a similar design, interestingly enough.

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.)

Another pier style with a few random appearances, including the Exit 2 and 10 regions, are a single, solid structure, but in a unique shape.  I can best describe it as a Y-shape with a diagonally widening bottom.  (Ironically, some highways have Y-shaped piers with the bottom part narrowing diagonally, probably for aesthetic effect.  Others just place the Y-like cap atop one or more traditional cylindrical piers, or a "wall" pier.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2014, 06:18:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 04, 2014, 08:25:46 AM
The Garden State Parkway has solid wall type of piers as well with no pier between the car and truck lanes.  Also the CR 514 bridge spanning across that one is a solid wrought iron bridge with even piers on to match. You can see it https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fords,+Woodbridge+Township,+NJ/@40.5409,-74.309177,3a,75y,115.05h,90.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6PTjpbuheY7y1sR2HFthkQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c3b5e1cb44356f:0x7185a0b7b403920 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fords,+Woodbridge+Township,+NJ/@40.5409,-74.309177,3a,75y,115.05h,90.93t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6PTjpbuheY7y1sR2HFthkQ!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c3b5e1cb44356f:0x7185a0b7b403920).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on September 04, 2014, 12:31:42 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 04, 2014, 03:51:43 PM
It's an easy mistake to make as the N/S Freeway is operated by the ACE.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 04, 2014, 06:04:02 PM
Especially since NJ 42 exits itself.  I'd just truncate NJ 42 and extend the AC Expressway up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2014, 07:09:04 PM
It's an easy mistake to make as the N/S Freeway is operated by the ACE.

It's a bit of a strange marriage. NJDOT is in charge of Rt. 42 (N/S Freeway).  They maintain it.  They do all the roadwork and construction.  They plow it.  The only thing the AC Expressway does is various landscaping items; maybe some mowing; planting wildflowers, etc. 

On the other hand, a future project is adding an emergency evacuation median crossover on the AC Expressway, between Rt. 42 & Cross Keys Rd (Exit 41).  That project will be fully paid for and administrated by NJDOT.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2014, 11:53:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 05, 2014, 09:54:59 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 05, 2014, 10:17:21 AM
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)

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 05, 2014, 10:25:15 AM
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.

The NJTA will never get authorization to destroy the protected marshlands (mainly Big Timber Creek) to build an interchange with NJ 42 (or "future" I-76).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2014, 11:59:41 AM
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.

I'd definitely like the connection, but it ain't on anyone's horizon anytime soon.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 05, 2014, 01:20:59 PM
With the missing movements to the I-76/I-295 interchange to be done soon, all that's really needed would be a more convenient connection from the Turnpike to I-295 further north, probably in the vicinity of the PA Turnpike Extension.  At least then it would be all freeway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2014, 01:31:51 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 05, 2014, 01:34:46 PM
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.

I'd definitely like the connection, but it ain't on anyone's horizon anytime soon.
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.

The US 322 freeway proposal that periodically floats around would also allow a direct connection from the Turnpike to the ACX.  We know that is likely to happen as well.

**Alps set me up for this with the 42 rerouting and I couldn't help it.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 05, 2014, 02:03:13 PM
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 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 05, 2014, 03:18:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2014, 03:37:10 PM
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 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.
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.

It appears more out of the way than it really is.

The extra distance one must travel comes to only 3 1/4 miles.  If you were to include the various ramps that would need to be constructed to access the NJ Turnpike's PA Extension from 295, the distance saved would amount to about 2 1/2 miles...and that's to maintain a freeway-freeway option. 

Depending on the point where one needs to go, the distance on 73 between the Turnpike and 295 is about 1/2 mile (and 1 traffic light), via 168 it's about 3/4 mile (and 3 or 4 traffic lights).  Further north, the distance between 295's Exit 56 & NJ Turnpike's Exit 7 is under a mile and 2 traffic lights.

From a cost standpoint, it would be senseless to build such a connection, with so many other options available. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2014, 05:15:53 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 05, 2014, 05:30:55 PM
is 73 any better than it used to be with the construction through the Marlton and Berlin circles? i used to dread the traffic on 73 anytime I'd go down to Ocean City after work.

as for a proposed exit 53 on 295... that's one of the signage illustrations i've done that I'll eventually post on that board...

exits would be [South 95 to (276 PA Tpk) - Philadelphia] and [(95 NJ Tpk) North - New York (hbar) NJ Tpk South - Wilmington] - signage on the 95 North exit to match the new signage on the extension approaching Exit 6 from the west.

presumably electronic tolling only to help get around the space issues.

maybe a sign on the eastbound approach indicating mileage and current travel times to the common exits, with "local traffic use 295 South / express traffic use NJ Tpk South" recommendation signage.

pipe dreams.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 05, 2014, 07:16:50 PM
All of this talk about an interchange with 295 and the Turnpike made me make this...

(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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2014, 07:48:02 PM
All of this talk about an interchange with 295 and the Turnpike made me make this...

(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 look vaguelyextremely phallic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 05, 2014, 07:48:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 05, 2014, 08:29:15 PM
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 look vaguelyextremely 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hbelkins on September 05, 2014, 08:45:26 PM
Turn that rightmost trumpet the other way and you'd solve the weaving problem.

Either that, or build a C/D road.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 05, 2014, 10:15:46 PM
It has been reported that the expansion of the Turnpike will be completed by Thanksgiving Day and the Turnpike will be fully operational for the holiday traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 05, 2014, 10:19:46 PM
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.
I think I made it more realistic, but I also probably made the weaving issue much worse.
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 05, 2014, 10:37:43 PM
Speaking of the 195/Turnpike interchange, does anyone know when they removed one of the the loop ramps and instead made a bridge instead?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 05, 2014, 10:59:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2014, 02:04:39 AM
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 look vaguelyextremely 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.
Easy way to eliminate weaving on I-276: The first entrance ramp folds along the outside of the trumpet and THEN merges in.
The other weaves are still there and still a potential issue, but a lot more manageable distance. You could always stick those on a C-D road. Or, same concept - put your exit ramp first, fold it around the outside of the loop ramp, then back along I-295 before it loops off.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 06, 2014, 11:32:15 AM
Honestly, if traffic is an issue, the best 295 to turnpike connection is at exit 47, County Route 541, it has a few more lights, but a lot of lanes between 295 and the turnpike (narrowing to 4 each way before the turnpike) and was recently repaved. It is right before 295 sweeps west.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2014, 07:23:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 06, 2014, 09:07:10 PM
The I-295 is currently a circumferential highway as it connects with its I-95 parent south of Wilmington and north of Trenton.  When the I-95 is transferred to the Turnpikes, it would no longer have a northern connexion to its parent highway.  If a connextion is not made, shouldn't it be redesignated with an odd number first digit as it would then be a spur highway?

If the connexion is made, what could be the designation of the present I-295 north of the Turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 06, 2014, 09:19:16 PM
"The I-295"?  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 06, 2014, 09:31:15 PM
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.

I don't think the Turnpike Authority wants to make it any easier to avoid tolls by providing better access to 295 from the Turnpike mainline, so the direct bridge access might be more palatable to them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2014, 12:00:05 AM
"The I-295"?  :rolleyes:
"connexion?" It's English, but it's not American.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 10, 2014, 04:57:19 PM
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. 

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15169353251_358e72fd35_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 10, 2014, 09:17:28 PM
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:
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html)
And a little more info in this RFP here:
https://www.bidx.com/njta/attachment?_id=5195372033b403ea2400010a (https://www.bidx.com/njta/attachment?_id=5195372033b403ea2400010a)


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2014, 12:15:14 PM
I like the redundant Interstate I-287 in the second article. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 12, 2014, 05:20:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 12, 2014, 05:28:08 PM

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 12, 2014, 05:30:37 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 12, 2014, 05:56:07 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on September 12, 2014, 06:32:12 PM
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.

Stick to Maryland or Delaware if you want to eat at a service plaza.  Their plazas were recently updated in the past few years.  Maryland's are brand new and have a ton of food choices.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 12, 2014, 07:12:22 PM

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.

I'll back this up. The New York Thruway and NJ Turnpike are serial offenders of ripping you off with high food prices. The Ohio Turnpike also has prices that are slightly above average.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 12, 2014, 08:51:24 PM
Connecticut just redid theirs and in at least one (Milford North) added healthier options with at least some variety in portion so you could spend a bit less.

Odd aside: the convenience store there sold cartons of eggs when they opened, but no more.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 12, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
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.

Stick with the Deleware House service area. It's quite new, very modern, has six or seven food choices and the prices aren't obscene. The service plazas on the Turnpike aren't bad, only about 12-14 years old, but the prices are higher and most places only have 1 or 2 food choices.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 12, 2014, 11:45:42 PM
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.  I pass through the Grover Cleveland/Thomas Edison rest areas often, and didn't even notice the gas station store, until a coworker I was riding with one time told me to skip the main store and walk 20 feet through the door and down the steps to the Sunoco mart.  The Thomas Edison Sunoco store isn't obvious from the main parking lot as it faces the pumps with no adjacent parking, and the internal hallway connection isn't well marked.  I can only assume HMS Host doesn't want people to know about the competition down the hall (not sure how this arrangement to have two in the same location happened, unless they're responsible for running Sunoco's mart there too...)  The Sunoco mart is better stocked with food and drinks, and is a lot less crowded (not sure of the price differential, if any...)

As for dinner at the plazas, you can find something better and cheaper just off the Turnpike(s) at pretty much any exit...



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 13, 2014, 12:04:21 AM
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...

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 13, 2014, 12:09:22 AM
The ramp is access for the NJ State Police barracks on the lower left hand corner.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2014, 01:11:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 04:20:24 AM
There's usually a small penalty for getring off, but it seems to range from 0-50¢ based on several tests with the toll calculator on the exit 1-9 stretch, so I would call it pretty fair.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 10:48:32 AM
Does Exit 13A still charge the same for Exit 14 going NB and Exit 13 going SB?

When I lived in New Jersey it was done that way as some sort of thing the NJTA did when Exit 13A was opened.  The brass above did not want to lose toll revenue so they thought they would charge extra as many who use Exit 13A were the one's previously using either of those two exits.  So naturally they would figure that no one was really being cheated as they're only paying the same as before the interchange was opened and they still get the same for less road being used.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 13, 2014, 11:58:16 AM
Gas is about 11cents higher on the Tpke in my experience. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2014, 12:11:09 PM
Gas is about 11cents higher on the Tpke in my experience.

But whatever that price is is usually far cheaper than what you'd pay in NY, CT or MA. When I drive to the Northeast, I usually fill up in NJ to avoid the gas prices farther north. 11 cents per gallon works out to about $2 more or so per fill up, not worth the trouble of getting off the Turnpike and dealing with surface road traffic. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 13, 2014, 01:24:01 PM
Indeed.  Food/fuel may cost more at the travel plazas, but I find that the convenience is generally worth it.  Food I don't bother with researching places off the toll roads unless I was getting off at an exit anyways.  Pretty much ditto for fuel, but it's less common that I'll need to refuel on the toll road, at least when the Thruway is involved (especially since I almost never need to refuel along the Thruway corridor period; most of my trips are from home in Albany to visiting family in Rochester, so I just refuel at either end).  I will refuel at Turnpike travel plazas before returning to NY.  The cost of getting a slice of pizza and a breadstick at Sparro on the Thruway is no higher than the cost of a small sub at Mazzafferro's in Rome, chicken over rice at Karam's in Utica, a sub at Dibella's, etc. so I really don't see why people say food prices are obscene (in fact the Thruway food is cheaper than the last two places I listed!); can anyone say penny pinchers?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:31:37 PM
You might want to fuel just enough to get you through New Jersey than gas up at NJ 140 in Deepwater or NJ 49 in Pennsville for the rest.

Considering you do not need a full tank to get through New Jersey (and FYI Steve I am not making a crack about NJ being small either) as most cars of today can go 400 plus miles on a full tank, getting through 120 or so miles of the NJ Turnpike could be done on one third of a tank easily.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 01:34:56 PM
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:39:59 PM
Just so you know IHOP is not that cheap.  Compared to Dennys it is night and day.  So I imagine that a meal on the Turnpike is just as costly than if you ate at an off the road IHOP. 

However, for the trouble you go through to get off the road and get back on, the few extra cents is worth it I would think.  In fact in PA I have eaten at the Penn Turnpike Plazas just because they were there went I needed to use the rest rooms.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 13, 2014, 08:25:43 PM
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. 

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. 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2014, 09:02:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on September 13, 2014, 09:15:43 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 13, 2014, 09:21:48 PM
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:
Not only have I noticed them, I've also noticed the separate restaurants at some of them. I think a lot of them are former Howard Johnsons or something. I stopped at the Walt Whitman Service Area a few years ago, and I took my personal phone book with me unknowingly leaving it behind at the Sunoco convenience store there. I had to make a U-Turn at Exit 3, and another one at Exit 4 and then go back to the service area to pick the thing up. The woman working there, who had to be in her late-50's or 60's knew it was left behind by somebody and that it must've been important. As I was discussing this with her, out comes this cutie working there, and I was disappointed because I realized I could never go out with her because I had to travel such a long distance.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2014, 09:55:37 PM
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?

I haven't had the luxury of driving either for an appreciable distance.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on September 14, 2014, 12:10:59 AM
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...

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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on September 14, 2014, 02:47:39 AM
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. 

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. 
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 14, 2014, 10:37:54 AM

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.

It's part practicality, part principle for me.  There were times I had to make 500-mile trips weekly, and though there was too much fast food in those trips, it was rarely on the toll roads, because it ultimately would have been hundreds of dollars thrown away over a year for very little added convenience.   That would have just been dumb, like putting premium gas in my truck for nothing.  I worked my ass off for those hundreds of bucks, and they can do much more useful things than that.

You can say all you want that if you can't afford a few extra bucks you shouldn't be taking the trip, but it's just as true to say if you throw money away because you can't afford a couple of extra minutes, you should have left earlier.  It all comes down to individual priorities.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 14, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 14, 2014, 02:50:37 PM
The NJ 73 interchange (both NJT and I-295) are good for gas-food-lodging if using I-295 or the NJT.  If you swing over the PA side using I-95 the US 1 Business interchange and the US 1 North Oxford Valley interchange (you must also exit US 1 NB) has a great choice of food as there is a mall located there.  Like all mall sprawls you have the big chains, regional chains, and a good mom and pop built there as well.

Then if you see a Wawa anywhere along any of those roads, definitely stop at one of them if you are hungry!  Good hoagies at a great price, plus reasonable gas and a full soda fountain and flavored coffees.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 14, 2014, 08:53:20 PM
I will second that on Wawa.  You'll find one near pretty much any interchange from central Jersey on south.

They finally made my day by putting a Wawa in right near the GSP / Turnpike interchange in Woodbridge on 9.  Very convenient going both directions (GSP NB to Turnpike NB and vice versa, which is what I do frequently) if you know what you're doing with the confusing mess of ramps in that area.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 14, 2014, 11:46:40 PM
Wawa is terrific at turning around freshly-prepared foods in minutes at low prices. The Turnpike should have Wawas. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 15, 2014, 12:08:55 AM
What are the available options on the Turnpike? I've only eaten at Roy Rogers and Burger King.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 15, 2014, 12:51:24 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 15, 2014, 08:45:41 AM
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.

It's probably a smaller penalty than if, for example, I could choose between a 12" hoagie for $7, or a 6" hoagie for $5, not $3.50. 

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.

Gas is about 11cents higher on the Tpke in my experience. 

I believe the contract Sunoco has with the Turnpike allows them to do a sampling of gas prices throughout the state, and then tack on 2 cents to that average.  If you look at Gasbuddy, you will find prices off the turnpike both lower & higher than on the Turnpike.  And due to the Turnpike authority's odd requirement that fuel prices can only change on Fridays, it has been commonly observed that when prices are rising sharply, the cheapest fuel prices in the state will be on the Turnpike.

Wawa is terrific at turning around freshly-prepared foods in minutes at low prices. The Turnpike should have Wawas. 

You won't have Wawa's on any toll road, for the same reason Wawa will not be found at Airports: They do not deviate from their pricing structure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hubcity on September 15, 2014, 10:39:12 AM
Eh, I hadn't gotten dinner on the way to NYC and figured I'd grab something at the rest stop. One Burger King hamburger, $1.75 tax included. If I was overcharged, it wasn't by much. (And frankly, that's really all you need. Resist super-sizing.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 15, 2014, 11:06:26 AM

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.

The only new Roy's I've known of in years was at a truck stop in Stonington, CT, opened in 2009 or so.  It's now something else.  The last one in Mass. closed recently in Sturbridge.   

The only thing beyond nostalgia that Roy's has going for it was variety–there's stuff like ham and roast beef on the menu, and the Fixin's Bar where you can basically dress your sandwich however you want.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 15, 2014, 04:34:03 PM
Um...anything new happening on the NJ Turnpike...like getting the rehab work on the inner roadway done? :)

P.S. We once had Wawa in Newington, CT on Kelsey Street and in New Britain on Stanley Street, very near Central Connecticut State University. The last Wawa I was at was in Elkton, MD, a mere 500 feet or less from the Delaware state line (MD Route 279, junction of MD Route 277).  :-/

http://goo.gl/maps/kczix
(Route 2 on the Delaware side of the border is now DE Route 279.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 15, 2014, 05:35:05 PM
I understand that the inner lanes are planned to be opened by Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 15, 2014, 05:57:58 PM
I noticed the work going on when I was last on the Turnpike in August. I got on at Exit 4 in Mount Laurel and exited at Exit 16E in Secaucus. It will be nice once the shift for the trucks/busses can be removed, near the north end of the widening project.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2014, 07:56:11 AM
Unsurprisingly, Wawa discussion has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0). Please keep it there.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13495.0
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on September 17, 2014, 12:06:26 AM
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.

I don't think it's about discouraging people from getting off and on. It's simply a question of that each transaction costs money to process, so driving from exits 1 to 5 and then 5 to 9 should cost more than driving from exits 1 to 9 because doing it as two transactions cuts into the turnpike authority's revenue. This is much less the case with EZpass but consider that traditionally the hop off/hop on setup would require printing two tickets and having two toll collectors spend time taking your cash, instead of just one of each.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ChezeHed81 on September 21, 2014, 10:46:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 21, 2014, 11:13:42 PM
I had to look up "RSA" to find that it meant "Reduced Speed Ahead."  I first thought "Really Sexy Arrows."

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on September 21, 2014, 11:19:43 PM
Last time I ate at Nathan's on the Turnpike, 2 hot dogs, a fries, and a drink set me back $12.60. Very inflated prices!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on September 22, 2014, 12:45:41 AM
Thanks for sharing the pics. I guess that might answer what the LED portion of the signs was going to be. I guess it still helps they can supersede other messages in that space if they had to. Also, by using drum/slats, it allows for permanence in the event of power-/system-failure, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on September 22, 2014, 02:00:05 AM
The downside is that the unsynchronized refresh cycles make these sorts of displays difficult to photograph properly. You'd need to use a longer exposure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 01:01:34 PM
I'm surprised they're only using the new display signs for the bottom half of the split signs.  Would have thought they'd use it for the whole sign like the ones at the temporary split.  Wasn't there a rumor that the Turnpike would retire the old flip signs?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 22, 2014, 10:55:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 23, 2014, 01:34:59 PM
Tesla Car charging stations approved for New Jersey Turnpike rest areas (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/post_360.html#incart_river):

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 23, 2014, 05:05:08 PM
There are Tesla spots on the Connecticut Turnpike.  My Ranger fits in them very nicely.  I'm about as interested in heeding signs reserving spots for a smattering of very rich people as I am in the "fuel-efficient vehicle" spaces closest to the door at Whole Foods (I park in those, too, because sometimes I can get the Ranger well over 19mpg if I keep it steady, and that's very efficient for a Ranger).

They represent public privatization at its douchiest. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 23, 2014, 11:30:30 PM
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.

Given that all that signage will eventually be replaced with MUTCD compliant signage, it's a mostly moot thing at this point.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on September 24, 2014, 01:07:02 AM
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:
Quote
Teslas 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 24, 2014, 01:27:49 AM

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:
Quote
Teslas 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.

It would be douchier (and kind of funny) if they made their cars very narrow so the spaces couldn't be used by other makes.  But fortunately, all the rest of our cars fit there.  And on a busy day with 300+ people milling about that plaza, I don't expect they'll get around to removing many non-Tesla vehicles from those spots. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 24, 2014, 01:29:47 PM
Didn't Tesla just release all their patents to the public domain?  I get the impression that they're trying to turn their supercharger stations into the standard (rather than adopt some other company's way of doing it).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on September 24, 2014, 04:13:25 PM
From a NJ Turnpike traffic alert:
Quote
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2014, 12:55:32 AM
Gas cap discussion has been moved to Off-Topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?board=9.0).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13560.0
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2014, 08:33:40 AM
Paving is going on along the Northbound Inner Roadway of the Turnpike.  Driving up from the south to Exit 7 this morning, it appears most of the final paving has been completed from the new diverge point south of Interchange 6 to the US 206 overpass (near Interchange 7).  Just north of US 206 is where they are paving this morning.  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.  Where they are paving, there was an army of dump trucks and paving equipment...probably at least 2 dozen trucks just waiting for their chance to dump asphalt into the paving machines!

The goal is to have all 12 lanes of the Turnpike between 6 & 8A open by Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on September 26, 2014, 09:20:44 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: froggie on September 26, 2014, 10:48:06 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy
Why does the solid green in the VMS section look like Creeper texture?

Quote from: ChezeHed81
I wish my camera's sensor could process the LED background, but in person, these look great.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 26, 2014, 11:04:18 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy
Why does the solid green in the VMS section look like Creeper texture?

Quote from: ChezeHed81
I wish my camera's sensor could process the LED background, but in person, these look great.

I think what Roadsguy wanted to know is why that happens. The same thing often happens with video cameras; for example, if I use my iPhone at Nationals Park, the huge scoreboard out in right-center field will have a blotchy look (more so than the highway signs seen in this thread). From what I've read, I gather the problem arises because while the lights flicker on and off at a frequency undetectable to the human eye, your camera is operating at a different frame rate such that at points the camera can detect the lights cycling on and off. Many dashcams, for example, record at 30 frames per second. If the sign–or your TV, or the scoreboard, or whatever–refreshes at a different rate, you get flicker.

I'm sure someone will be happy to explain why I've oversimplified it, but I gather the above is the gist. If you're using an SLR, you can try to adjust your shutter speed to compensate for the problem, but that's not necessarily easy nor safe to do if you're the one driving the car.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2014, 11:52:08 AM
Most people are not going to have the equipment to take pictures of LED signs without some sort of interference, especially in terms of shutter speed.  Generally with the iPhone, I'll just hold the button down and take several quick shots...usually one of them is acceptable enough to post.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 26, 2014, 12:30:40 PM
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.

That's different than my area. Where I go over it daily south of Exit 8, the inner roadway's travel lanes have been repaved for the longest time while the shoulders (left and right) were still milled. I did notice this morning that the Jersey barrier was a different color so they might have replaced it within the past couple of days and now they're going to repave the shoulders.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 26, 2014, 02:57:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hbelkins on September 26, 2014, 03:22:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2014, 04:00:46 PM
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.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 26, 2014, 04:09:51 PM
....

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. 

....

You mention playing on your phone. For what it's worth, if you bring a smartphone, you probably already have a calculator on there if you need one (obviously this wasn't an option in the 2001 to 2004 timeframe you cite, of course).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 26, 2014, 05:54:05 PM
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!

Wow, thanks for all of this! This doesn't sound like a bad job at all, especially since it sounds like a pretty lax environment.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2014, 07:23:01 PM
Zeffy: The current hiring rate, or the potential to be picked out of the pool, is somewhere between "pufferfish learning to ski" and "legalized gay polygamy in Uganda." Do not get your hopes up for this. Sorry to be a reality check, but with the potential specter of All Electronic Tolling, there's very little movement of personnel.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 26, 2014, 07:40:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2014, 08:34:28 AM
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. 

At Interchange 3, at least once a weekend I would have someone come up and argue that the signs said this was a rest area.  They would claim there were even signs on the Turnpike saying it was a rest area, and there was a McDonalds according to the signs.  Being that the Turnpike has Service Areas, and there's nothing along the road that would allude to a McDonalds (not even a billboard or sign visible for a nearby one), I could only conclude that they were a bit tired, and might've mistook the Red Roof Inn logo on the blue lodging signs for a McDonalds logo. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 27, 2014, 10:14:44 AM

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.

What are your experience, education, goals?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 27, 2014, 12:25:53 PM
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....
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2014, 01:41:14 PM
The 2 experiences I had was a car driving up onto the concrete blockade for the lane next to me. She was laughing about it. Me and the other toll guy there were irate, then she got pissed off at us! She's lucky she was able to drive the car still. And one time I was running across the lanes at Interchange 1...and ran into a car leaving the lane! :-). That was the old plaza there and there were no tunnels or bridges for is at the time!

Overall I wouldn't say it's a dangerous job...after all people have been killed simply sitting at their desk in an office. Stuff happens everywhere.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 28, 2014, 12:01:04 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Snappyjack on September 28, 2014, 01:37:27 AM
It's the same with the NY Thruway. They want to keep all the food/gas related business at the service plazas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on September 28, 2014, 02:36:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2014, 07:49:57 AM
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.

Except...as mentioned by J Route Z, the Atlantic City Expressway DOES advertise off-highway food options.

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).

I think the tendency of Expressway users to be more local in nature rather than long-distance travelers on the Turnpike & Parkway may play a role in it as all.  These people will have better knowledge of the nearby area, and would probably avoid the Expressway eating options regardless.

Since there are so many options off the Expressway, they may have determined it's better to cash in on those options
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 28, 2014, 01:43:55 PM

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).
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).

Still, wouldn't Sunoco and the food vendors that have contracts with the SJTA to operate in the service areas be pissed that the SJTA is driving business away from them by posting these signs?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 28, 2014, 10:10:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on September 28, 2014, 10:14:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 29, 2014, 02:52:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on September 29, 2014, 07:16:57 AM
Florida's Turnpike has gas food and lodging signs at interchanges.

Must be the air down there.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 29, 2014, 08:16:02 AM
Florida's Turnpike has gas food and lodging signs at interchanges.

Must be the air down there.

ixnay
Lately its been rainy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 29, 2014, 11:35:53 PM
are there any new contract plans online for signing projects? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on September 30, 2014, 12:49:41 PM
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.
-- In some areas, the plazas are 40 miles apart.  Not to mention that the stretches between exits before and after Yeehaw Junction are about 50 miles long, some of the longest in the country (I think they are the longest stretches east of the Mississippi). So  advertising comfort stations may help avert problems with running out of gas, or even, (ahem!) "holding it in" until the next available stop.
-- The only service plaza south of Pompano Beach is about 45 miles away, near the southern end.  No room to build new plazas in a highly developed area.
-- Since the plazas are in the median and shared by both directions, they may already have all the business they can handle, particularly during the busy season.  Sometimes there may simply not be enough parking.
-- This next reason might be a bit of a stretch, but you have a lot of older drivers in Florida who may be intimidated by the fast-lane merges required to access the left-hand on/off ramps leading to the median service plazas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 30, 2014, 01:02:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 30, 2014, 07:59:48 PM
Are there any plans in the works later on for the mileage signs to be resurrected that once had the distance to New York every 10 miles on the tenth mile?  Or even to have them post interchange with the name or road of the next exit followed by New York, Camden, Wilmington?

I am amazed that the George Washington Bridge at 16 miles still exists at the Eastern and Western Spur splits in the NB cars only lanes as seen in OK Roads flickr pages, so I was wondering if there is still hope on that one.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 30, 2014, 11:29:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2014, 02:13:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2014, 09:51:13 AM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 01, 2014, 12:12:32 PM
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!
Excellent, JeffandNicole.  I will definitely look it over.  Trying to see how long the ancient Exit 17 signs SB will be around for. 

I know this and the SB sign are being replaced as a new gantry is going up.  Sadness
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3928/15382998546_310c3cddf2_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 01, 2014, 12:47:11 PM
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.

According to New Jersey's records, I-95 "offically" joins the Turnpike at the state line in the Delaware River (on the Pa. Extension).  State records have the Mercer County portion as 95M.

To your question (oft-debated elsewhere), the easiest thing to do is to use Turnpike mileposts and consider I-95 to be a secondary overlapping route to the Turnpike for reference marker purposes.  Similar to what Ohio does with I-76 and Pennsylvania does with I-276.

Although . . . I am not sure mile-based exit numbers based on any system is a done deal on the Turnpike yet . . .
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2014, 01:07:32 PM
I recall a rumor saying they would go mile-based (using I-95 numbers?) if they went AET.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 02, 2014, 10:14:24 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 02, 2014, 10:37:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2014, 10:53:04 AM
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.

If they went to milepost numbering, it's not going to be done in a vacuum with just the Turnpike, and just a portion of the Turnpike at that.  There's no either/or.  Everyone will need to be on board, including NJDOT & the PANYNJ, and it would probably be mandated by the Feds, so any one agency can't just simply choose to exclude themselves from the re-numbering. 

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). 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 02, 2014, 11:14:25 AM
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):
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)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 02, 2014, 11:26:08 AM
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).

I'd much rather have them start at the beginning of the Turnpike, since IMO, the Turnpike is the actual roadway - I-95 just so happened to take over the northern stretch past Exit 6.

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)

LOL I read that article. I wouldn't bless people anyway seeing as how I'm atheist.  :-P  Unfortunately, some of the GSP booths are decently far away compared to some of the Turnpike ones... plus I still need a vehicle!!  :ded:

I love how that woman is using her religion as a defense. It wasn't that. She wasn't getting enough hours by the Turnpike Authority. Absolutely useless lawsuit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 02, 2014, 11:59:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2014, 11:59:43 AM
As most of the toll takers' attitudes are a bit, um, unpleasant, I think most would be saying something else before the 'you' other than 'God Bless'.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 02, 2014, 12:48:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 02, 2014, 12:55:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 02, 2014, 01:01:43 PM
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.

Seeing as how the old I-95 north of Trenton will become I-195, and the rest of I-95 is owned by the NJTA, yeah, that's probably accurate.

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. I would think it would make more sense just to start the mileage from the beginning of the Turnpike in Deepwater and end it at the end of the Turnpike at the GWB. When it comes to the spurs, I actually am unsure what to do about those. Same for the split in Newark - they are currently signed as EXIT XXE or XXW - would that change if mileage based numbers are adopted?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Brandon on October 02, 2014, 01:19:40 PM
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?

The East-West Tollway in Illinois continues free I-88's mileage and exit numbering.
The Northwest Tollway now does the same thing for I-90.
Then there's the Tri-State Tollway which ISTHA has split between its I-94 and I-294 sections.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 01:26:44 PM
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.

So why not just leave as is for that sake and still go with mile posts of the NJT even on free I-95?  With I-78 I think it should be with I-78's free mileage as its only 8 miles long and it could be arranged where duplicate exit numbers could be altered to avoid redundancy on the closed system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2014, 01:33:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 01:41:15 PM
Many people do call it The Turnpike just as the GSP is The Parkway. 

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 while, like you said, the long distance visitors also think of it that way and get confused at Exit 1 for lack of shields there getting you back.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 02, 2014, 01:49:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Brandon on October 02, 2014, 02:21:13 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2014, 02:38:09 PM
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.

I don't think it'll be that bad. 

Yes, Exit 6 will be signed I-95 South & I-276 West, and will include Philadelphia on the signage.  I would imagine that would become the primary method to get to Philly because it will be signed very well.  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.

Currently, Exit 4 has a supplemental sign below the two main destinations for Philadelphia (presumably, this sup BGS plate will be removed after the 95 interchange in PA is complete, although it doesn't necessarily have to be removed). 

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). 

Overall, if your headed to Philly from Exit 4, it's a coin toss between taking 73 to 295 South to 76/676 (Walt/Ben), or by going the route you mentioned (73 to 90 to 95 South).  Depends where you want to go in Philly.

From Exit 3, it would generally make more sense to take 168 North to 295 South to 76/676, but staying on 168 would give you direct access to 76 & the Walt as well, or go can go further north, pick up US 130 North and take US 30 West to the Ben (yeah, I wouldn't exactly recommend 168 beyond 130 into Camden). 

But regardless, there are plenty of options from Exits 4 & 3.  Personally, picking up 295 then 76 would be my primary option, but it really depends on one's final destination and time of day as to what's the best route.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 02, 2014, 02:42:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 03:32:32 PM
Then why not change the Kansas Turnpike to fout different set of numbers as well.

I-35, I-335, I-470, and I-70
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 02, 2014, 11:43:03 PM
Then why not change the Kansas Turnpike to fout different set of numbers as well.

I-35, I-335, I-470, and I-70

Taking I-70 west from Kansas City, Missouri, the first milepost I saw was one by Kansas DOT, indicating it was about 412 miles to the Colorado line. 

Suddenly, the mileposts  were down in the 200's, but I quickly figured out it was because I-70 had entered Kansas Turnpike Authority maintenance (which extends some miles from the easternmost tolled section).

After exiting the Kansas Turnpike near Topeka, the I-70 mileposts were "normal" again, and resumed their (long) count-down to Colorado.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2014, 09:40:49 AM
Should not named toll roads be like a separate route anyway?

Look at I-75 and I-85 in Atlanta for instance.  I-85 has to sacrifice its exit numbers while concurrent with I-75 because of obvious reasons.  Why can't NJ sacrifice I-95 for the NJ Turnpike the same way?

Others need I mind you is I-29 in MO that is actually shorter than it really is due to the concurrency of I-35 in KC.
I-64 in Lexington, KY gives up its numbering for I-75.  Then speaking of I-75 does it not sacrifice its numbers in Tennessee for I-275 and I-40?

The exit numbering following route numbers cannot be perfect.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 03, 2014, 10:52:12 AM
All I know about Philadelphia and the New Jersey Turnpike is this:

Nearly every time, Greyhound and Peter Pan bus drivers will take Exit 4 (NJ Route 73) in Mount Laurel, whether they stop at the terminal on Fellowship Road or not. I highly doubt this will change once the interchange on the PA side opens. From NJ Route 73, the driver seems to take one of two routes:

1- To NJ Route 90 West in Cinnaminson, then Betsy Ross Bridge to I-95 South or
2- To NJ Route 38 West in Maple Shade, then US Route 30 West in Pennsauken/Camden to the Ben Franklin Bridge.

Either way, they're heading to the Center City bus terminal at 10th and Filbert Streets.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2014, 11:37:35 AM
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). 

Since I took this exit last night and actually paid attention, here's what the signage says approaching and exiting at Interchange 3:

2 miles ahead:  Camden / Woodbury
1 mile ahead:  Camden / Atlantic City Exp
At Exit: Camden / Atlantic City Exp

Beyond tolls:
  168 South:  Woodbury / Atlantic City
  168 North:  Camden / Philadelphia

So when it's all said and done:

  3 Destination "Cities" on the approaching BGSs (1 of them not being a city)
  4 Destination cities on the 168 North/South BGS, with 1 of them (Philadelphia) never appearing on the approaching BGSs, and 1 of them only saying Atlantic City, not Atlantic City Exp
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on October 03, 2014, 12:58:14 PM
168 South:  Woodbury / Atlantic City
Woodbury?  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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2014, 02:05:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Brandon on October 03, 2014, 02:09:49 PM
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.

And given how close I-295 is to the NJTP along NJ-168 at that point, it's sort of a Breezewood between the ACE/I-76 and the NJTP.  It's really not as bad as some I could name, after having taken it back on 9/22.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 04, 2014, 11:23:57 AM
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.

my commute (from NJ to Center City on 95) sucks enough as it is, especially with the added chaos right now from the 95revive project between Cottman and the Vine.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on October 04, 2014, 04:56:40 PM
I always felt that "Woodbury" was not the best destination for the exit 3 guide signs. Blackwood, Turnersville, or even Runnemede would be better options, where the exit travels through Runnemede. Just like the exit 4 signage was updated a few years ago by replacing "Philadelphia" with "Mount Laurel", and they left "Philadelphia" on a supplemental sign plaque. We lived off of exit 4 so I would hate seeing the signs read Camden and Philadelphia. Beyond the tolls, the destinations for Route 73 south are Berlin and Atlantic City while north is Camden/Philadelphia. They could have added Marlton or Folsom to the mix. I wonder why they removed Westampton and Willingboro from exit 5 signs?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 04, 2014, 11:16:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2014, 02:35:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 07, 2014, 10:05:22 AM
Many people do call it The Turnpike just as the GSP is The Parkway. 

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...
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 07, 2014, 10:07:20 AM
Some of the people who think the entire Turnpike is I-95 can be surprisingly adamant about it, too. It kind of amuses me whenever someone argues with me about it because most people I know, or who ask me for directions, know I know the roads far better than they do. Either way, though, I feel that if you ask me for directions and then you decide to argue with me about the directions I give you, why did you ask me for directions in the first place?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 07, 2014, 11:13:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 07, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
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.

This is true, but it's something they're starting to fix. You'll notice that all the pullthrough signs at the interchanges in the new dual-dual construction area, there is space for a 95 shield, which I imagine will be installed once the PATP/95 interchange is done. I'm sure they're making provisions to put it on pullthroughs and other signs north of 8A as they start to replace the NJTA signs with MUTCD signs. They already do post 95 shields on many of the interchange onramps, where they split for the southbound and northbound roadways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 07, 2014, 12:59:20 PM
They also have I-95 signs NB where the road splits into the eastern and western spur.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 07, 2014, 01:46:01 PM
At the Joyce Kilmer Plaza (north of 8A), there are one or two recently-erected ground-mounted BGS that read:
NORTH
95 NJTP
(shields)
<-----

One has to wonder what's the reasoning behind not already signing Northbound NJTP north of Exit 6, or at least north of Exit 7A (I-195), as I-95?

Southbound & south of Exit 7A, I can see the reasoning for not posting such; but IMHO, there's no excuse not to have I-95 shields along pull-through and all entrance ramp BGS' north of 7A.  It's not like the Somerset Freeway's being revived anytime soon.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 07, 2014, 02:00:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 07, 2014, 02:08:05 PM
The NJ 133 sing on NJ 33 EB is definitely NJDOT's doing. NJTA did not erect this one for sure, the one on US 206 is NJTA, and you are right no hurry to replace it as its fine as it is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 07, 2014, 08:49:42 PM
Why wouldn't it be? The whole 33/133 reconfiguration was the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 8 reconfiguration project, including signage. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2014, 08:41:13 AM
Turning back the clock a little to this report, which is really part of the Environmental Impact Statement, prior to the Turnpike's widening project.  It reminds us of what could've been at this point in time:

http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/02_Chapter2.pdf

Section 2.3.3.3:

Quote
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.

I also noticed this interesting paragraph:

Quote
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.

Does anyone remember if the outer lanes weren't designated for trucks/buses?

The report goes on to say how current and predicted future traffic levels don't actually warrant 6 lanes between Interchange 6 and 7A, but learning from the experiences of the 2/3/3/2 dual-dual section of the Turnpike between 8A & 9, the Turnpike would (thankfully) have reasons to widen the 'pike to 3/3/3/3 for the entire length between 6 & 9.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2014, 10:04:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 08, 2014, 11:19:12 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 08, 2014, 12:35:40 PM
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.

With regards to the Exit 6 BGS' off I-195; that particular BGS was changed between 5 to 10 years ago.  The original BGS simply stated NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE and the now-gone original ramp BGS' after the toll plaza never had either an I-95 shield nor trailblazer assembly added for the the northbound entrance ramp (again, excluding ones for the southbound entrance ramps were for obvious reasons).

My general point being was that the NJTA should've added I-95 shields along the Turnpike (and all ramp signage) between Exits 10 & 7A once the connection between I-195 & I-295 Northbound was made in the late 80s/early 90s or after the full I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange was completed by the mid 90s.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 08, 2014, 02:42:50 PM
I think *not* signing I-95 on the turnpike benefits the NJTA in that signing it would implicitly admit that the rest of the Turnpike is *not* I-95, which could cost it drivers especially once the PA Turnpike interchange is complete. This way the drivers will just think the Turnpike is all I-95, just not signed very well. On the other hand, on I-195 East at Exit 6, it benefits NJTA to sign I-95 because people who came up I-95 from PA are actively looking for it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2014, 02:59:57 PM
The Turnpike will definitely be signing Interchange 6 as I-95.

One thing about the Turnpike is that they've never appeared to be concerned about losing money.  OK, yes, they don't sign I-295 along the Turnpike, but outside of that, if there's an issue on the Turnpike, they do seem to try to keep people off of it.  Or back when Interchange 1 would congest with traffic, they would close the Turnpike at Exit 4, rather than continue to add onto the traffic congestion.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 08, 2014, 03:06:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 08, 2014, 03:43:04 PM
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?
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).

At present, one using NJTP from Exit 11 to 7A and then crossing into PA via any of the DRPA bridges (Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin, Walt Whitman, Commodore Barry) is still paying a higher overall toll than one taking Exit 6 and getting off at the Delaware Valley Exit (#358/US 13).  One then picks up I-95 at the PA 413 interchange in Bristol.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2014, 04:48:03 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 08, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
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.

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.
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.

Back to the topic at hand, real-world example (I've done this on my trips to/from New England):

NJTP Toll from Exit 11 to 7A: $2.45 (for most)
DRPA Bridge toll: $5

Total: $7.45

NJTP Toll From Exit 11 to 6: $4.60 (for most)
PATP Toll From Bridge Plaza (#359) to Exit 358: $1. 39 (EZ-Pass), $2.05 (cash)

Total: $5.99 (EZ-Pass), $6.65 (cash)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 08, 2014, 05:46:13 PM
Might this be because the Turnpike Authority has set up its tolls such that trips are more expensive the further north you get?  They do that because of traffic counts.

Even if a toll isn't charged separately, often a toll authority will increase the toll rate for any trip that includes a major bridge.  NYSTA adds 65 cents to all tolls for traffic that crosses the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge, for example.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Brandon on October 08, 2014, 05:49:04 PM
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.

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.
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.

Remember, this is the same state DOT and the same toll authority that brought you such wonderful things as Breezewood, I-70 between New Stanton and Washington, the Schuylkill Expressway, I-676 between the Vine Street Expressway and the Ben Franklin Bridge, and I-80 control cities in the middle of nowhere.

Why, in the name of all that is holy and unholy, would they ever consider combining two toll plazas a quarter mile apart?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 08, 2014, 07:00:24 PM
Is the Turnpike extension bridge toll collected WB at the PA plaza (in that it is added to the PA Turnpike toll and collected when you exit)?  If you are coming from the NJ Turnpike, you can exit to US 130 before the bridge but after the toll plaza, so I would think the bridge would not be lumped into the exit 6 toll.  However, there is a toll collected if you enter from US 130 to cross the bridge, so if my first sentence is true, those entering at 130 would be then be charged twice, unless they are first paying just a toll to use the NJ extension to get to the bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 08, 2014, 07:15:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
The NJ Turnpike was always higher per mile north of Exit 9 because land values were higher, therefore cost more money to build.  Also the Newark Bay Extension is higher than anything because of the urban destruction that was needed to build it.  It has nothing to do with amount of motorists.

However, I do not know why Exit 13A cost the same as Exit 14 going Northbound and Exit 13 Southbound.  I believe that the NJTA did not want to lose revenue when that particular interchange was opened.  Remember Exit 13A traffic NB used to have to use Exit 14 to get to Newark and the Newark International Airport before it was opened.  Southbound motorists used to have to use Exit 13 exclusively to reach Elizabeth and its industrial areas.

In both cases higher tolls were carried, so I assume they did not want to charge less as they would have to for a lesser distance, so they implemented the original toll that people previously paid.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 08, 2014, 09:28:15 PM
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?
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.101247,-74.788265&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.101403,-74.789592&panoid=SZuRSYCLQnt8EEIjAscdRA&cbp=12,69.29,,0,4.02 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.101247,-74.788265&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.101403,-74.789592&panoid=SZuRSYCLQnt8EEIjAscdRA&cbp=12,69.29,,0,4.02)

I assume the bridge toll is collected via the PA Turnpike, since this captures only bridge traffic, and this would include drivers coming from NJ Turnpike exit 6 as well as the 130 ramp in the Street View above.  The NJ side mainline toll barrier on the extension serves both the bridge and those exiting to 130 before it, so I wouldn't think it would charge the bridge toll.

I'm thinking these booths just charge a toll to use the extension from the ramp to the bridge a short distance to the west.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2014, 10:29:56 PM
Again...THERE IS NO BRIDGE TOLL. We're not talking about some rural no man land road that maybe a select few would ever drive on. We are talking a major highway which is used by tens of thousands of people every day. You exit one highway and pay a toll. You go over the bridge. You get to the next highway, and you get a ticket (or the start destination for EZ Pass).

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.

If you absolutely still don't trust this info, both toll roads have a website complete with toll info.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 08, 2014, 10:33:32 PM
Do they split the maintenance, or is it owned by one of the two turnpikes?  And so the US 130 onramp toll WB toward the bridge is a toll paid to the NJ Turnpike for use of a very short distance of the extension?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 08, 2014, 11:30:49 PM
Each toll agency maintains their portion of the bridge -- the state line is at the center of the main span of the bridge.  My employer has been involved in deck replacement projects on both sides of the bridge in the last 20 years.

The mainline plazas on either side of the bridge simply mark the ends of the closed ticket systems for each toll agency.  Presumably, toll revenues from both agencies go toward maintenance of the bridge, but no specific plaza is dedicated to the Turnpike Connector Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 09, 2014, 12:51:41 AM
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?

6A is great for me going EB coming home from Pennsylvania to avoid the inevitable backups on the Turnpike mainline NB.  I hop off onto 130 north, make the first right and right out to 295 I go.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 09:08:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 09, 2014, 01:06:14 PM
When I'm saying that there's a toll for the bridge, I'm not saying there's a separate booth, but that the amount for the bridge is built-in to the 6A barrier/PTC ticket toll as an additional amount over the normal per-mile rate.  The Thruway's Castleton-on-Hudson bridge is a good example of this type of system: there is no separate toll barrier for the bridge, and motorists just see one number on the ticket, but that number is 65 cents higher than it would be for a trip of equivalent length not crossing the bridge.  Even people with the Thruway E-ZPass Annual Permit Program pay a 65 cent surcharge for every trip over the bridge even if it was under 30 miles and therefore otherwise free.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 09, 2014, 01:13:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 09, 2014, 01:40:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2014, 05:02:14 PM
What is covered up on this sign? I-95 shield?...but wouldn't the direction be showing
or a US-130 shield?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 10, 2014, 05:03:48 PM
IIRC, that sign is housing the future I-95 shield since whenever the interchange with the PA Turnpike and current I-95 is built, I-276 east into New Jersey will be designated as I-95, which will eliminate the most notorious of gaps in the Interstate System.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 10, 2014, 05:18:11 PM
What is covered up on this sign? I-95 shield?...but wouldn't the direction be showing
or a US-130 shield?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_z.jpg)
If 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 10, 2014, 06:26:05 PM
There are actually (at least) two overlay panels.  One covers the message "SOUTH/(95)/TO," as suspected -- though it looks like two here.  The other is at the bottom, covering the message "Philadelphia."  It was designed that way for when the interchange in Pa. is completed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 10, 2014, 07:13:21 PM
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)

Nothing too much in the article itself, but they have nice photos of some new signs being put up, and thankfully, all of them are not ugly. Here's what some of them look like:

(http://imgick.nj.com/home/njo-media/pgmain/img/the-times/photo/2013/01/-4ccfd920e4731100.jpg)
(http://imgick.nj.com/home/njo-media/pgmain/img/the-times/photo/2013/01/-cd4aa33057f43c26.jpg)

The new Interchange 8 Toll Plaza is set to open on January 26th, which is fucking awesome. Why is it fucking awesome? Because that's my 21st birthday, and maybe I'll get to swing by and check it out! Of course, it's weather permitting, so if the weather is shit (not too uncommon on my birthday it seems...), I'll be pissed.

One thing on the general signage - I'm guessing these are Turnpike Authority signs, because they have the corners rounded off, as well as omit the black background behind the NJ shields that would normally be present.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 10, 2014, 08:33:59 PM
The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago.  The new toll plaza opened around January 26 2014.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 10, 2014, 08:39:09 PM
Not to worry, Zeffy.  There are other things you can now do on your 21st birthday.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 10, 2014, 09:15:55 PM
The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago.  The new toll plaza opened around January 26 2014.

I knew something wasn't right either... my brain is just in overdrive from anxiety and not to mention I'm just tired all around everyday it seems like now...  :banghead: :banghead:

Not to worry, Zeffy.  There are other things you can now do on your 21st birthday.


One of my friends mentioned something about Atlantic City for my 21st... I'm not so sure of that though, mainly because I'm too poor to gamble any of the money I do have anyway. I don't really care for drinking anyway... I've tried a lot of crap already and I'm not a fan of mostly anything alcoholic.

That of course is dependent on me not ending up in the hospital again for a random episode of severe vertigo...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 10, 2014, 10:27:21 PM
Prior to the Exit 6 signs being installed, they were laying on the ground of the outer roadway for a bit, with the 'South 95' exposed (shame I never was able to get a picture - it was a bad angle to look at, and would've been a very quick second to snap the pic at the right time).  I'm pretty sure there was no 'To' on the sign

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)


nj.com is just going downhill in their reporting and accompanying photos (sadly, many newspaper companies just seem to be destroying themselves).  The headline is fairly misleading - the story appears to be talking about development potential on the local roads near Interchange 8...whereas the headline seems to refer to a study of the Turnpike expansion.

And the pictures - nj.com is now attaching old pictures with old captions to their stories.  Why?  It's terribly confusing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on October 10, 2014, 10:37:05 PM
The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago.  The new toll plaza opened around January 26 2014.

The new interchange opened in 2013.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 11, 2014, 08:48:41 AM
The image caption is regarding a note that was posted a long time ago.  The new toll plaza opened around January 26 2014.
The new interchange opened in 2013.
Clearly this year has gone by WAY too fast.  And clearly I need to be more careful about posting after driving for seven hours.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on October 20, 2014, 07:07:13 PM
What is covered up on this sign? I-95 shield?...but wouldn't the direction be showing
or a US-130 shield?

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_z.jpg)
Probably covering South I-95 (and maybe To US-130); lousy re-making of the classic NJTP arrow, by the by...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2014, 10:20:47 PM
There is no 'To US 130' coverup. It's just South 95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 21, 2014, 01:32:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 08:44:33 AM
The massive NJ Turnpike Construction Widening Project is Finally nearing Completion!!!

All 6 Northbound lanes of the NJ Turnpike are expected to open this Friday (weather dependent) between Interchanges 6 & 8A.  All 6 Southbound Lanes between Interchanges 9 & 6 should open next weekend.

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/10/new_nj_turnpike_lanes_to_open_friday.html#incart_river

The goal was to have it open by Thanksgiving, which they will easily exceed.  The current work to repair various structures and repave the inner roadways wasn't part of the original construction project, but when the Turnpike saved at least $200 million from fortunate timing of the works (when the economy was in a tailspin), the Turnpike added on 2 contracts to fix up nearly 25 miles of the existing highway in the construction zone.

When I drove this stretch of the Turnpike last Sunday (about 10 days ago), there was some work that still needed to be done - jersey barrier that needed to be filled with concrete, jersey barrier painting (which covers the patchwork that was done to fill in holes and cracks), some repaving work, and other misc work, but other areas were completely finished - stripped and everything. 

After the Turnpike is open, some construction work will need to continue, such as removing the crossover north of Interchange 8A.  But that stuff can be done overnight and during offpeak hours.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 10:11:31 AM
I'll give the Turnpike Authority a gold star on this project, because it was executed beautifully. Given how popular and busy the Turnpike is, these 170 miles of new lanes will definitely help with the congestion in the area. Hopefully I can get the chance to use the Turnpike in the next week or two just to see the new lanes.

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.

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. 

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

(http://i.imgur.com/FA2x4kc.png)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 10:33:46 AM
What's wrong with it?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 10:35:58 AM
What's wrong with it?

Well, it's white, and not the normal beige-orange-y color with the border since it leads directly a toll facility as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 21, 2014, 10:36:50 AM
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?

(http://i.imgur.com/FA2x4kc.png)
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 10:50:20 AM
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? Because the interchange isn't changing, and the roadway will be renumbered in the future, omitting it on a main guide sign is fine. People will still know they can access 130 from the future alignment of I-95.

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

This is what a toll-road interchange should look like on the New Jersey Turnpike:
(http://i.imgur.com/Sw5WLhb.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/HOSVMSl.png)

Instead, Google is coloring them white, not even marking them as toll-road interchanges:
(http://i.imgur.com/tegldcR.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/FA2x4kc.png)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 11:03:50 AM
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)

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 21, 2014, 12:02:24 PM
True, but I'm just saying that in reality, just how many people wind up using that interchange?
As previously stated, the current US 130/NJTP Connector interchange was constructed over a decade ago.  The decision to build such was based numerous studies & meetings that likely began a decade or two earlier.  One benefit of the interchange is that traffic to/from the mainline Turnpike in the Florence area aren't clogging the surrounding local roads leading to/from Exits 5 or 7.  Those that work for the Turnpike Authority can probably list the specifics.

Because the interchange isn't changing, and the roadway will be renumbered in the future, omitting it on a main guide sign is fine. People will still know they can access 130 from the future alignment of I-95.
You're incorrectly assuming that everyone that uses the Turnpike knows the Turnpike and all its interchanges with the various highways & roads in New Jersey.  Such a perspective is extremely short-sited & very naive.

Care to elaborate?  I'm not seeing what you're trying to convey.  That interchange has looked like that for as long as I can remember.
I thought it was obvious but...
Not everybody/roadgeek looks at Google maps on a frequent basis.  I thought you were pointing out an interchange geometry/layout issue/error.

Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.
See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

The reason for signing that US 130/Florence interchange along the mainline Turnpike at all is not that much different than what's been done for the Exits 14A-B-C branch-off further north.  It lets Turnpike travelers know that there are additional interchanges along the branch-offs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 21, 2014, 12:20:01 PM
....

Because the interchange isn't changing, and the roadway will be renumbered in the future, omitting it on a main guide sign is fine. People will still know they can access 130 from the future alignment of I-95.
You're incorrectly assuming that everyone that uses the Turnpike knows the Turnpike and all its interchanges with the various highways & roads in New Jersey.  Such a perspective is extremely short-sited & very naive.

....

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

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



Separate question: Does anyone have any photos of the old Exit 6A before it was expanded and reconstructed? I can find an image on Historic Aerials, but I'm just interested in seeing "road-level" photos if any even exist.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 12:29:10 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 21, 2014, 01:04:24 PM
Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.
See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my nickel on the matter. . .

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 21, 2014, 01:09:23 PM
Some of the issue may be that US 130 is a parallel route to the Turnpike, just like I-295.  Depending where you want to go on US 130, that may or may not be the best option (someone needing US 130 in Bellmawr wouldn't use a US 130 Exit in Florence, or someone needing US 130 in Bordentown would be better off using Exit 7).  It's probably better to leave it off rather than potentially confusing people.
See the above post, there was obviously enough of a demand from those in the Florence area who wanted direct-nearby access to the mainline Turnpike.  If there wasn't a demand, the interchange wouldn't have been built.

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

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

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

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

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

Still 14A, 14B, and 14C are signed as exits. 6A is not signed in any way on the mainline. If only 6A became a signed number (in general), it would become a lot easier to refer to it in the same way as 14A, 14B, and 14C. Also, the Holland Tunnel is 14C and not directly accessed from Interchange 14.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 01:32:46 PM
http://goo.gl/maps/ziDh4

And I did err in that 130 wasn't posted along with Florence.  It is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 21, 2014, 01:41:29 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 01:43:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 01:50:13 PM
In similar fashion, the exit below the southern-most toll plaza is not signed as an exit as well (NJ 140/County 540 headed south, US 40 East headed North).  Exit 1 (NJ 49) (And 1A & 1B going north) is actually on 295 and not part of the Turnpike system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2014, 01:52:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 21, 2014, 01:58:54 PM
Shouldn't that sign say "SOUTH I-95" instead of "NORTH"?

I don't see the need for Bordentown on the second sign because Bordentown is already served by Exit 7, unless the goal were simply to direct people off the mainline to pay a higher toll?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on October 21, 2014, 02:01:39 PM
This is what a toll-road interchange should look like on the New Jersey Turnpike:
(http://i.imgur.com/Sw5WLhb.png)
This one is shit too.

(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 21, 2014, 02:04:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 21, 2014, 02:44:11 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 21, 2014, 04:00:04 PM
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.

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

Not much to add, but I do believe 130/Florence should still be signed from the Turnpike mainline.  Even though the interchange is beyond the ticket system, it is still a Turnpike exit, and should have some signage on the mainline.  I think it should also be signed as '6A' similar to 14-14A/14B/14C to drive home that it is a separate interchange, but I'll take the current signage.
Thank you!  My sentiments exactly.  And yes, it does seem puzzling why the expanded US 130 interchange wasn't signed as Exit 6A.

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

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

(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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 21, 2014, 04:39:39 PM
Not much to add, but I do believe 130/Florence should still be signed from the Turnpike mainline.  Even though the interchange is beyond the ticket system, it is still a Turnpike exit, and should have some signage on the mainline.  I think it should also be signed as '6A' similar to 14-14A/14B/14C to drive home that it is a separate interchange, but I'll take the current signage.
Thank you!  My sentiments exactly.  And yes, it does seem puzzling why the expanded US 130 interchange wasn't signed as Exit 6A.


I think it is because the toll barrier for all Extension traffic is before the exit, sort of like the Exit 1 mainline barrier prior to the NJ 140 exit (further south).  From the ticket-system perspective, all traffic through the barrier is Exit 6, whether going to Pa. or to U.S. 130.  I am with you in spirit, though . . .
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 21, 2014, 04:46:58 PM
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.

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

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on October 21, 2014, 10:56:03 PM
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.
That is the way it will look when the overlays are removed (except for adding West over I-276) . . . eventually . . . and if the arrow ever gets fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from that, congrats to Zeffy for taking on the task of reproducing NJTP-style sign graphics.  Even if the style ceases to exist in hard-copy form, it's nice to think that it can somehow be preserved.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on October 22, 2014, 08:42:27 PM
What does it mean that they are using MUTCD signs? Does this mean they are getting exit tabs?
Also, does anyone know when they are finishing replacing the old VMS? There are still several on the turnpike, especially on the southern portion that did not even get touched yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2014, 09:42:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 22, 2014, 10:57:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on October 22, 2014, 11:24:50 PM
A lot of the remaining neon VMS's are on the side of the road, rather than overhead.  But two days ago I saw several locations with a neon VMS mounted on an overpass, and a new digital VMS on a sign bridge about 100 feet beforehand.  While I didn't see any of the neon lit, the variable speed limit signs with them appeared to still be active.

Looked kind of neat seeing the old and new at once, while it lasts.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 22, 2014, 11:36:46 PM
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.

Why, thank you very much. After I made the huge idiot mistake of calling these signs "monstrosities", I learned that these are actually, quite amazing. The Turnpike itself, is amazing. It's an amazing engineering achievement, and I'm proud to have it in my home state of New Jersey. Unfortunately, I have to go by a blind-eye and guess everything since there are no posted specs for these style of signs anywhere. Still, I'd like to think I'm at least decent at it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on October 23, 2014, 10:18:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 23, 2014, 10:26:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 23, 2014, 11:00:36 AM
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:
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 23, 2014, 11:19:50 AM
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)


Yup, those are them! They caught me off guard, because they are located after the split. Unfortunately they are neutered, which luckily isn't the standard in New Jersey off of overhead guide signs...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 23, 2014, 11:46:07 AM
At the Joyce Kilmer Plaza, there is a ground-mounted BGS pointing to the northbound entrance ramp (to get back on the Turnpike) that shows both the I-95 & NJTP shields.

BGS simply reads:

NORTH
95 NJTP
<------


Note: NJTP is in shield form.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2014, 11:48:28 AM
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.

(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)

(Edited to make the images smaller, since they weren't the best of pics!)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on October 23, 2014, 03:28:24 PM
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.

(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)
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)...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 24, 2014, 01:11:17 AM
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.

IIRC, the new VMS project was a multi year affair so they should be wrapping up the last of the project later this year or early next.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 24, 2014, 12:29:12 PM
A few more pics this morning. It wasn't raining at least!

The internally lit hybrid drum/LED VMS signage. This particular one is 1 mile ahead of the split; an identical one is 2 miles prior to the split.  After today, they will presumably always have something to say!

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/05BF60FD-2DF5-4EA9-B376-AC15D07E4B86.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/05BF60FD-2DF5-4EA9-B376-AC15D07E4B86.jpg.html)

The left Yellow line has been painted, and the left/center lane skip line for the inner roadway starts here.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/9A9B5F6C-3912-4D9F-B08A-13F31D5E8292.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/9A9B5F6C-3912-4D9F-B08A-13F31D5E8292.jpg.html)

With apologies for the blurriness, this point will be the start of all 6 lanes. You can see slightly in the distance where the temporary yellow line ends, and the white shoulder line alongside the hashmarks in the center of the pavement begins.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/AB96FF50-C0CF-4411-AD7D-094D1D2A4D98_3.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/AB96FF50-C0CF-4411-AD7D-094D1D2A4D98_3.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 24, 2014, 01:28:56 PM
Wow, those signs are so freaking cool because they are dynamic but they display colors and typefaces like a non-electronic sign. I really want to experience the new configuration at least a few months after all the new lanes are open.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 24, 2014, 01:44:39 PM
Just think–they'll be able to switch to Clearview in an instant.

The ones on the GSP (same as these, basically) are so bright that during the height of daylight they look like an ordinary BGS.  All the background colors I've seen rendered beautifully and sharply–orange, purple, and of course green.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on October 24, 2014, 07:05:59 PM
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 !!!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 24, 2014, 08:28:29 PM
Great to hear! Hope they open the southbound on Monday, 'cause I expect to be driving to Virginia on Tuesday, and it would be great not to have the delay at the merge point. Returning on Sat. Nov. 1st so I'll appreciate the northbound lanes then. Really cool news! Thanks Eric.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 24, 2014, 11:47:18 PM
What is the next project going to be for the Turnpike?  Three lanes south of Exit 4?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on October 24, 2014, 11:52:12 PM
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 !!!!

While your shift key was stuck on, the actual opening is delayed until Sunday: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/10/rain_delays_opening_of_new_nj_turnpike_lanes.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 12:42:20 AM
BTW...since I only viewed the pics on my cell phone, my apologies for the blurry pics.  When the screen is only 4" wide, they looked a bit better!  :nod:

02 Park Ave: Actually, there are several 'major' projects going on for both the Turnpike & Parkway.  Widening below Interchange 4 isn't even on the near-future plans at this point.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 25, 2014, 01:35:52 AM
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.

South of Exit 9 won't get MUTCD signs until the next time the signs are due to be replaced, maybe 20+ years? As Alps has mentioned here more than once, any signage projects that were in production before the MUTCD switch was done will keep their "classic" NJTA signage, which is why the dual-dual extension has NJTA signs and also all the signs from Exit 5 south to the Del Mem Br were replaced within the past four or five years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on October 25, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
I'm sure they will add I-95 shields on the turnpike guide signs North and Southbound. I've seen some on the SOUTHBOUND MAINLINE from I-80 near Ridgefield Park, Teaneck and Fort Lee. As for the southern end, I do see the turnpike expand to 3 lanes each way. That would be a major improvement. The MUTCD signage is NOT a turnpike custom. Maybe for the G.S. Parkway, But NOT for the turnpike !! All guide signs along the N.J. Turnpike NORTH of EXIT 5 should carry the I-95 shield in BOTH directions. For example , Some should read "95 / TP NORTH (Newark - New York). Or from EXITS 17 to 11; Some should read "95/TP SOUTH (Newark-Woodbridge-Trenton). And from EXIT 11 SOUTH "95/TP SOUTH (Trenton - Del. Mem. Br.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on October 25, 2014, 02:25:00 PM
Ok. Here what the N.J. Turnpike signage should read ;

First SOUTHBOUND: 95/NJTP SOUTH (Newark - Woodbridge - Trenton) from Exits 17 to Exits 15W & 15E
                             95/NJTP SOUTH (New Brunswick - Trenton ) from Exit 14 to Exit 11
                             95/NJTP SOUTH (Trenton - Del. Mem. Br.) from Exit 11 to Exit 7A
                             95/NJTP SOUTH (Philadelphia - Del. Mem. Br.) Exits 7A to Exit 6
                             95/NJTP SOUTH (Del. Mem. Br.- Wilmington) Exits 6 on SOUTH

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 05:47:37 PM
To pick on Woodbridge here for a moment...

Why would you remove the control city before you reach the city? If, for whatever reason, the Turnpike would use Woodbridge as a control city, they would use it to Exit 11, which would be the exit for Woodbridge, not drop it suddenly at the Exit 15s.

It would also make sense to have the control cities the same for both directions, if the city is in the middle of the state.  You have Woodbridge going Southbound, but never mentioned Northbound.  If it's important in one direction, it should be important enough to sign in both directions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 25, 2014, 06:36:44 PM
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

Hmm, not quite, this is what it should be northbound:

Approaching Delaware Memorial Bridge - I-295 NORTH TO NJTP - New Jersey / New York City
From the Delaware Memorial Bridge to exit 7 - NJTP NORTH - Trenton*
Exit 7A - 9 - I-95, NJTP NORTH - New Brunswick
Exit 9 - 11 - I-95, NJTP NORTH - Woodbridge *
Exit 11-14 - I-95, NJTP NORTH - Newark
EASTERN SPUR - I-95, NJTP NORTH (east?) - Secaucus
WESTERN SPUR to GWB - I-95, NJTP NORTH (west?) - George Washington Bridge

*Either 7 or 7A directly leads into Trenton, therefore after 7A it should probably not be signed, feel free to discuss

** Alternatively after New Brunswick, sign Newark until after Exit 14
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 07:37:27 PM
Or, we can just use New York. They're control cities, not "let's sign every medium sized city in the state" cities.

Edited because stat does not equal state"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 25, 2014, 07:47:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 08:51:56 PM
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?

Only if it's relative to help assist drivers as to their direction.  The Turnpike doesn't come close to going thru Trenton.  You could probably convince me on New Brunswick, although I don't know if that's of much importance to many drivers.  But yet, you could make an argument (on the Southbound side, at least), for Philadelphia...AFTER the 95 ramps are completed in PA, because that's the next major city on 95.

Wilmington sucks as a Control City.  For the same reason as I mentioned for Trenton, the Turnpike or even the direction of travel for the majority of drivers doesn't go to Wilmington.  I would've proposed Delaware or Del Mem Br.  If they insist on a city: Baltimore would be fine.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 10:45:20 PM
Some of the current 511 traffic alerts for the Turnpike (at about 10:40pm), indicating the work undergoing to open up the inner roadway...

As of 8:57pm, there's Roadwork on the New Jersey Turnpike northbound from North of Interchange 5 - CR 541 in Springfield Twp to South of Interchange 6 - Pennsylvania Turnpike in Mansfield Twp. Left and center lanes closed until 9:00 A.M. 

As of 9:21pm, there's Stop and Go Traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike outer roadway northbound from Interchange 7A - I-195 in Robbinsville to Interchange 8A - NJ 32 in Monroe Twp state police traffic slowdown in progress, Motorists should anticipate delays and use caution due to current roadway conditions. 

As of 9:56pm, there are Delays on the New Jersey Turnpike northbound from North of Interchange 8 - NJ 33 in East Windsor Twp to Inner and Outer Roadway Split in South Brunswick Twp 6 mile delay, 20-25 minute additional travel time. 

As of 10:24pm, there's Roadwork on the New Jersey Turnpike inner roadway northbound in the vicinity of Interchange 8A - NJ 32 in South Brunswick Twp. All lanes closed to traffic until 2:00 A.M.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on October 30, 2014, 05:35:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2014, 06:19:53 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 30, 2014, 06:32:19 PM
Projects south of Exit 7A should be given priority!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 31, 2014, 07:13:21 AM
Projects south of Exit 7A should be given priority!
Based on knowledge of structural conditions and traffic volumes, I question this.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2014, 09:00:41 AM
The major upcoming projects (along with current projects) for both the Turnpike & Parkway are listed here: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html

As far as other projects on the horizon, other than the twinning of the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge, I haven't heard or read of anything significant in their Board minutes. 

Projects south of Exit 7A should be given priority!

Oh...kay....

Let's start with the section between Interchanges 7A & 6.  How about widening that to, say, 6 lanes each way?  :banghead:

So now that is out of the way, let's talk below Interchange 6.

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 century few years to complete, keep that in mind as to the need of other projects in the South Jersey area.

IMO...there should be some consideration given to widening the Turnpike between Interchanges 3 & 4.  While the long-term goals of the Turnpike would be a widening from Interchanges 1 - 4, the most critical need is really from 3 - 4.  Having said that, Traffic volumes should be expected to drop a bit overall once the PA Turnpike connection is complete, which will eliminate the dire need for widening the road anywhere south of the dual-dual lanes.

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. 

Beyond that, I can't see anything road related that really needs to be done between Interchanges 1 and 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 31, 2014, 10:49:46 AM
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 century few years to complete, keep that in mind as to the need of other projects in the South Jersey area.

Nono, you had it right the first time. Remember when they said it would be done in 2012? HA!

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. 

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. 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 31, 2014, 11:53:17 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on October 31, 2014, 12:08:46 PM
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)

Even though it would be more convenient for motorists, the environmentalists would say it is not feasible to build an exit here, since it is located really close to the Big Timber Creek. Though, ramps probably could still be built, but impact studies would have to be completed of course. Just like continuing Route 55 southward towards Wildwood.

I used to live in CH myself for many years. Are you on the East or West side
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on October 31, 2014, 12:16:21 PM
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?

A control cities discussion:

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2014, 01:00:26 PM
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. 

As far as AET goes, they will be switching to it some day. They've been appeasing the unions for now, but more and more traffic is using EZ Pass.  It's probably at least 5 years down the road at this point, but then again, they aren't going to get a new interchange built within 5 years either.  Even the new Interchange 8 was built for AET, even though it has traditional booths.  The outside booths and dividers were designed to be easily removed.  And the original design of the new Interchange 1 didn't have any express lanes whatsoever!  The inner 3 toll lanes were redesigned to be 2 express lanes.

I think as more of the longtime toll employees retire and the Turnpike hires more temps and part timers, you're going to see less of an impact from the union to keep their members employed as toll workers.   As more toll authorities go AET, this will impact this decision as well.  It's a slow process in the Northeast due to the historic nature of tolls and toll paying here.  In Texas where they never had toll booths, they can move right in to AET without much of a fight.

Quote
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).

That would be a very minor problem.  By then, the Turnpike may even be mileage based.

Quote
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.

They don't like partial exits.  This, on the other hand, wouldn't be much of an exit per say, but rather utilizing both roads in a coherent manner, versus the traditional method NJ used of acting like the two roads were on different planets and should never communicate with each other.

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)

There has been numerous discussions in the past about something like this, or connecting the Turnpike with the Expressway.  All of which would be a southern bypass-type route.  It never gets very far.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 31, 2014, 02:03:21 PM
A control cities discussion:

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.
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.

I would use the following 2-destination combos:

Camden/New York between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the I-295/NJ Turnpike split.

Newark/New York between the I-295 split to Exit 12.

Fort Lee/(The) Bronx* from Exit 13 to the GWB (if G.W. Bridge is no longer allowed to be used as a destination).

For single-destination listings:

New York up through Exit 13.

Either G.W. Bridge (if allowed) or (The) Bronx* from Exit 14 to the GWB.

*New Haven, CT if (The) Bronx is not allowed to be used as a control destination.

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 would use the following 2-destination combos:

Newark/Philadelphia** from the I-80 split to Exit 16E & 16W.

Trenton/Philadelphia** from Exits 15E & 15W to Exit 8.

Camden/Philadelphia** from Exit 7A to Exit 7.

**Wilmington can be used en lieu of Philadlephia for the above.

Camden/Wilmington from Exit 6 to Exit 4.

(Delaware Memorial Bridge, if allowed)/Wilmington from Exit 3 to the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

For single-destination listings:

Newark from the GWB to Exits 16E & 16W.

Trenton from Exits 15E & 15W to Exit 8.

Camden from Exits 7A to Exit 4.

Wilmington from Exit 3 to the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 31, 2014, 02:22:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 01, 2014, 12:18:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 01, 2014, 07:15:32 PM
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)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 01, 2014, 09:58:37 PM
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)

And Sacramento did the same for Ocean City, MD (http://goo.gl/maps/wQTC8) as seen here at the western terminus.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on November 02, 2014, 09:39:05 AM
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.

I always thought signs like these would make a better "Eisenhower Interstate System" 'billboard.'  Even if not at the start of the route, giving some "interesting" via points could certainly start a conversation. In the money-is-no-object, all-other-highway-needs-met version, travel times could also be amusing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 03, 2014, 01:26:02 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 04, 2014, 04:27:07 PM
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).

The new improvements include a new 14-lane toll plaza to replace the existing 11-lane facility, replacement of an existing connector bridge with a 5-lane span to NJ 440, 185 and Port Jersey Boulevard, and construction of a new flyover ramp from the interchange to NJ 440 South and Port Jersey Boulevard.

It will cost $300 million, and the contract is expected to be filled in late 2014, with construction ending sometime in 2018.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2014, 04:37:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on November 04, 2014, 04:59:59 PM
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.

This information has been posted on their web site for at least a year or two now.  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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2014, 05:17:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2014, 08:37:24 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on November 05, 2014, 05:01:50 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2014, 05:48:14 PM
I only get 511 alerts for my normal commuting time, so this is the first one I've seen for the new dual-dual section. It's a good one though!

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/3888E293-DEC4-418B-B69F-A9A6DA88A3D9.png) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3888E293-DEC4-418B-B69F-A9A6DA88A3D9.png.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 07, 2014, 05:54:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 08, 2014, 07:48:03 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2014, 08:37:45 AM
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

It's hardly 'emergency' construction...it was actually in the NJ Turnpike's widening forecasted lane closures: http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/pdf/road%20and%20lane%20closures%20effective%2011-03-2014.pdf   KYW may still do traffic on the 10s, but their accuracy is far from what it was many years ago.

When I first saw this, I will admit that I thought it was a misprint and that for Thursday and Friday, the alert should've said 10*pm* to 4am, not 10am to 4am.  I guess it was right though!

Being that it was a 16 hour shutdown, there's probably some significant work that needs to be done.  Especially at the northern merge/diverge points, they had to lay asphalt down to allow traffic to safely move between the two roadways at highway speeds.  Now, they need to go back, remove that asphalt, and reslope the highway to properly discharge water, add guardrail, etc. It will take a few months to get everything completed, and some of that work is weather/temperature dependent (meaning, get it done now before it gets cold).  I think there's some minor signage work to take care of as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2014, 01:00:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2014, 01:38:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on November 08, 2014, 03:28:16 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2014, 04:35:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 08, 2014, 06:06:23 PM
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 08, 2014, 07:35:53 PM
One could do a "drive-through" at a service area to change carriageways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 09, 2014, 06:25:59 PM
Actually the big question is why does not any other state follow New Jersey's lead.
A few reasons I can think of:
-The current Smart Growth emphasis
-Environmental and urban justice groups making it harder to build infrastructure than in the past
-ROW costs
-Increasing emphasis on preserving existing infrastructure rather than expanding capacity
-The fact that most states haven't had all their municipalities blend together into a sea of suburban sprawl

Anyways, the tendency of NJ to use permanent infrastructure for temporary traffic patterns seems to be a statewide thing - this isn't the only project I've seen it on.  Seems to be a waste of money to me.  Why build something that would last for 50 years if you're only going to use it for a tiny fraction of that time?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 03:39:54 AM
Actually the jug handles are really smart when you think about it.  It keeps the slow traffic to the right and the left lane for traveling freely.  With left turn breaks in median allowing left turns and traffic to enter from the left creates slowdowns in both lanes and the need to switch lanes constantly!  I only wish Florida would use them it would make traffic a lot easier especially on Orange Blossom Trail.

There is one jug handle movement that makes no sense which is in Laurence Harbor, NJ on EB Laurence Parkway where it branches into a one way couplet at NJ 35.  No left turns are permitted onto NJ 35 NB which makes no sense being that there is another signal on the WB Laurence Parkway and NJ 35 intersection that would stop vehicles from crossing paths with WB Laurence Parkway. So there is no conflict there, however NJDOT wants you to go across NJ 35 and then go one block ahead to turn left so that you go one block over to WB Laurence Parkway and then turnabout back to NJ 35 and then turn right to go north. Somewhat like a Michigan Left, but with side streets.

Also you have some jug handles on two lane roads as well.  US 40 WB approaching NJ 47 in Malaga. To stay on US 40 one must go past the intersection and loop around in a reverse jug handle to turn left onto the NJ 47 SB/ US 40 duplex.  Then NJ 94 in La Fayette has a reverse jughandle where NB NJ 94 leaves SB NJ 15 where the NJ 15/ NJ 94 duplex is also two lanes.  I am sure there are others, but on two lane roads the need for a set up like this is totally useless.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 09:35:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 10, 2014, 10:24:43 AM
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.

Just by looking at the satellite view on Google Maps, I want to say near the overpass of CR 543.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 01:09:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 01:56:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2014, 05:07:54 PM
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.
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.
As for how far south of Exit 6, there's a good mile and a half before you get to the merge. Exit 6 is MP 52, and the merge hovers around MP 50.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on November 10, 2014, 07:17:34 PM
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. 

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.

If this situation really occurred, they would likely shut down the roadway with the accident and then "rebalance traffic through attrition"...
-At the split, direct all traffic onto the roadway without the accident.
-If there is an interchange prior to the accident, all traffic entering from that interchange will be forced onto the roadway without the accident.
-Beyond the accident, all traffic entering from subsequent interchanges will be forced to take the roadway where the accident occurred. This means as you pass each interchange, some traffic gets off the "non accident" roadway, and any entering traffic enters the "accident" roadway downstream from the accident. Gradually volumes get re-balanced as you pass each interchange.
-Eventually you get to the point where volumes are balanced and normal operations can occur.
-The NJ Turnpike Authority has plenty of statistics for usage and probably has a good idea of how much traffic gets on and off at any given point at any given time. They can figure out how far away from the accident they need to "balance" things out by forcing all traffic into one roadway or another to essentially get things flowing normally again.

This is not to say there won't be bad traffic leading up to the accident (there always is on any roadway), but they actually seem to do a decent job of balancing traffic volumes most of the time.

I've actually seen where they do the opposite...really bad crash near the end of the dual-dual section, but they are able to get at least one lane by the crash. So you "starve" that roadway of traffic without closing it off completely.

Here are a few points to consider before mocking the design choices of those at the NJ Turnpike.
-The new design at the south end is a lot more favorable to having one roadway closed than the old design. I've been in situations where the car lanes are completely closed, and having to merge from 3 lanes into 2 to get into the diverge only to go back to 3 lanes was incredibly annoying. Now the new setup has it so all lanes form prior to the split, and there is no point where less than 3 lanes are available for all thru traffic coming north from Exit 5 to proceed onto one or the other roadway.
-When there is a crash, traffic is horrible, because lanes are ending suddenly in places where people aren't expecting it. In many cases, I'm convinced that having 3 "unaffected" lanes and 3 closed lanes on different roadways is better than having 4 open lanes and 2 closed lanes on the same roadway, where all traffic has to navigate past the incident scene. At least if some lanes are segregated, the people driving in those lanes will be directed by traffic control devices designed for permanent use by engineers, as opposed to ones randomly set up by incident responders.
-Incident responders get killed working in traffic on a regular basis. It is much safer for them to shut one of the roadways down. In addition to keeping responders safer, the responders can probably clear the crash a lot quicker since they don't have to worry about traffic control.
-Yes, it sucks to get stuck in a situation where you have a whole roadway shut down on the Turnpike. But I'm convinced that it helps them do construction and clear crashes faster, meaning that even though you got stuck, thousands of others after you won't be stuck. Likewise, if a crash happened hours ago, you won't have to suffer because they cleared it quickly.
-And finally, trucks and cars don't really get along very well sometimes. Cars don't like dealing with trucks, truck drivers don't like dealing with cars. On a road with a craptastic amount of trucks like the NJ Turnpike, the segregation is nice. On weekdays and overnights when trucks rule the road, trucks have one roadway, cars have the other (and car drivers would be stupid to use the truck lanes). On weekends when there are fewer trucks and lots of cars, those who don't mind driving with trucks can take the truck lanes for an easier ride.
-
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 10, 2014, 08:41:57 PM
Has anyone noticed that the new northbound split has different legend on the VMS's than the old split had?

The signs at the old split said: TURNPIKE DIVIDES, 1 MILE AHEAD, ALL TRUCKS AND BUSSES, KEEP RIGHT.

The new signs change the word TURNPIKE to ROADWAY and omit the word ALL.

Minor changes, but I liked the old signs better. They had larger lettering and a more positive message.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 09:45:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on November 10, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
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.

I've been waiting for everything Turnpike-related to update for a couple reasons:


Having no reason to be anywhere near South Jersey, I really am curious as to how things are going. GSV has allowed me to see quite a few other projects, but everything over there is 2 years old.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 10, 2014, 10:02:54 PM
The newly erected signs in the newly widened area (Exits 6 to 9) are not  MUTCD compliant having been designed before NJTA decided to go with MUTCD, as has been pointed out previously. But though they use the conventional NJT format,  they are the bright, reflective green and not the dark green used on the previous generation of NJT signs.

BTW you can see at least one display of new MUTCD signs northbound on the eastern leg at Exit-15X. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 10:22:26 PM
GSV to see if they really are adopting MUTCD-standard signage
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on November 10, 2014, 10:33:37 PM
GSV to see if they really are adopting MUTCD-standard signage
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)

If the exit tabs were a couple inches to the leftt, they'd look just like NYSDOT/NYSTA signs. I never thought I'd see that in New Jersey.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 11, 2014, 10:16:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2014, 12:32:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 11, 2014, 12:42:08 PM
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.

Well, it certainly doesn't look it from the street view, but street view has been known to distort distance before (but usually to make something seem further away than it actually is, rather than closer).  It certainly looks like the two lanes plus shoulder abut directly against the sound wall and bridge supports in street view and on the satellite imagery.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 11, 2014, 12:56:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 11, 2014, 04:55:39 PM
Hey, I have an idea: the widening has already happened, so let's stop debating it. K?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 07:36:03 PM

GSV to see if they really are adopting MUTCD-standard signage
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/100_9816-s.JPG)

I look at this and think, my god, it could be frikkin' Iowa.  It's demeaning to reduce the Turnpike to just some... some... road. 

(Sorry, Iowans.  It could also be any other road in any state.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2014, 10:32:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on November 12, 2014, 11:13:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on November 12, 2014, 11:22:54 AM
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.

The 8a to 9 widening involved building two-lane outer roadways due to compromises made with residents of East Brunswick in the mid-80s (similar to those made here in Virginia in the 1980s to limit I-66 inside the Beltway to two lanes) so they could get the project started.  Another project to widen the western spur during that same time period to outer/inner roadways was killed due to opposition.

The infrastructure for the outer roadway between 8a and 9 was built for later expansion to three lanes.  This included overhead bridges, causeways, and right of way the whole length.  The only work needed in the future was to pave the new lane and move some guard rails.  I think they also did add some new sound walls 2011-2012, not sure if the one that started this thread was new or old.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2014, 12:10:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:24:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on November 12, 2014, 12:34:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
That former widening project between 8A & 9 was designed with 3 lanes in mind for the outer roadways
Thank you, I figured as such.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 12, 2014, 03:03:35 PM
So, will the southbound outer lanes be increased to three from Exit 9 down to Exit 8A eventually?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on November 12, 2014, 03:16:24 PM
So, will the southbound outer lanes be increased to three from Exit 9 down to Exit 8A eventually?

Yes, once the "temporary merge" construction wraps up. Right now, it is safer for the right lane to end where it always has with permanent signs than to end abruptly at the temporary merge point north of 8A with temporary signing. Once the temporary merge point is obliterated and new guardrail installed, they will open everything up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 12, 2014, 03:51:12 PM
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.

I know it gets a bit tight in the area between 6 & 7 for example, even though there's plenty of land in that area - must've been a slight issue with getting the extra land they needed at an agreeable price.  But, don't confuse tight with lacking shoulders - the shoulders are just a bit more narrow than what would be preferred.  You could still get a car, or even a truck, on the shoulder, but they better get it close to the concrete wall.  (Edited:  Actually, where I thought there was a concrete wall there was just a guardrail.  I was on the inner roadway today and couldn't get a perfect view of the area. I know somewhere around there, the shoulder becomes a bit more narrow.)

And that concrete wall: it's not jersey barriers, but rather a prefab outer wall that agencies seem to like to use when they use the 90 degree wall for a raised section of highway, rather than a sloped embankment.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 05:11:25 PM
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.

Easton PA has been on the signage for Exit 21B since 1997 when those signs were erected.

NJTA does its own thing. I doubt you'll ever see the destinations on their signs changed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 12, 2014, 06:16:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 12, 2014, 06:28:15 PM
Will the third lane be open by Thanksgiving?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 12, 2014, 07:28:22 PM
Will the third lane be open by Thanksgiving?
That is the next time most people travel it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on November 12, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
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.

It would be nice. If you list all of those locations, the sign would be 8 miles long. But hey, they have the "Exit XX For ___ Twp, Boro, Six Flags, etc" signs, such as Exit 10 for Edison Twp and Outerbridge Crossing, as well as the 1 and 2 mile advance signs, which list Metuchen and Perth Amboy. Somerville and Mahwah or Morristown would be great to include. I had no idea that Clinton was added later on at Exit 14. It does happen to look like a newer sign, as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 11:21:25 PM
You could actually rename the exit "Exit 10 I-287 & NJ 440 Perth Amboy- Morristown" on all the main guides.  Then have one supplemental (the one that is there already ) remain "Edison Twp- Outerbridge Crossing" and add a second one that states "Raritan Center- Metuchen" somewhere in the mix.

To me I personally do not have a problem with the original 3 destination signs that NJ always used.  I am guessing the FHWA did which may be why the NJT is doing away with them as many exit guides did use them.  Exit 13's one mile had Elizabeth- Goethals Bridge- Verrazano Bridge, and the Exit 10 at exit had Perth Amboy- Metuchen- Edison Twp. as well as the 2 mile for Exit 8 being Hightstown- Freehold- East Windsor.   There was even Exit 8A with four destinations "Jamesburg- Cranbury- Monroe- S. Brunswick" on one of the advanced guides, but from what I have seen in OK Roads photos is that it is now gone.  Four destinations is pushing it as that is too much information. Three is just fine if it is done properly.

Easton, PA is correct.  The major sign overhall in 1997 changed all of that.  I-287 was the last freeway in NJ of the interstates to get exit numbers due to the Somerset Freeway.  If it had been built then all the numbers would be 4 less.  However, NJDOT did not want to number them before they planned to build the proposed Somerset Freeway because the exits for Durham Avenue, CR 501, NJ 27, and US 1 all would have not been in I-287's numbering scheme throwing all the motorists off as Exit 1 would have been CR 529 four miles prior to its signed terminus at the NJ Turnpike at that time.  NJDOT was holding off until they thought that they would build the Somerset Freeway where I-95 would have been the section of I-287 from Durham Avenue to the NJ Turnpike explaining the change in exit numbering.  However, in Morris County I-287 did get exit numbers, but that was most likely because it was far enough away from the zero point, that nobody even noticed a difference of four miles.

The fact is that Clinton was done prior to that, but it was widely used on most guide signs for I-78 Westbound then, so the NJT began to use it at Exit 14 because of it at the time.  I cannot remember if the "Cliinton" signs were added to Exit 14 before I moved to Florida or after I moved in 1990.  However, I know it was before 1997 for sure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 13, 2014, 09:08:02 AM
The thing is, the Turnpike used to be like it's own separate world, with it's own signage, it's own restaurants, it's own taxes and it's own rules. The it wasn't just a "Roadway" as the new sign says, it was "The Turnpike", the ONLY road that mattered. Hell it's hard to think of one thing they didn't do differently, from the insanely long lane stripes, to the dual-dual setup, to the two spurs, to the signage, to the presidential service plazas, to the weird VMS/Speed boards, to the sequential exit numbering. There are plenty of other little details that made it like it's own world, and it always felt different driving on it, because as the sign said, you were driving the Turnpike, and that fact mattered above everything else. The funniest part may have been those signs posted when you exit the Turnpike, and there's a sign that says "You are leaving the NJTP system, obey local speed laws", as if the Turnpike had it's own set of laws that was above every other road. With the standardization of not only design of the signs, but the wording too, that factor is quickly disappearing
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:18:25 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorway on November 13, 2014, 09:21:39 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 13, 2014, 09:22:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:26:40 AM
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.
Understood.  I was only supporting your point, that those signs are also part of the NJT's own little world as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2014, 01:27:38 PM
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

Honestly, I don't think that Somerville needs to be signed from the Turnpike like that. The only place I know Somerville is mentioned on 287 is on the exit signs for 13A-B NB, 17 and 13 SB, and on the ramps from 78 (which is a holdover from a long time ago and when those signs were replaced they never changed the legends). All pullthrough signs on 287 use Morristown, Mahwah, and Perth Amboy for control cities. That's not going to change anytime soon. New Brunswick and East Brunswick are the right destinations for 9, because, honestly, you're not going to get off at 9 and deal with the traffic on 18 and River Rd or Hoes Ln to get to 287 to get to 28 or 22 to go into Somerville. 10 should really reference Morristown and Perth Amboy with a secondary sign for Edison. 11 should mention Woodbridge as well as some one or two of the Parkway's new official destination points (Newark and Belmar maybe?). Hell, it would make more sense for them to sign 11 the way they sign 129 on the Parkway now, with half the sign for the Parkway and its destinations, and the other half for 9 and its destinations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 01:43:09 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on November 14, 2014, 01:49:59 PM
Simpler: add TO 1 signs on 184 east at the ramp to 9 north. Signage between an Interstate and its parallel surface route is useful.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on November 14, 2014, 10:28:49 PM
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.

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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 15, 2014, 11:57:51 AM
Oh yes, each toll road, I am not going to say not, has had its own identity so to speak to make them unique.

The Pennsylvania Turnpike still has its interchange name on the top of the sign in all upper case, which is why the redundant "NORRISTOWN/ Norristown' at Exit 333 as many make a mockery of in this community (meaning roads in general not necessarily aaroads).

The Thruway and its old blue guide signs and its other features as you mention as well as the use of the name "Route" instead of US for US highways etc.

I said it before in a previous thread that the MUTCD is nationalizing, so to speak, the way each state and road agency signs their roads.  Making the whole signing practice uniform to live up to the "U" in MUTCD.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 15, 2014, 01:11:20 PM
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...

Michael Summa (two m's). I have some of his photos but many others also feature some.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 15, 2014, 04:02:14 PM
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!

I think the Turnpike Authority still handles those signs. They were done to NJDOT spec, but I think the NJSHA put those signs up in the early 90s when they replaced most of the signage around 129. With the new changes to signage, maybe they'll change it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 18, 2014, 02:10:44 PM
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.

Now posted on the NJTA website appears to be the preferred design:

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/PIC_fact_sheet_November_2014.pdf

The image on the 1st page shows a roundabout to help facilitate traffic to/from the toll plaza and nearby surface streets.  There are two separate ways to both enter and exit the roundabout to/from the toll plaza, along with 2 phantom roadways.  When you go to page two does it become clear...there'll be an overpass over the roundabout!

Definitely some creative thinking that took part to come up with that design!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 18, 2014, 11:16:08 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 18, 2014, 11:24:08 PM
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)

One thing I will say for NJDOT is that they are trying to be a lot better about using the VMS's they've installed on a number of roads across the state to better put out information. I will routinely see messages warning about major delays on the Turnpike on both 287 and Rt 1 before you hit the Turnpike. Maybe there isn't a better way to your destination, but you'll be able to contemplate the options. I think that at times the NJTA has dumbed down the messages they can put on their signs a little too much, like the dumb "Delays Ahead Reduce Speed" and such they'll put up. I'd rather know how long the delay is and to where and I'll come up with another way to reach my destination.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 18, 2014, 11:25:37 PM
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 18, 2014, 11:37:33 PM
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.)

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the widening itself, nor weather since it's cold here but no precip, likely just one of those things like you said.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2014, 09:21:49 AM
NJDOT is much better on their VMS displays (usually).  This morning, before the truck lanes reopened, a few VMSs along 295 had this message:

NJTPK NORTH
OUTER ROADWAY CLOSED
USE INNER ROADWAY

I remember back when NJDOT only had a few VMS units.  They would display basic messages like "Delays Ahead".  If there was an accident, it would only be announced if it was blocking a travel lane.  Once the accident was moved to the shoulder, the sign would be deleted even though a huge backup would remain.

I wish they would eliminate the Silver Alerts though.  Too many of them.

However, Saturday, I was on 295 approaching the 295/42/76 interchange.  Nothing mentioned on the signs.  Yet, there was a good, slow 2 mile backup approaching the interchange, as a lane was closed and Exit 27 was closed.  It would've been nice to know this so traffic could've taken an alternate route (US 130), Used Exit 26 rather than 27 (both lead to I-76; just different sides of the highway), or just have been prepared for the delay.  They usually are pretty good about posting construction type activities. They completely missed this one though.  (Even worse, KYW1060 had nothing on their reports either.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2014, 11:36:38 AM
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)

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/new_jersey/20141119_ap_479ccc4d19d34c239a3a1686e0f1dee3.html

Per the article, a truck rammed another truck in the center lane, causing the accident.  150 feet of roadway had to be milled and repaved.  Article doesn't state if a truck was going too slow or too fast.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on November 19, 2014, 08:23:36 PM
Holy crap! That is crazy. So many incidents it's hard to keep track. I wonder what work remains in the project limits. Probably signage, lighting, and some left over paving in certain areas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 19, 2014, 10:12:34 PM
Does the widening of the southbound outer carriageway frrom Exit 9 to Exit 8A still remain to be done?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2014, 04:09:24 AM
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)

Quote
What a difference a few extra lanes make.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
"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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2014, 06:18:05 AM
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)
Quote
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.

Um, talk about being kind.  Backups that started after interchange 5 and went all the way to after the split at 8A - a distance of over 25 miles, were common.  Going southbound, Interchange 9 was often the starting point, and traffic didn't start moving again until after interchange 6.

Even most summer weekends, traffic would congest for 15 - 25 miles in each direction.

And the time lost?  Well over an hour in most cases.  Half Hour jams would have been welcomed by motorists.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2014, 06:21:46 AM
Continuing from that same article:

Quote
"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."

Exaggerated note to self:  Keep it under 150 mph and don't put a big number and sponsor stickers on vehicle.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2014, 12:01:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2014, 12:11:42 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2014, 03:52:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2014, 12:33:16 AM
Delaware's I-95 SB barrier is about a mile, back to Exit 1.
 
That sounds about right.  2 lanes each way.

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.

The Turnpike Authority presumably wants as many patrons as possible to stop at Clara Barton (and every time I have stopped there, it seems to be busy), so they do not want to prevent E-ZPass drivers from stopping there.  So a barrier-separated E-ZPass only lane needs to ideally start someplace south of there, with enough space for vehicles exiting the service plaza to be able to enter that E-ZPass only lane.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2014, 09:56:45 AM

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

I would never do less than 2 lanes, for the simple fact that you get some people that aren't familiar with the lanes and decide to slow down, trying to figure out what to do, or if they're in the correct lane.  A single lane would bottleneck the entire 'express' part of the system.  This toll plaza is the only one I've ever seen in EZ Pass land that permits passing thru the EZ Pass sensors. 

But as the size of the plaza and the holding area for the traditional lanes is so large, the toll plaza itself hasn't had issues keeping EZ Pass and Cash traffic separate.  At all of NJ's Express EZ Pass plazas - on the Turnpike, GSP & Parkway - all contain very short barrier separation walls, and I've never encountered a problem with keeping cash & EZ Pass traffic separated.  The only thing a longer separation barrier would do is move the split further back.

Quote
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.

The original design didn't even include Express EZ Pass lanes.  Before it was built, it was redesigned to remove the inner 3 traditional toll lanes in each direction, making them 2 Express EZ Pass lanes. 

But there's other areas of the turnpike where they are still adding toll lanes:  Exit 7A added 3 lanes, Exit 8 was rebuilt from 5 to 10 lanes, and Exits 12 and 14A are being enlarged as well, even though EZ Pass usage is large and still growing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 27, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2014, 07:35:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 01, 2014, 09:39:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2014, 10:55:36 AM
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.

In October, 2014, EZ Pass usage on the NJ Turnpike was 81.2% (80.5% in October, 2013).  On the Parkway, usage was 78% (77.5% in October, 2013).  http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Monthly_financials_through_October_2014.pdf

I would imagine the usage on the Parkway is a bit less because of the change-only lanes, and some people would just rather throw change into the basket rather than getting EZ Pass.  After all, the coin baskets were the original non-stop payment method on the Parkway. :-D

When I exit at Interchange 3 during rush hour, Rt. 168 is often backed up, and that creates congestion back thru the toll plaza, especially in the EZ Pass Only lane.  There's been numerous times I've elected to take the mixed-mode lanes instead to pay with EZ Pass.  My experiences are typical of the numbers above...there's several vehicles that go straight thru the lane without stopping, and on occasion one or two do stop to pay with cash.  Overall, if the EZ Pass lane is backed up nearly to the Turnpike's mainline, I will save time by using the mixed-mode lanes. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 01, 2014, 12:15:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2014, 01:39:53 PM
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.

I couldn't find (after a brief search) regarding EZ Pass usage from about 10 years ago.  But I did find that current commercial truck EZ Pass usage is nearly 90%.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hubcity on December 01, 2014, 05:07:24 PM
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...)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on December 01, 2014, 06:22:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on December 01, 2014, 06:56:11 PM
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.

Precisely. Narrowest segment determines the capacity of the entire highway system. North of US 13, there are four lanes per direction split equally between the Turnpike and I-295. The southernmost mile has only two. As most of the traffic from Jersey is going to I-95 south and the reverse for traffic heading to Jersey, you get backups, especially because through traffic along I-95 is directed to use that narrow section of I-295. No need to encourage any more people to go that way by widening the Turnpike. If anything, completing I-95 might help reduce it at times when Philadelphia isn't too congested.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on December 01, 2014, 07:07:29 PM
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). In that case, it brings a question of what kind of signage and indicating the distance to make the lane change would help traffic flow better (ie. using diagrammatic lane signs etc with distance before putting signs with down arrows for specific lanes)? 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on December 01, 2014, 09:32:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on December 01, 2014, 09:54:08 PM

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 listened to the traffic report last night and did not hear any mention of that stretch of Turnpike (unlike past holiday weekends). 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2014, 10:36:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 06:20:01 AM
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.

Quote
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).

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.

Quote
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. 

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.

Quote
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.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 05:55:56 PM
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.

Jeff, I-495 narrows down to a single lane at its south end. It has been that way since the summer closure of I-495...they restriped the lanes to have two through lanes from 95 through Wilmington meeting 1 through lane from 495 to make 3 lanes. Prior to the 495 closure, it was the opposite...I-95 had one lane and I-495 had two lanes. They never removed the "temporary" reduction to a single lane on 495. 

When I passed through the area on Sunday evening, I noticed 495 traffic was stopped (red/black on Google) back to Exit 1, and 95 was free flowing, so I took 95 through Wilmington and avoided 495 completely. Normally, I know that you can take the "to Exits 5 B/A" ramp and then cut left to avoid the single lane of 495, but because of the severity of the backup on Sunday, I would have had to sit through most of that delay to reach the ramp, so I figured it was better to just bypass it completely.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 06:01:53 PM
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.

Quote
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).

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.

Quote
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. 

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.

Quote
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.

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!

Ugh, I **HATE** the arrangement of that toll plaza at the bridge. That is a horrible layout. The E-ZPass lanes on the left have 3 times the throughput of the cash lanes in the center. When you factor that in, the left lane of I-295 has 9 times as much traffic in it as the center two cash lanes. And those left E-ZPass lanes are the most backed up whenever there is a problem further south.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 05, 2014, 09:45:51 AM
Is E-85 available at any service area on the Turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on December 05, 2014, 10:14:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 05, 2014, 10:30:28 AM
....

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.

This comment amuses me because back in the days prior to E-ZPass when I paid cash at toll plazas, I always found it was fastest (assuming there was no toll machine option) to go all the way to the right where the trucks were told to go. Those lanes always seemed to get through faster and I always assumed it was a combination of (a) fewer vehicles waiting on line at each lane because you might have three trucks in the same space nine cars might otherwise occupy; (b) car drivers usually avoided those lanes; and (c) I always assumed the truck drivers, who drive the roads frequently, might be more likely to know the toll amount in advance than the car drivers ("jeffandnicole" has said in his experience this wasn't always true).



....

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.  ....

I daresay if they positioned strippers after that toll plaza, traffic congestion would get worse as people slowed to watch the show.  :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 07, 2014, 06:29:45 AM
Is E-85 available at any service area on the Turnpike?

No. I don't think Sunoco sells it in NJ.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 28, 2014, 10:54:10 PM
It looks like the southbound outer roadway is backing-up at the merge south of Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 12:53:59 PM
It looks like the southbound outer roadway is backing-up at the merge south of Exit 6.

Any idea how long the jam was or for what time, if it involved the inner roadway as well, or if it was at the actual merge for just pertaining to Interchange 6?

At least on nj.com, there was no mention of it today.  It wouldn't be totally surprising that one of the biggest travel days of the year would experience congestion in that area.  I did hear that the Turnpike south of Interchange 2 experienced congestion all the way into Delaware.   Because Delaware.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 01:09:21 PM
One gripe about the newly-added/widened outer corridors: is it me or does there seem to be less merge space for the entrance ramps (based on the striping) and the merge angles more abrupt?

I've traveled this stretch round-trip at least twice since the full opening and noticed such.  On a couple of occasions; I've had to hit the brakes (to allow the through traffic in the right lane to pass) prior to my getting in the right travel lane.  Previously, there was always a merge/accelaration lane that ran parallel with the right travel lane for a distance prior to merging.

While not as bad as the short merge or die ramps along the Schuylkill Expressway in Philly; the somewhat shorter and more blunt merge is a bit disconcerting... and I'm driving a car.  It's probably even worse for a truck, bus or semi entering.

Clearly, somebody screwed up at least with the lane merge striping (not sure about the road/shoulder surface depth limits).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on December 29, 2014, 02:09:56 PM
The NJ Turnpike always (or at least as of recent memory) had those angled acceleration "lanes." 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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 02:10:14 PM
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)

I remember specifically asking this question at one of the public info meetings prior to construction.  At the time, I was told they were definitely considering, if not implementing, acceleration lanes instead of the tapered merges that the Turnpike has always preferred.  Obviously, they went with the tapered merges instead.

Yes, I have noticed the merges seem a bit more abrupt as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 02:34:27 PM
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.

Yes, I have noticed the merges seem a bit more abrupt as well.
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 02:47:13 PM
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. 

In theory, that area is supposed to allow both thru and entering traffic time to notice each other, and to allow one to speed up / slow down / merge over.  In reality: FU. Get two people to FU to each other, and that accident just waiting to happen probably will happen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on December 29, 2014, 03:11:39 PM
Get two people to FU to each other,
and you have a threesome? Those two people and U[sic]?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2014, 03:18:35 PM
Get two people to FU to each other,
and you have a threesome? Those two people and U[sic]?

Depends if the cop wants to get involved.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2014, 03:55:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 29, 2014, 04:00:03 PM
What possessed the NJTA to reduce the merge area?  A step backwards IMHO.

Their way of flipping the bird at Murray Bodin perhaps?  "We gave you the striping you asked for.  Not our fault if we had to reduce the physical area of the merge to do it."

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 29, 2014, 08:49:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on December 29, 2014, 08:55:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2014, 09:33:05 PM
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.
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.

As for taper vs. parallel lane - a 1500 foot taper gives you about 1000 feet of usable space before the lane gets too narrow. A typical accel lane has a 600-900 foot tangent and 300 foot taper - so again, no more than 1000 feet of usable space.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 29, 2014, 09:59:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 30, 2014, 12:15:46 AM
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.

There is also the small matter of sovereign immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity), which means that the king usually cannot be sued, or in this context that the State of New Jersey cannot usually be sued.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2014, 12:24:06 AM
That would be NJSA Title 59.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2014, 09:10:01 AM
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.

There was a Nebraska study that looked at both types of merges.  Overall, the taper merge works better in free-flow conditions; the parallel acceleration merge works better in heavier traffic conditions.  I'd argue the NJ Turnpike leans more to the heavier traffic conditions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on December 30, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
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.
Region 4 has one - Hylan Dr north to I-390 north (exit 13)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 30, 2014, 03:31:44 PM
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.
Aww, but I like having my personal lane entering at exit 4
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 30, 2014, 04:29:57 PM
I suppose the N.J. Turnpike Authority could do like New Hampshire and allow alcohol sales at the service plazas, right? 

But I wish the news media would stop calling toll road service plazas rest stops

And I wonder if New Jersey retailers and shopping center owners really want businesses on the state-owned toll roads competing with them?

Press of Atlantic City: N.J. eyes highway rest stop upgrades (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/n-j-eyes-highway-rest-stop-upgrades/article_9d9ac856-8fbf-11e4-984a-e331177b7e94.html)

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 30, 2014, 04:34:53 PM
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.

Thanks for sharing this.  An Interchange 2A could be the Turnpike's first all-electronic interchange, so a double trumpet could be left out, that would otherwise be needed as long as the Turnpike Authority is collecting cash tolls.

I drive the south end of the Turnpike somewhat frequently, and I actually rather like the four-lane section, old as it is (though not the queues that form approaching the Exit 1 tolls).  That it is nearly straight as an arrow adds something - it's almost like driving on a railroad line. 

If you go to a Turnpike Authority board meeting, please share your experience here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2014, 04:58:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2014, 05:17:46 PM
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.

Knowing this is just fantasy...

The only state law that applies to times of service is hard liquor can only be sold between 9am and 10pm.  Otherwise, home rule applies - individual towns set limits on when liquor stores can be open.  A liquor store could remain open 24 hours a day if the town permitted it, but only beer and wine could be sold between 10pm and 9am. 

The 2am cutoff you're thinking of is for bars, and even that varies as well.  Some towns may impose a midnight cutoff, others 3am, and others permit bars to be open 24 hours (Atlantic City, for example). 

As far as chains go - there are some "chains" that have numerous locations throughout the state, such as Canals and Joe Canals.  They get around that rule a bit by having different owners own the actual liquor store, and they buy into the Canals franchise.  Since the Walmarts and Walgreens of the state are owned on a corporate level or by shareholders, they are limited to 2 licenses.  Using Wegmans as an example:  Wegmans near Princeton owns the license, and actually permits liquor to be sold anywhere in the store.  Wegmans of Cherry Hill sells liquor, but it's owned by a private corporation who has contracted with Wegmans to have their name on the store.  In this case, the Wegmans Liquors is actually a separate store from Wegman, the grocery store.

Such is the life of selling liquor in NJ.

Anyway, back more on topic:  I think you are going to see more in the way of cell towers and advertising come from this study, more than actual stores.  The toll roads have already expanded their eating options at the service plazas, and Sunoco has added convenience stores in the recent past.  I'm not sure what some of these people - most of whom have no experience in a retail sector - expect people to buy while traveling thru the state on a toll road.  Are we going to see surf boards and beach umbrellas sold at a GSP service area?  Are we going to see dresses and suits sold on the Jersey Turnpike?  Doubtful.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 30, 2014, 06:09:58 PM
That would be NJSA Title 59.

OT, but why did NJ get to keep their sovereign immunity when SCOTUS stripped PA'a
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2014, 10:27:56 PM
OT, but why did NJ get to keep their sovereign immunity when SCOTUS stripped PA'a

Don't know, but I can say its a pain in the neck when a government vehicle strikes your parked car and you have to make a claim.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 31, 2014, 12:06:08 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 31, 2014, 10:26:46 AM
Off hand, does anyone know which bank operates the MAC machines at the service areas on the Turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2014, 11:26:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 31, 2014, 12:17:09 PM
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.

From several posts back (I will call Exhibits A & B):
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)

So either the NJTA was previously more generous with the merge areas and the new merge areas are the bare minimums with respect to their standards or the NJTA's standards themselves for such have changed in recent years.

Nonetheless, I've used the NJ Turnpike for nearly 25 years (and have entered and exited at different interchanges/service plazas from time to time) and I've only encountered hitting the brakes while merging since the recent expansion was completed.

Clearly something definitely changed here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 31, 2014, 05:16:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 31, 2014, 06:07:06 PM
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.

I agree regarding volumes.  Nothing better.

Though even on a closed ticket-type toll road like the N.J. Turnpike (where link-level volumes by direction and day of week and time of day may be pretty easy to obtain [but maybe not - there's an off-topic story here]), speeds do tell a story that persons not familiar with the Highway Capacity Manual can understand.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 03, 2015, 12:02:54 AM
So, anyone remember these masterpieces from the NJ Turnpike widening construction?

(From the "NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway go MUTCD!" thread)
(http://exit-only.net/arrow.png)

Mercifully, it's gone, covered up and hopefully never seen again.  Apologies for the poor photo (taken at dawn this morning), but it does allow you to see they replaced the arrow with a new arrow on a greenout plate.  The arrow may be a bit on the small size, but they did a good job fitting in the greenout so it doesn't cover the 'e' in Turnpike.  They even used the traditional turnpike slant arrow, rather than that newfangled MUTCD arrow.  These signs were on the Northbound Turnpike.  Similar treatments were done on the southbound signs as well.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0AC4EF57-E6A2-466F-8320-4E00B0775F9D_1.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0AC4EF57-E6A2-466F-8320-4E00B0775F9D_1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2015, 08:28:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:30:16 PM
The signs for exits 6-8A were installed as part of the Turnpike widening contract.  A pull though at exit 5 would be part of a separate contract that could have been designed at a different time; the fact that it was installed around the same time is likely just a coincidence.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on January 06, 2015, 01:34:02 PM
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.

I had the opportunity to ask the NJTA Traffic Engineer this exact question at a presentation about four years ago.  He said there are two reasons.  1) The "0 to 5" signs--as he called them--were a different contract let shortly before the Turnpike 6 to 9 widening.  They apparently were not designed at the same time with the same direction from the powers that be.  The powers that be at the time directed him to stick with New York.  Then when the widening contracts were being designed, the new powers that be directed him to use New York City north of 5. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on January 06, 2015, 02:31:07 PM
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.

There's a simple solution to that - NY City
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on January 06, 2015, 04:56:56 PM
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.

How come not all of the Thru Traffic Next Exit XX Miles signs are still posted?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 06, 2015, 05:38:36 PM
They had no problem posting "Wilmington" on the southbound signs, so sign width likely wasn't an issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 06, 2015, 08:09:16 PM
As long as it's south if exit 10, New York and New York City are both fine destinations. Exit 10 is a good split of you want to go to NYC (Stay on the Turnpike) or go into interior New York (via 287). 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on January 06, 2015, 10:34:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on January 06, 2015, 10:43:17 PM
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.

Yes. New York is acceptable for "New York City" in that situation because you'll reach the state if you head north from most of New Jersey. "Phila." is not great, but everyone knows what it means, so it isn't an issue. "Wilmington" has no abbreviation, plus the space in "New York" means that "Wilmington" requires approximately the same amount of horizontal space. Spaces on BGSes tend to be the width of 2-3 letters to increase legibility and word distinction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 11:01:09 PM
"Wilmington" has no abbreviation
Wilm: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22wilm%22+delaware&tbm=nws
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2015, 12:54:06 AM
Baltimore would've been the better choice, since that's the direction most of the travelers are going anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 07, 2015, 02:58:47 AM

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.

"Phila" and "Penna" are already legitimized by generations of use. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alex on January 07, 2015, 08:11:21 AM
"Wilmington" has no abbreviation
Wilm: 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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2015, 09:17:28 AM
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.

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.

Now, using Don't Know Yet's link:  http://goo.gl/maps/4fQ0U, you can see that the Standard Drawing for New York wasn't used, so most likely the posted New York sign is 15' wide, which hangs slightly over the shoulder.  An 18' wide sign would hang at least 6' over the shoulder, and would come much closer to the edge of the overhead gantry.

The point I'm making here (yes, there's a point), is that while Wilmington fits on a 15' sign, and New York appears to fit on a 15' sign, New York City would not fit on a 15' sign, and would most likely need an 18' wide sign.  You can actually see how much wider the New York City sign is in this GSV: http://goo.gl/maps/APntM . I couldn't find any standard drawings on any of the NJ Turnpike's websites to verify this, but utilizing the drawings that are available, sign width probably is an issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 07, 2015, 10:16:27 AM
 I see how at Exit 2 the exit guide sign hangs over part of the shoulder.  South of Exit 4 there is a serious space issue, however it could be signed like this on the pull through:
            New York
                City

or simply like Connecticut does: NY City.

For the record " New York" is fine by me as I think  that if you cannot figure out the difference between the two of them (both City and State) then you should not be driving.   Maybe closer to the area, it might make a little more sense, but from a distance and considering the Turnpike heads close to NYC it should not be that hard for anyone to figure out. 

If you really want confusion go to I-29 in Kansas City where the pull through signs for "Kansas City" stay with I-29 S Bound even at I-635 where you would exit I-29 to go to Kansas City, KS.  Instead I-635 has no control point (unless you consider the State of Kansas one) and if you just flew in from KCI you might get confused at that point and stay on I-29 to reach even Kansas City, KS when I-635 is the route into the Kansas city with the same name.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on January 07, 2015, 10:26:55 AM
"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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on January 07, 2015, 12:45:54 PM
Spaces on BGSes tend to be the width of 2-3 letters to increase legibility and word distinction.

Never heard of that "standard" before.  Typically, horizontal spaces between words on BGSes match the height of the upper-case letters in the legend.  For example, if "New York" is 16/12 legend, the space between "New" and "York" would be 16 inches.  Left and right horizontal margins are at least the height of the lower-case letters in the legend (in this case 12 inches) but are often rounded up to the nearest six-inch increment for easier panel fabrication.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2015, 01:00:09 PM
"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.

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.  On occasion, a NJ VMS will alert to a traffic issue on one of Philly's highways; the messages don't tend to default to any one common route name (ie: one day it may say "Accident on PA I-76 West"; another day it may say "Accident on Schuylkill Exp" (because of the familiarity of the term within the region); although these messages are usually only when the highway will be closed for an extended period of time.  But I can't specifically recall if they've ever said "Philly".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2015, 07:03:40 PM

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 07, 2015, 07:18:30 PM
The NJTPA doesn't even follow their own drawings. The new southbound GSP pull through at Exit 129 says "Shore Points" instead of Toms River. At least the Exit 129 signs list both Camden and New York City as control cities for the NJTP.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 08:46:23 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on January 07, 2015, 08:52:56 PM
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)

Yes! The Phillie Phanatic would be perfect, because everyone knows what he stands for
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 09:16:18 PM
Looks like Oscar Voss.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on January 08, 2015, 10:25:00 AM
"Wilmington" has no abbreviation
Wilm: 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)

That brings up the whole debate as to whether 495 and 95 should simply swap in the Wilmington area but that's for another board in this forum.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on January 15, 2015, 09:06:28 PM
Thought these videos of the Turnpike in the 1980s were interesting:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 19, 2015, 09:19:41 PM
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=680360295419015

IF this video works...it's from the Turnpike in East Brunswick, very next Exit 9 from US 1/NJ 18. It's some scary s--- to watch! (Related to the ice on Sunday morning)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on January 19, 2015, 11:28:06 PM
Yep, there was plenty of ice around Somerset County, and two people in my family fell on it trying to walk down our flight of stairs because our apartment complex couldn't salt. The street behind me was a sheet of ice on Sunday morning.

Crazy shit, I've never actually witnessed an accident first-hand; not that I would want to.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 20, 2015, 04:53:04 PM
Not sure if this was covered else where but the video showing the tandem trailor jumping over the metal guard rail by Exit 9, is an amazing vid.




A couple thoughts:

1) The flimsy metal guardrail did nothing to stop him.  He went right over it. 

2) Armchair commenters on various news sites where this is posted finds fault with the truck driver saying he's going too fast. 

I was out that day and road conditions changed quickly.  Cloudy skies one minute, drizzle the next, freezing drizzle and glaze the next. What may seem safe at one minute can be treacherous at the next minute.  This could've happened to anybody.  Looks like everyone was caught off guard.  If he went 20mph that would also be a road hazard. Not saying you should zoom by at 65mpg on this day, but travel speeds are higher on the limited access roads than the side streets in any condition.

3) His driving skills were top notch, he avoided a lot of people. 

4) I feel for him as what started as a regular route changed his life in seconds.  Will he lose his job? Insurance premiums?  Loss of money for the ruined or delayed load?

PS (on a side note) "experts" also complained from their computer about this CT DOT truck saying he should've done this and this. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 20, 2015, 05:57:17 PM
The truck looks like it was empty, chances are if it had a load it would have tipped over. Looks like it was a classic case of "bridge freezes before roadway". That accident was just south of the bridge over the Raritan River. The roadway was likely fine, but the bridge froze over. Things could have been much worse, there could have been a truck in the river.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2015, 06:22:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 20, 2015, 06:25:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 20, 2015, 10:50:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2015, 11:57:56 PM
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.


In this same storm, a guy was killed on the Schuykill due to this very thing.

Amazing how people are completely clueless when it comes to things like this. Otherwise competent people can't understand that if they just slid out of control on an icy bridge, others are most likely going to do the same.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 21, 2015, 12:45:30 AM
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*
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 21, 2015, 02:34:29 PM
Here is "part 2" showing the damaged cars:
Note, the driver should have never left his car. I'm surprised the trooper at the scene didn't tell him to leave immediately.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 21, 2015, 03:12:12 PM
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.
WILMA!!!!!! :bigass:
(http://www.wikihow.com/images/8/85/WilmaFlintstone-Color-Step-9.jpg)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 21, 2015, 05:22:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on January 21, 2015, 06:27:58 PM
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?

For at least 10-15 years, New York has been using constant-slope barriers, which are approximately the same size but with a slightly-different shape. As a passenger, I didn't like that they blocked the view, but as a driver, I think they're great. The height blocks the headlights of oncoming vehicles, making night driving much safer. Driving on the QEW at night is great with the tall wall in the middle. Don't know about crash performance, but I'd infer that the additional 10 inches of reinforcement would make a difference.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 21, 2015, 08:33:46 PM
Just to clarify, the correct term is guiderail as explained to me long ago by a New York State DOT engineer, though they are popularly known as guardrails.

I too was concerned by how easily that double-trailer truck jumped right over the rails. I guess they are designed for cars.........  Also we had an incident here on the Long Island Expwy. a few years ago where a semi-truck did breach the Jersey Wall. I was surprised that could happen though this was the shorter version than that used on the NJT.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 21, 2015, 09:31:20 PM
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?

The NJ Turnpike barrier is about 42" high, so it's probably roughly the same.

However, height is just one factor. Width and strength are equally as important. You could have a 6' high barrier, but make it paper thin and a tricycle could break thru it. The PA Turnpike has high but thin barriers, for example. The NJ Tpk barrier was designed to withstand a truck hitting it at a 15 degree angle at 55 mph.

The truck that ran over the guide rail did so at a sharp angle at a fast speed. But, it didn't cause the truck to overturn, which is important. And since the two roadways travel the same direction, something getting thru that barrier is more likely to cause a sideswipe, not a head-on collision.

The cost of concrete jersey barriers between two roadways traveling the same direction wouldn't really justify the small additional benefit they would deliver over the existing guide rail.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 21, 2015, 09:37:51 PM
I'm not going back through 34 posts, so forgive me for the following question...

Fines in NJ double in 65 mph zones (for speeding and other violations).  When conditions dictate a reduced speed limit in (normally) 65 mph zones on the NJTP, are fines still doubled in those zones although the speed limit of the moment in those stretches is <65?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 21, 2015, 10:55:23 PM
The actual law is:

65 mph zones: fines doubled when going 10 mph or over

All other zones: Fines doubled when going 20 mph or over.

Regarding the Turnpike: If the speed limit is reduced, it's due to snow or other inclement weather, and most likely a cop ain't going to stop you for going within 20 mph of that reduced limit. If the limit is reduced due to construction, the fine is automatically doubled anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 21, 2015, 11:10:33 PM
Don't forget safe corridors, fines are doubled no matter the limit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 21, 2015, 11:34:21 PM
I don't believe there are any safe corridors in the NJ Turnpike.

There is one on Rt 73. The sign still says "Starting Feb. 1, 2004" (or whatever date it displays). But it's at least 10 years old now.
Title: MUTCD/Exit 15E Signage!
Post by: SignBridge on February 01, 2015, 08:25:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on February 01, 2015, 08:33:02 PM
"Routes 1-9" is MUTCD compliant?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 01, 2015, 08:40:45 PM
NE2, the sign has the standard route shields. Unfortunately there is no way to show route shields in this text, so I had to improvise. Sorry if I misled anyone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on February 02, 2015, 09:58:10 AM
is it a 1-9 shield or separate shields?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2015, 08:22:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 04, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
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]
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 04, 2015, 06:41:46 PM
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
Still there at 14A and 14B entering the Turnpike. 14A will be gone soon.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 09:43:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 04, 2015, 11:02:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 06, 2015, 02:23:13 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on February 06, 2015, 02:29:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 06, 2015, 05:11:53 PM
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?

oops NJ
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 06, 2015, 06:50:26 PM
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)
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on February 06, 2015, 07:08:48 PM
The new Exit 15E sign is on the same structure as one of the new HCMS.  If so, that may be why it went up as a spot installation -- their installation is coincident with the HCMS.  I have seen similar on the Easterly Alignment NB near Exit 15X.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 06, 2015, 07:48:11 PM
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.......
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 08, 2015, 02:19:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 08, 2015, 06:28:32 PM
Seeing drawing SL-14, I wonder if NJDOT will finally post control cities on Turnpike/GSP entrance ramps located on state highways. Outside of I-195, they all pretty much say "NJ Turnpike" or "G S Parkway" instead of where the road might go.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 08, 2015, 07:49:26 PM
I hope that they do it on I-80 as right now NJDOT forgot that there are missing movements from I-80 EB to the GSP SB.  Maybe this might make them figure it out if they plan on adding control cities and then add GSP south signs at I-280 and NJ 19 SB where they really need to be to avoid the Breezewood in Saddle Brook that exists there now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on February 09, 2015, 12:06:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 09, 2015, 09:15:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on February 09, 2015, 09:58:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 09, 2015, 10:25:39 AM
People looking for Philadelphia usually know that they can just find Camden and cross over to Philadelphia from there anyway ask 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.

Fixed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 09, 2015, 11:38:13 AM
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.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on February 09, 2015, 11:47:43 AM
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.

My ideas for control cities:

All references to "Trenton" in NYC should be changed to Newark.

Southbound NJTP:

Newark until I-280. 
Newark Airport / Trenton until I-78.
Trenton / Philadelphia* until I-195 (Exit 7A)
Philadelphia* / Wilmington until Exit 6
Wilmington / Baltimore until the State Line

Northbound NJTP:

Newark / New York City from the Del Mem Bridge to exit 13
Newark / Manhattan until Exit 13A
Manhattan / Bronx until exit 14
Midtown Manhattan / Bronx until the Turnpike split

Eastern Spur:

Midtown Manhattan / Bronx until the exit for the Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan / Bronx further north all the way to the GWB

Western Spur:

Sports Complex / Bronx unitl exit 16W
Upper Manhattan / Bronx further north all the way to the GWB


* Philadelphia controls should be covered until the 95/Penn turnpike interchange opens.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2015, 04:49:07 PM
I think the exits on the 3 legs of the New Jersey Turnpike should be mileage based. The Newark Extension's exits should be based on the mileage of Interstate 78. The connection to the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Future Interstate 95) based on the mileage from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey Border. And the mainline from it's southern terminus, and where the Turnpike ends, the exit sequence should continue all the way to the George Washington Bridge. Of course, this will never happen, and probably should be regulated to the Fictional Highways board.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 09, 2015, 05:03:48 PM
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.

The Turnpike had a lot of signs that lasted from its inception. The Exit 6 sign SB for the PATP split was original to when the road was built until it was finally taken down during the dualization project.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 09, 2015, 05:05:47 PM
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)
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 09, 2015, 05:08:18 PM
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 a heads up that I drove through here on Saturday the 7th and the New York and North and Trenton and South sign bridge is now gone. Those signs have been replaced with signs using the SL14 template that show both the Turnpike and 95 shields. NB destination is New York, SB is Trenton. As for the sign in the picture, the concrete footings for a new sign bridge are in place, I think they are waiting until they are done with paving for the newly aligned ramps to CR-514 WB before installing the new bridge. When this happens, those button copy signs will be gone as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on February 09, 2015, 07:55:06 PM
Yeah they are reconfiguring exit 10 ramps currently.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2015, 07:56:28 PM
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?
Just semantics, I think. What you said would pretty much match what I said - a signing contract is not major.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 10, 2015, 01:04:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2015, 12:41:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2015, 06:27:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 11, 2015, 01:57:21 PM
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.

NJ.com: Icy, fatal Turnpike crash 'should never have happened,' road's former engineer says (http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/02/icy_fatal_pileup_on_nj_turnpike_should_never_have.html)

Quote
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.

Quote
"Last night's accident was clearly weather-related and never should have happened," said Daniel P. McNamara, the Turnpike's former director of maintenance.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 12, 2015, 12:52:42 PM
new arrow and old arrow.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8567/16399735757_b768a21e3a_c.jpg)[/url]

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5604/15305361449_76faa3fb36_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on February 12, 2015, 01:00:03 PM
Hopefully the Turnpike never gets rid of that arrow. If they have to MUTCD... then at least let them keep that arrow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 12, 2015, 02:17:51 PM
And cameras can do funny things.  You won't notice the different colors of green as you drive under the new arrow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 13, 2015, 04:20:43 PM
Original sign gantry STILL there. 
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 13, 2015, 07:58:33 PM
Original sign gantry STILL there. 
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)
Weren't those signs backlit?  The original Exit 6 BGS' were.  Backlit BGS' don't need to have button-copy lettering.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 14, 2015, 01:33:27 PM
They were (are) backlit and because of the nature of it, it cannot be button copy.

I was always amazed at how Holland Tunnel is on two lines, where its counterpart uses two different places on the same two lines.  Also unlike Exit 14A that had Turnpike NORTH & SOUTH on the overhead there, the trailblazing for the mainline turnpike is on ground shields here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 14, 2015, 03:57:29 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on February 14, 2015, 04:32:24 PM
New arrow = much less sexy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think doofy is referring to the greenout'd classic NJTP arrow as being the "new" arrow (since the other one was only used because of roadway conditions or something to that effect). If that is the case, the new arrow is much more sexy compared to the old one.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2015, 04:34:47 PM
Correct: the top picture is the current arrow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 14, 2015, 05:13:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on February 14, 2015, 11:01:15 PM
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.

It's in the median though at exit 10: http://goo.gl/maps/5U57C
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 21, 2015, 08:33:56 PM
This is for ALPS:

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8644/16420137149_b2bb32384c_z.jpg)

It'll be gone soon as a signing contract in progress is calling for it's removal.


Also I got this....whoops as I-95 shield peeking through.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8613/16419825368_5cfdd21aed_z.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on February 22, 2015, 08:32:39 PM

Also I got this....whoops as I-95 shield peeking through.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8613/16419825368_5cfdd21aed_z.jpg)

Ha I saw that yesterday too. It could've been from the wind we had last week.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on March 14, 2015, 03:32:13 PM
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.

I don't know why they can't put more I-95 shields along the recently widened stretch of the Turnpike. At least, do it going northbound.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2015, 03:39:16 PM
Back in the 80's the NJT always had either I-95 or TO I-95 shields before and after each interchange in the median.  The shields were two sided or basically two shields on the same assembly back to back so the post interchange shield would be on the assembly as the opposing traffic's pre interchange shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 14, 2015, 05:19:13 PM
NJTA has created a websites for the Exit 14A reconstruction: http://www.njta14a.com
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2015, 06:42:42 PM
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. 

I heard on the radio that the X14A project is being done now b/c of funds thanks to recent toll increases. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 14, 2015, 07:59:12 PM
Widening the western spur from Exit 16W on north is a long term plan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 14, 2015, 08:04:13 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 14, 2015, 08:23:14 PM

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 posted some pictures of these a few years ago.

Link: 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2015, 08:57:15 PM
That is the million dollar question.  Why was the later built Western Spur only two lanes north of NJ 3?  If the older alignment was 3 lanes each way previously, then they should have built the western alignment as 6 lanes all the way considering that most of the through traffic was intended on using it.

Now you have an Eastern Spur with six lanes, not even needed, and a Western Spur with only 4 lanes that is way under capacity!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 12:24:12 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 12:26:46 AM

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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 04:49:33 PM
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.

The ones that you Alps have stated and the other one Pete has found were both covered in the Ledger. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 07:31:35 PM
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.

The ones that you Alps have stated and the other one Pete has found were both covered in the Ledger. 
Never seen 17 connecting to 280. Source? I'd be very curious about that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on March 15, 2015, 10:27:56 PM
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):
(http://i.imgur.com/9nMUxx9.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 11:43:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 11:58:59 PM
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.

The ones that you Alps have stated and the other one Pete has found were both covered in the Ledger. 
Never seen 17 connecting to 280. Source? I'd be very curious about that.
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.

Edit:  I in the meantime found some support of the idea from Steve Anderson here: http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-17/  He not only has information to it going to I-280, but also your information about the proposed 3-3-3-3 widening with a new 15AW.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on March 16, 2015, 07:56:37 AM
Widening the western spur from Exit 16W on north is a long term plan.

Any timetable?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 20, 2015, 02:29:47 PM
While this story is specific to the turnpike, it's part of a larger crackdown in several states.

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-featured

Quote
...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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 20, 2015, 03:41:49 PM
While this story is specific to the turnpike, it's part of a larger crackdown in several states.

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-featured

Quote
...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...

Great American Money-Grab, anyone?   :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 20, 2015, 05:21:30 PM
There was an announced DUI checkpoint on the Turnpike a few weeks ago.  They caught two people.  I'm not sure why they don't just set up right outside the Lincoln Tunnel at 4 a.m.  They'd certainly bag more than two.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2015, 01:10:31 PM
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=)
Quote
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.


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

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 27, 2015, 09:02:47 PM
Is this all the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has to worry about? This is what they pay their lawyers for? Unreal.........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kkt on March 27, 2015, 09:08:34 PM
Is this all the New Jersey Turnpike Authority has to worry about? This is what they pay their lawyers for? Unreal.........

Well, it's not like it was their own money they were wasting.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 28, 2015, 11:56:07 AM
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=)
Quote
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.


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 wonder if something similar was behind the demise of this design that I liked but didn't seem to last long on Shop-Rite's New Jersey t-shirts rack:

(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMTk1/z/8c8AAOSwPYZU4Kyj/$_35.JPG)

(Blurred text reads "Born to run, second to none.")
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on March 29, 2015, 12:15:51 AM
The Greenout covering the I-95 shields at exit 6 going north have come off, not all of it but you can see SOUTH 95 with the H kind of cut off, i was unable to get a decent photo, but i will try next time i go by it.
Title: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: PHLBOS on May 01, 2015, 02:17:30 PM
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.

As far as not listing Philadelphia on those signs; something tells me that even if the original I-95 (the Somerset Freeway in NJ) had been built, Maryland would've probably still use New York as a northbound destination for the simple reason being that most through-traffic to New York will still use I-295 and the NJ Turnpike (and bypass Philly) to get there.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 06, 2015, 09:49:18 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2015, 09:52:02 AM
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).

It generally takes a standard house 60 - 90 days to be built.  I'd bet more along the lines of a year before this building is completed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 06, 2015, 10:33:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: PHLBOS on May 06, 2015, 01:31:06 PM
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
Agree with you 100%.

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).

But such is another topic for another thread.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr_Northside on May 06, 2015, 02:00:21 PM
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.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around.  They've all been new, except for the EB Midway plaza, which was a rehab.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on May 06, 2015, 04:53:49 PM
Yes,  except for Midway, which has historic designation, they were all complete tear-downs and rebuilds from scratch, including the two on the Northeast Extension.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2015, 06:40:24 PM
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.

Had the Somerset Freeway been built (even as part of the N.J. Turnpike), it would have been shorter, of course.  But widening the N.J. Turnpike ended up being less environmental impact than an entirely new freeway-class road, and it is reasonably straight and flat (I was on it this past weekend, and the 85% speed from Exit 7A to Exit 6 was better than 75 MPH).

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. 
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: PHLBOS on May 07, 2015, 01:40:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2015, 01:54:23 PM
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.

Of course, the New Jersey Turnpike's bonds were paid-off, but new ones were issued to fund expansion, and, in recent years, reconstruction of the existing Turnpike infrastructure (such as the I-78 Hudson County spur, which is undergoing a large reconstruction project right now).
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 07, 2015, 02:05:23 PM
The huge unknown is what would've occurred if the Somerset Freeway was built.  It's extremely likely the Turnpike wouldn't be the main strip thru the state it is now.  But it would have also affected I-95 in PA - that probably would be wider now as well to accommodate the traffic, or if not, it would be more congested than it currently is.

Undoubtedly, the turnpike wouldn't be as wide between Exits 6 - 10.  Many of the developments - both commercial and residential, probably wouldn't exist in that stretch.  And that has an effect down the line...would there be less development south of Exit 6, since there wouldn't be as many jobs in that area?  Would the area along the proposed Somerset Freeway be more congested because of the additional growth a highway would have brought?

The variables are almost endless, really.

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.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2015, 04:41:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 07, 2015, 05:34:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: briantroutman on May 07, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
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.

I can’t speak for the New Jersey Turnpike, but in the case of Pennsylvania, such was widely reported in press coverage before and at the time of the road’s opening.

UPI Article: “New Pennsylvania Road Uses an Old Rail Route (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=H4dSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GCIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4872%2C3686568)”  - 2 July 1939
Quote
After the bonds are liquidated the express route will become part of the state's free highway system

The need to expand the two-lane tunnels and rehabilitate road surfaces–after the original engineering and construction standards proved inadequate for the unexpected and overwhelming postwar traffic volumes–served as an easy rationale for not retiring the tolls, however.
Title: Re: Re: Miami no longer present on sign bridge at I-85/95 split?
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 07, 2015, 07:59:14 PM
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.

Then there's the matter of paying to maintain the Turnpike (and the Garden State Parkway) if it were to be handed-over to the NJDOT. 

How much would New Jersey have to raise its motor fuel tax rates if those taxes had to pay for the maintenance of both toll roads?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2015, 10:40:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 08, 2015, 12:54:04 PM
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.

If I'm not mistaken, that's something that started in the Corzine years as a trick to maintain the TTF without adding a gas tax. A number of projects are guaranteed by future NJTA toll revenue as their funding source. The problem is that there's a fine line here. NJTA needs a certain amount of money to maintain their roads and do capital improvements. You can only count on so much toll money every year. Too many bond issues and you end up where the TTF is today, drowning from too many bond issues.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2015, 09:41:06 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 10, 2015, 10:11:07 AM
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)

I don't smoke, and never have!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Jim on May 10, 2015, 04:44:21 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2015, 04:49:15 PM
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.

I am not excusing myself for what I did, but just answering why others may do it to as smoking does control you!  You do things out of the ordinary without even thinking about it.  Until you quit you do not realize how bad your habit really was until you view it from the other angle.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 10, 2015, 04:51:25 PM
I'm always surprised that there aren't fires on the roadway from a lit cigarette coming into contact with the many flammable fluids that would be present on a road. I've never seen or heard of it happening and that's actually quite shocking.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2015, 04:57:02 PM
I am surprised that gas stations have not blown up yet as many people love to have that cigarette lit when pumping gas.  True, it has nothing to do with New Jersey as Jersey has full serve, but it happens in the other 48 who have self serve legal and it is surprising in the same manner.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: slorydn1 on May 11, 2015, 07:45:04 AM
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!



I never understood why people throw lit cigarettes out of a window either, and I have smoked pretty much all of my life.

I use one of those capped smokeless ashtrays in my car and dump it when I get gas. I never really used the ashtray that the cars were equipped with when they had them because it really made the inside of the car look nasty, and I am guessing maybe that's why others don't use them, but to just throw it out the window, that's nuts.

Littering is littering, whether its a used cigarette or a Mcdonalds wrapper-and most states have fines for littering that far exceed the fine for a speeding ticket.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 11, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
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.

In contrast, older cars (up through the early 80s) had metal ashtrays (typically one on the front, the other on the back of the front seat) and more people drove around with their windows (not every car had A/C) open to keep the smell down to a minimum.   

Tid bit: it used to be considered a luxury feature to have individual cigarette lighters and ashtrays on the armrests of every passenger door.  Both my brother's '74 Mercury Marquis and my '85 Mercury Grand Marquis were equipped with such.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2015, 10:09:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 11, 2015, 10:20:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on May 11, 2015, 10:23:04 AM
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.

I despise people that litter, mainly because it just makes the area around you look shittier until someone picks up your mess.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 12, 2015, 12:09:08 PM
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.

Virginia used to have signs on its primary highways that read DRIVERS SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR LITTER THROWN FROM VEHICLE, and that included cigaret and cigar butts.

I think that should be a moving traffic offense everywhere (and maybe it is, but I do not think it is enforced very much).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 12, 2015, 08:25:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr_Northside on May 18, 2015, 03:32:05 PM
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.

Quote
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on May 18, 2015, 03:50:18 PM
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.

Quote
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
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:
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 18, 2015, 04:16:16 PM
Such reminds me a bit of this particular Dustin comic strip (http://dustincomics.com/comics/february-22-2015/) from last February.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 18, 2015, 04:35:37 PM
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.

Quote
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
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:
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?

Regardless of which option you take, you are probably within the range of error that even if you were in the right most truck lane, it would think you are in the proper lane. 

One of the problems of GPSs and online maps is at toll plazas with express electronic toll lanes & traditional lanes.  Generally they are telling the driver to take one or the other, rather than providing the options based on how you choose to pay.   And in the case cited above, the GPS should be programmed to notify the driver of the options ahead as well.  If the Cars Only lanes were closed and the GPS insisted on the Cars Only lanes, it would add confusion to the driver.

In my days of working Interchange 1, there would be motorists coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge.  If the Turnpike was closed due to an accident or something, cars would literally drive around the cop car and flares to enter the Turnpike anyway, because their directions told them to do so.  If the motorist did that, the cop wouldn't leave his post to chase him down; the motorist would eventually just have to suffer in the ensuing stopped traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 18, 2015, 09:54:25 PM
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. LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 19, 2015, 08:12:57 AM
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. LOL
Preach it Brother!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 19, 2015, 08:29:22 AM

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.

It became a big social no-no in the 1970s, when it was drilled into our heads on the level that anti-smoking messages would be later, and with similar effect.

This was periodically demonstrated by an ex-girlfriend of mine who would just pointedly throw her empty soda cup or whatever to the ground when done.  People's jaws would drop, aghast, like she'd lit a cigarette in the doctor's office, and then she'd pick it up as she'd always planned to, pleased with herself. 

I was always impressed by the level of panic this would induce in the adjacent members of society.  "You can't... You're BREAKING THE RULES!" their looks said.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on May 19, 2015, 09:58:07 PM
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.

Quote
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
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:
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 20, 2015, 06:41:32 AM
From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.

Quote
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
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:
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).

I have a Garmin DEZL in my truck, it is aware of all truck restrictions and will not put me on a restricted route, and will even audibly warn me if i try to go on one. Sometimes it gets dumb, like thinking the Poplar St Bridge in St Louis is restricted going into IL. it isn't, but it says i am too heavy for a 40 ton weight limit, even though my truck is 40 tons.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2015, 11:59:09 AM
http://www.govtech.com/fs/New-Jersey-Turns-to-Internet-of-Things-to-Improve-Roadway-Safety.html

Quote
There are 28 interchanges on the turnpike and 359 entrances and exits on the parkway.

Um...I think they may have over-exaggerated the number of entrances and exits on the Parkway! 

Quote
The New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway...in some sections accommodate 14 lanes of traffic."

They under-exaggerated this one!  Over the Raritan River, the highway is 15 lanes wide.  It's also, I believe, the widest overpass in the US.

Quote
(from Rich Teitelbaum, IBM client executive for New Jersey government.):...It’s impossible to reduce collisions and traffic jams to zero...

This is refreshing to hear.  How often do we hear that the goal is 0 incidents or accidents?  It's impossible to reach.  All you can do is manage the issues that do come up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 22, 2015, 03:26:19 PM
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/bad_drivers_beware_new_ghosts_patrolling_the_nj_tu.html  Beware of new marked patrol cars on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 22, 2015, 03:48:45 PM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:

Quote from: NJ.com Article
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.

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).

Vehicle type in question:

Front angle
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/2011_Chevrolet_Caprice_PPV_--_12-06-2010_front.jpg/800px-2011_Chevrolet_Caprice_PPV_--_12-06-2010_front.jpg)

Rear angle
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/2011_Chevrolet_Caprice_PPV_--_12-06-2010_rear.jpg/800px-2011_Chevrolet_Caprice_PPV_--_12-06-2010_rear.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 22, 2015, 07:01:54 PM
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.

Maryland State Police and Maryland Transportation Authority Police have been running the Holden sedans for at least two years now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on May 22, 2015, 07:21:32 PM
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. LOL
Preach it Brother!  :thumbsup:
Unfortunately I can't get my hands on paper road maps  :-o  :no: But I still love them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 22, 2015, 09:21:03 PM
I recently bought some conventional road maps at Barnes & Noble. I'm stocking up for a time when they will no longer be available anywhere........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 22, 2015, 11:12:09 PM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:

Quote from: NJ.com Article
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.

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).
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.....
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: signalman on May 23, 2015, 06:51:39 AM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:

Quote from: NJ.com Article
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.

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).
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.....
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 23, 2015, 08:01:52 AM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:

Quote from: NJ.com Article
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.

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).
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.....
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. 

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 SS is nearly 46,000 dollars. Base Price. The SS has a slightly altered nose, a larger lower grill section compared to the PPV.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2015, 08:04:07 PM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:

Quote from: NJ.com Article
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.

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).
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.....
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. 

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.

The Chevy Caprice PPV is available with a "hot" 6.0L V-8, but also with a less-hot 3.6L V-6.  That V-6 may be the preferred car for use by municipal police officers and detectives.


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.

This might be a good car to look for used after a year or two on the road. Interestingly, the Chevy SS only comes with that big (and thirsty) V-8 engine (no V-6 available).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on May 24, 2015, 12:48:25 AM
Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window.

Kinda like those who chew gum who spit it out anywhere on the ground when they've grown tired of it -- If you've had all (or part) of the item in your mouth, then it's not litter in their minds.

What I (as a non-smoker) cannot stand is if you are following someone at slower speeds who smokes.  Even if your windows are up, if you are close enough to someone who is blowing smoke or holding their cigarette outside their window, you can sometimes pick up their 2nd hand aroma in your own car.

I wish there was a device in your car that could store your "methane emissions" and release them as needed at people behind you when necessary (tailgaters, people who smoke that you were stuck behind for a while, people behind you with their high-beams on, etc...).  Knowing my emissions, it could solve a lot of on-road problems!!!

 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on May 24, 2015, 01:28:06 AM
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!
It's been about twenty years (he quit in 1995) since my dad smoked. Must've thrown all of those cigarettes onto the turnpike  :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on May 24, 2015, 07:36:25 AM
I hit the climate control's "recirculate" button if I see a smoker ahead, or a vehicle emitting smoke (like a car burning oil or a bus belching black exhaust).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on May 25, 2015, 10:06:44 AM
The Turnpike has been aiming at famous people of late.  Mathematician John Nash, portrayed in "A Beatiful Mind," was killed along with his wife in a taxi crash on the Turnpike in Monroe Township:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/a-beautiful-mind-that-left-a-mark-on-math-and-the-world-1.1341871
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 26, 2015, 12:30:07 PM
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.
Yes and no. 

Yes, Chevy is now offering a version of the Holden Commodore to the retail market as the Chevorlet SS; which basically looks like a Pontiac G8 with a Chevy nose & badging (see photos below).

No, in that the Caprice PPV that NJSP and other law enforcement agencies (Salem, MA being one of them) are using is not the same exact car as the Chevy SS.  The Caprice PPV is based off the longer Holden Statesman(?) sedan and is still only sold new to fleet markets (basically law enforcement agencies).

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. 

Previously, the Commodore-based Pontiac G8 sedan was the vehicle intended for such a contractual obligation.  But when a perfect storm of events came about circa 2007-2008 (gas prices soaring, higher CAFE standards becoming a reality, the economy tanking along with GM killing off several brands and models (including Pontiac and its G8 sedan)); GM found itself in breach of its contract with Holden.  Given the fact that GM accepted government money for its bailout and the fact that higher CAFE standards, rising gas prices plus a crappy economy at the time made selling a new V8 sedan to the retail market much more difficult; GM decided to offer the longer, Statesman-based sedan as a fleet/police-only vehicle (the Caprice PPV) as a means of meeting their contractual obligation with Holden without taking too severe a hit in their overall fleet fuel economy averages for cars.  Since cop vehicles are mass-produced; they are subject to the same fuel economy standards as their retail counterparts.

While that theory/approach may have looked good on paper; such a limited availability (most vehicles that become fleet only towards the end of their production life and generally had a longer previous life in the retail market) plus the fact that the vehicles were made in Australia (production & shipping delays) caused sales of the Carpice PPV to fall well short of its anticipated goals/figures.  As a result, GM realized that it needed to sell a Holden-based vehicle to a wider market; which is where the shorter, Commodore-based SS sedan recently came into existence.  Note: the below photos show that the SS is not the Caprice PPV.

Front view of 2014 model:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/2014_Chevrolet_SS_front.png/800px-2014_Chevrolet_SS_front.png)

Rear view:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/2014_Chevrolet_SS_rear.png/800px-2014_Chevrolet_SS_rear.png)

In a effort to prevent retail sales of the SS sedan from completely crucifying GM's car fleet fuel economy averages (but meeting contractual sales goals/figures); Chevy is only offering it as a loaded, top-end version (which is why it's only offering the V8 engine).  Want a V6 sedan?  Chevy will direct one towards their own new FWD Impala.

Of course with Holden liquidating next year ceasing all vehicle production after 2017; the Caprice PPV and SS sedans along with GM's contract w/Holden will no longer exist once Holden production goes bye-bye.

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.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled New Jersey Turnpike thread; (hopefully) now already in progress.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2015, 12:53:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 26, 2015, 02:38:57 PM
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; 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.

Anyway, my primary reason for earlier commenting on the Caprice PPV's somewhat known limited availability stems from the fact that of all vehicles NJSP decided to chose and camouflage as conventional-looking retail vehicles while patrolling the Turnpike; the Caprice PPV is not the best choice for such for the reason(s) stated.  While there are retail Crown Vics, Explorers, Chargers, Impalas & Tahoes out there en masse (early on, people mistook my '97 Crown Vic as a cop car even though it clearly wasn't based on the packaging); there aren't any retail Holden-based Caprices out there (again, the SS is not the same exact model) to fool the (more savvy) motorist.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 26, 2015, 05:06:20 PM
I know someone who waited months to get a muffler for a G8.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on May 27, 2015, 03:20:52 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2015, 04:25:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 27, 2015, 05:18:39 PM
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) to liquidate cease vehicle production.  The Caprice PPV's and SS' fates are completely at the mercy of Holden. 

What GM (not necessarily its fleet division, mind you) can be blamed for in the whole Holden debacle was not offering the Statesman-based Caprice to both retail and fleet markets from the get-go and/or assembling/building it closer to home for its intended markets.  Many, likely, knew the issues/problems behind the offering of a remotely-built model to an exclusively fleet market from Day One.

Nonetheless, whoever awards the bids for NJSP patrol vehicles will likely (should IMHO) take Holden/Caprice PPV's future into account in future bidding cycles.  Will NJSP stay w/GM and opt for the Tahoe PPV next time around or instead go with the Dodge Charger, Ford's Police Interceptor (Taurus) or Utility Interceptor (Explorer)?  Stay tuned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: YankeesFan on May 27, 2015, 06:58:13 PM
why are they discontinuing the Caprice PPV? i see alot more NJSP Tahoes...Ford needs to bring back the CVPI
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on May 27, 2015, 07:58:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on May 27, 2015, 08:04:49 PM
GM in the U.S. can't control the decisions made by an Australian Auto Company (Holden) to liquidate.

I thought they were both divisions of GM corporate?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on May 28, 2015, 05:52:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
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.

From Holden's website (http://www.holden.com.au/corporate/inside-holden)
Bold emphasis added in below-quote:
Quote
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?
Quote from: Holden Website
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.

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.
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.

All NJSP and other agencies have to do to blacklist the Caprice PPV from future bidding is state in their specs that the vehicles chosen for their fleets have to be produced/manufactured in North America.

Here's a pic. of one of those NJSP ghost squad Caprices:

(http://njh.images.worldnow.com/images/7854434_G.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 28, 2015, 09:57:28 AM
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.

But there's a difference between past performance, as in they were supposed to deliver in 180 days and they failed to deliver in that time frame, compared to delivering exactly what was called for in the specs but a manufacturer decided to discontinue the product 2 or 3 years after the bids were announced.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 28, 2015, 10:00:40 AM
Has anyone noticed that on the four lane section the I-95 shields are pasted right ontop of Older smaller ones?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 28, 2015, 10:11:41 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 14, 2015, 08:36:20 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 28, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
The structural steel started going up on the new building at the Grover Cleveland Service Area. I'll bet construction will move quickly now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 28, 2015, 08:03:50 PM
Well it's about time. it's only been two and a half years........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 03, 2015, 04:45:36 PM
I haven't been on the Tpke in a few months, any older button copy signs come down over the past two or three months?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 07, 2015, 12:23:42 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2015, 06:25:50 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
At least the Turnpike Authority uses its entire revenue on highway projects and reinvests in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation network.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 07, 2015, 08:45:12 PM
Yes, we definitely get our moneys-worth on the NJ Turnpike. Not so with the Port Authority.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2015, 12:27:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 08, 2015, 03:43:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2015, 03:49:47 PM
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.

Where you noticeably see it is on routine maintenance, such as repaving the roadway.  The asphalt is a bit more rutted and cracked in some areas.  In the past, they would never have such long intervals between paving projects.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 08, 2015, 06:37:44 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2015, 01:06:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:34:58 PM
Is the new signage at 16W have the pull through signs still "NEXT EXIT X MILES" or does it use the I-95 and Turnpike (shield) NORTH and the George Washington Bridge on it?

As far as the brown, I guess the NJTA is considering all non city locations to be like many consider historic places to be like.  Even Six Flags has always been brown and so is the State Aquarium using brown backround signs.  I simply think for myself that it makes the sports plex to stand out even more, so whatever the reason is, its not a bad thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2015, 03:07:25 PM
For now it just has the rejiggered "Next Exit X miles" that substitutes a keep left message sign with a yellow sign above it saying "Toll Plaza X miles" for the 18W plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on July 27, 2015, 11:00:15 PM
Ok. LISTEN AND LISTEN TO ME GOOD !!!!!

For the following Exits from the N.J. Turnpike, This is what these signs SHOULD READ: AND DON'T SAY NOTHING, PERIOD !!!

N.J. Turnpike / 95 NORTHBOUND:

EXIT 4 : N.J. 73 / I-295: Mount Laurel-Cherry Hill
EXIT 4 for Tacony-Palmyra Bridge / Betsy Ross Bridge / Ben Franklin Bridge / Philadelphia/ Camden

EXIT 9: N.J. 18 / U.S. 1 : New Brunswick-East Brunswick-Rutgers University
EXIT 10: I-287 / N.J. 440 Perth Amboy-Metuchen-Edison
EXIT 10 for Outerbridge Crossing-Staten Island
EXIT 11: Garden State Parkway-Woodbridge-The Amboys-Clifton

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 !!!!

EXIT 16W : N.J. 3, N.J. 17, N.J. 120 Secaucus-Rutherford-Sports Complex-Lincoln Tunnel
EXIT 16W for Lincoln Tunnel-Clifton
EXIT 16E & 17 N.J. 3, N.J. 495, U.S. 1-9: Lincoln Tunnel-Secaucus-Clifton-New York (16E Secaucus-Clifton) (17 Lincoln Tunnel)

GOT IT ??!!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on July 27, 2015, 11:11:10 PM
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 !!!!

I-295 doesn't go into Trenton, yet Trenton is still signed on it. Why you ask? Because almost every exit north of exit 57 (if not every exit) will lead into Trenton one way or another. A lot of people use I-295 to get into Trenton anyways, so the same reasoning can most likely apply to Exit 155 on the Parkway for Paterson.

Also, your post is overly obnoxious with the inherent screaming as demonstrated by your constant USE OF ALL CAPS.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on July 27, 2015, 11:32:45 PM
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 !!!!

What map do you read? I know the Parkway doesn't go into Ridgewood. Maybe if you exit at 163 (Route 17) or 165 (Ridgewood Ave) you can go to Ridgewood that way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 27, 2015, 11:59:29 PM
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.

There were a couple non-reflective signs where the western spur meets the eastern spur. Are they still there?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 28, 2015, 12:08:41 AM
overcapitalized and overemoted garbage
you sound like Christie on amphetamines. stop giving my state a bad name and take a few Quaaludes


Quote
I'm from New Jersey !!!!
You live in Pennsylvania. Stay there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2015, 05:57:07 AM
I can't wait to see what he says for the Southbound Exits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on July 28, 2015, 08:25:37 AM

Quote
I'm from New Jersey !!!!
You live in Pennsylvania. Stay there.
[/quote]

Worse yet, he lives in WESTERN Pennsylvania, which means he seldom visits New Jersey anyway. And yes, please stop giving our wonderful state a worse rap than it already has thanks to the douchebags on Jersey Shore.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on July 28, 2015, 08:38:28 AM
overcapitalized and overemoted garbage
you sound like Christie on amphetamines. stop giving my state a bad name and take a few Quaaludes
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDeiMD9a7w) is what came to mind.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 28, 2015, 08:50:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 28, 2015, 09:03:37 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2015, 09:07:07 AM
NJ in general just has never been all that big in wanting to plaster their limited access highways with interstate designations.  If they haven't done so already, there's no reason to suddenly start now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 28, 2015, 10:02:50 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on July 28, 2015, 10:06:51 AM
overcapitalized and overemoted garbage
you sound like Christie on amphetamines. stop giving my state a bad name and take a few Quaaludes
this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDeiMD9a7w) is what came to mind.

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.

I doubt it will ever be signed, but the western spur is internally known as 95W already.

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095__-.pdf
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 28, 2015, 11:22:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2015, 11:46:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 28, 2015, 01:44:03 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on July 28, 2015, 03:04:13 PM
If anything I'd sign exit 2 (US 322) for Atlantic City if you really want an Atlantic City exit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2015, 03:11:21 PM
If anything I'd sign exit 2 (US 322) for Atlantic City if you really want an Atlantic City exit.

Exit 1 (Northbound) & Exit 3 are already signed for Atlantic City.  (Technically, Exit 3 is signed Atlantic City Exp)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on July 28, 2015, 03:34:27 PM
Exit 1 makes more sense. US 40 is a quicker route than US 322.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 29, 2015, 11:30:44 AM
As far as control cities go, the NJT did use some out of the way places at the old Exit 4 signage.  "Philadelphia" was used first on the original exit guides until it recently got replaced by "Mt. Laurel" for the latest updates.

As we all know Philly is not directly on the NJT, so it counts as a far away city for signing purposes. 

As far as the other roads not having the same signing criteria, if you are referring to I-295 which uses "Berlin" and "Tacony Bridge" for NJ 73 you have to remember I-295 has more interchanges than the Turnpike does.  I-295 is used for local traffic while the NJT is used for long distance travelers, so the signing varies more. 

Remember, I-295 connects directly with NJ 70 which leads into Camden where the Turnpike does not.  That is why NJ 73 is signed for "Camden" and I-295 is not!   I-295 also connects with I-76 and NJ 42 and NJT does not, so that is why NJ 168 is signed for "Camden" and "Atlantic City Expwy" for Exit 3 on the Turnpike while the interstate at the same route is signed for "Mt Ephriam" as well as "Runnemede" and "Bellmawr."  If someday the two freeways of the NJT and Route 42 ever get a direct connection you might see Exit 3 change to "Bellmawr" and "Runnemede" which would match I-295 some, but that will never happen anytime soon.

IMHO, I think that "Bellmawr" should be signed for Exit 3 on the Turnpike instead of the ACE ( use supplemental signs for that) along with "Camden" and "Philadelphia" should be signed NB on supplemental signs possibly with the "State Aquarium" in the same assembly.  Anyway that is for another thread, but it is what it is on the NJ Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on July 30, 2015, 05:29:19 PM

I don't know exactly when they did the signage updates (I want to say 2011?), but they took off Westampton and Willingboro for exit 5 guide signs. They kept the more important locations, Burlington and Mount Holly, where Mount Holly is the county seat. Burlington could be the city or township.

As for I-295 locations on signs, I think the destinations are well selected overall on the entire stretch. The only thing I'd change would be some of the pull thru signs to have more consistent locations. Going SB, one says Del Mem. Br., one says Camden, etc., which can be confusing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2015, 07:48:13 PM
 J Route Z- I think I would remove the "Berlin" for US 30 East as it has too damn many control cities on I-295.  Barrington, Collingswood, Haddon Heights, Lawnside, and Berlin are too many for the driver to safely comprehend and against new MUTCD rules.    It should be just Barrington and Collingswood going NB for US 30 WB, and Lawnside for US 30 EB.  Haddon Heights and Berlin should be on supplemental signs.  Going SB it should be Barrington  and Collingswood and no mention of Berlin as a previous exit served (and are signed) it.  Haddon Heights again should be signed supplementally.

On NJ 38 WB from I-295 SB I also think "Camden" should be added to the sign along with Moorestown.  Right now only NJ 70 is signed for Camden (along with I-76), but NJ 38 into US 30 is a clear shot into Camden and more direct than using NJ 70 or heading way south to I-76.

Also there used to be a sign for Ben Franklin Bridge on SB I-295 at the NJ 38 exit along with Philadelphia directing motorists via that crossing to exit there, but the last visit I was there I did not see it.  So I assume NJDOT removed the sign in favor of directing motorists via I-76 and I-676 then?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on August 04, 2015, 12:49:38 PM
Massive truck fire engulfs overpass, closes Turnpike near Exit 13A

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2015, 01:32:20 PM
Looking at the pictures, it certainly seems like that is the overpass that is hanging low, just above the roadway.

What sucks is for those at the businesses on the east side there: https://goo.gl/maps/JNGBr , including NU Star LP, Linden Sewage, CITGO Petroleum and others.  That overpass is the only way to and from those businesses.  Currently, anyone at those businesses are basically trapped there!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 04, 2015, 01:33:37 PM
Massive truck fire engulfs overpass, closes Turnpike near Exit 13A
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.
I 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2015, 10:43:50 PM
Massive truck fire engulfs overpass, closes Turnpike near Exit 13A

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 04, 2015, 11:04:44 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 05, 2015, 12:05:40 AM
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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 05, 2015, 12:38:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 05, 2015, 07:23:06 AM
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.

All lanes are open again at the scene...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/04/nj-turnpike-truck-fire/

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 05, 2015, 08:23:02 PM
Roadrunner, they may assume that if you're southbound on the GSP, that you wouldn't be turning to go north on the Turnpike.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 05, 2015, 10:01:16 PM
The "Beat the Traffic" app showed the closed sector of the Turnpike in green.  There was no indication that it was closed. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 05, 2015, 11:32:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 06, 2015, 09:25:57 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 06, 2015, 10:29:18 AM
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?

It wasn't posted after 4pm on 295.  I think by then the Northbound lanes had reopened though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 07, 2015, 09:03:04 PM
Roadrunner, you do make a valid point; agreed they should have posted it on the VMS both ways.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 09, 2015, 12:42:09 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Firplius on August 09, 2015, 06:45:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on August 09, 2015, 07:02:47 PM

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.

If you're going to go back and respond to a post from 2013, read two posts fewer back, also:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: EricJV95 on August 09, 2015, 08:26:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 09, 2015, 09:10:14 PM
Thanks Roadrunner for clarifying the reconstruction time-line. In that aerial view you can also see the original Exit-11 toll plaza that the new ramps were built around towards the right side. The original Exit-11 was named "Woodbridge-The Amboys" in the earlier era. I remember that from map reading as a kid. And I can't really recall when I-287 wasn't there.

Regarding the separation of lanes, I'm sure the Turnpike Authority studied that issue long and hard before making the decision to go with 2 separate roadways of 3 lanes each instead of a 6-lane Turnpike in each direction. They must have concluded that separation would be safer and more efficient in many ways including closing one roadway or the other for accidents and maintenance. Remember too that funding was virtually a non-issue on this self-supporting highway, so going with the first-class, most expensive option was no problem.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on August 09, 2015, 09:12:58 PM
I'd much rather have 3 lanes where I don't have to worry about trucks compared to 6 lanes where I not only have to worry about trucks, but having to exit and slicing over possibly 5 lanes to the rightmost lane. Now, granted, the Jersey Slide is pioneered for those situations but...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 09, 2015, 10:46:13 PM
Drivng on a carriageway with four or more lanes feels like being on a conveyor belt.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on August 09, 2015, 11:07:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2015, 11:25:06 PM
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.

The GSP has fairly long segments with five or more lanes in each direction.

The GSP's Driscoll Bridge over the Raritan River is 7 lanes southbound (may just be the widest section of road I have ever driven on except at some toll plazas).

At least that part of the GSP does not allow large trucks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 10, 2015, 09:58:56 AM
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)



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=lite
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 10, 2015, 12:20:40 PM
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.

It's part of the MUTCD-compliant signage replacement project taking place on the Turnpike from Exit 9 northward and the Parkway, currently from 127 to 142. They've gotten a lot done on both the Eastern and Western spurs and near the northern mixing bowl in the past month or so.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 10, 2015, 12:24:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 10, 2015, 02:53:08 PM
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)

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=lite

It's probably been reconstructed, but in the same alignment.  Comparing the original bridge (60s) on Historic Aerials to today, it appears to essentially span the same distance, as it looks like the widening mostly used the existing median, with little expansion on the outside.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 10, 2015, 09:05:24 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 10, 2015, 09:15:42 PM
That Lincoln Tunnel/Exit-17 sign is from about 1964 (!) when Interchanges 16 & 17 were reconfigured and rebuilt. Amazing it lasted this long.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 10, 2015, 11:55:53 PM
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)

The bottom two will be gone soon. Part of the Exit 10 construction will include new signage. And the Exit 17 one will be replaced in the MUTCD signage project.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 11, 2015, 01:47:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 11, 2015, 02:10:45 PM
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.

I believe they will be. The signs you're referring to on the "free" section of 95 were installed around 2000. Some of them have already been replaced, so I think all of them will be eventually.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2015, 02:48:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on August 11, 2015, 03:23:48 PM
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.
This was about a month and a half ago.

NJTP, I have nothing to say, as I was sleeping.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TravelingBethelite on August 11, 2015, 03:51:25 PM
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.

NJTP, I have nothing to say, as I was sleeping.

We were visiting some friends in Delaware about ~2-3 weeks ago, and from what I could tell, the signs appeared new. I can't say if they were actually or not.  :poke:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 11, 2015, 04:35:15 PM
These were here about a month ago around Exit 15E.  Anybody know if they're there still?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7378197,-74.124057,3a,75y,202.26h,89.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1somW19-cGyvvFAJWu0puujw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7337755,-74.1246587,3a,75y,210.83h,84.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBpueo7beuljEm4jnzkjt0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7313522,-74.1263976,3a,75y,216.76h,82.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sqlcPbZCaSTuXaEoDdNwHzA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DqlcPbZCaSTuXaEoDdNwHzA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D123.09621%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2015, 12:33:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 12, 2015, 03:37:36 PM
Exit 69 looks to be the only place the NJTA actually uses the GSP shield on an overhead on the NJTP since Exit 11 never had one posted. What is going to happen to the "billboard" style exit signs in the median of the dual roadways? The large exit numbers work well with those, but not so much the exit tabs. I'm guessing quite a few gantries will be going up to replace those with signs over each roadway.

(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey095/i-095_nb_exit_014_04.jpg)
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/images287/i-287_nj_st_42.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 12, 2015, 03:55:50 PM
(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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 12, 2015, 04:34:49 PM
(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?

Less than you'd think. Cops will generally go after any trucks that get into the far left lane, but not usually the 3rd lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 12, 2015, 08:02:22 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 12, 2015, 10:53:18 PM
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/12/new-jersey-turnpike-shut-down/

Here we go again! Another truck fire on the Turnpike. In the vicinity of East Brunswick. Damn! :(
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 13, 2015, 01:41:35 AM
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. 

The signage on 440 is not really indicative of how NJDOT signs the Parkway exits in most places. In almost all instances, in addition to the logo, they almost all use "Garden State Parkway" or "GS Parkway" or similar as additional text on the sign in lieu of a control city. See here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6921699,-74.264417,3a,75y,58.39h,84.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAYN-d-rJEOJSTjy4FXE78Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7071008,-74.2554955,3a,75y,104.55h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJf43O8htZFQ_6GQ36T0sGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9035318,-74.101679,3a,75y,99.72h,95.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq4nqK3AODu9uODNxVvO9DA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1698084,-74.1096349,3a,75y,82.86h,88.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQUXyAEOh6hth877_8B6-8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for examples. It should also be known that as part of the MUTCD sign replacement project, this sign bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5367729,-74.3035986,3a,75y,324.25h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKaYCepZqImc5SBuxbPM0-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was replaced and it now has a GSP logo on it with Garden State Parkway as the "control city", so it looks like in the not too distant future, we'll be seeing the GSP logo on Interchange 11 signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2015, 11:02:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 13, 2015, 11:04:38 AM
StarTribune.com: Senator seeks to overhaul emergency response following federal review of Tracy Morgan crash (http://www.startribune.com/emergency-response-overhaul-sought-after-tracy-morgan-crash/321616111/)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 13, 2015, 05:48:59 PM
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.

These?
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/499/18965961604_e4ee320173_b.jpg)

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3806/19592845531_8792d13f8d_b.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 13, 2015, 08:00:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 13, 2015, 08:14:03 PM
They could begin by enforcing the lane restrictions for trucks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 13, 2015, 08:28:23 PM
That and speeding, tailgating, unsafe lane changes, violations of hours-of-service; everything safety related.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 13, 2015, 10:07:08 PM
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.

They do use NYC for Exit 129 proper. This is the onramp from 9.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 13, 2015, 10:22:34 PM
Perhaps they should lower the speed limit in the outer roadways to 55 mph.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 13, 2015, 10:33:56 PM
I think a 65 MPH speed limit is reasonable, but maybe it should be enforced more heavily, especially re: the big trucks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 14, 2015, 12:15:21 AM
One think I have always wondered, why doesn't the NJTP have any truck weigh and inspection stations? Its odd the GSP has one south of Exit 98 and even I-295 does at the southern end. In theory they could do everything at the toll plazas, but I have never seen any truck inspections. NJ overall has always baffled me with its lack of truck inspection stations (I-78 only got one a decade ago) and (unrelated) lack of welcome centers.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 14, 2015, 12:47:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 14, 2015, 12:51:37 AM
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.

The weigh station on 287 NB is still there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2015, 06:20:10 AM
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.

Maybe they should be cracking down on your standard everyday pickup drivers too.

This accident appears to have occurred when a pickup truck entered the shoulder and slammed into the tractor trailer.

Yes, the next question is, why was the tractor trailer on the shoulder of the road?   Regardless of that though, it looks like this accident is the fault of someone with a standard license, not a CDL.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 14, 2015, 04:36:16 PM
Perhaps NJ is relying more on mobile weigh checks like NY?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 14, 2015, 05:18:56 PM
Do we know this latest accident was caused by a 18-wheeler driver error?  Did a car cut one off causing them to crash? Most of the trucks I see are safe drivers and it's the cars pick ups that swerve and cut them off.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2015, 05:41:16 PM
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. 

More to the point, the design speed of the New Jersey Turnpike (at least south of about Exit 10) is either 75 MPH or 80 MPH (depending on source).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 14, 2015, 05:44:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 14, 2015, 06:01:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 14, 2015, 08:59:55 PM
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.........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2015, 10:25:13 PM
Perhaps they should lower the speed limit in the outer roadways to 55 mph.

Saying that we should lower the speed limit means you're going to make a great politician someday.  Ignore the facts.  Ignore everything that goes into engineering a roadway, including the speed limits.  Ignore 17 years of 65 mph data in this state alone.  Ignore all the car accidents that don't make the news.  Just look at a few accidents that occurred over the past few years then do something that's very visible which has a long history of not doing anything to reduce accidents.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 14, 2015, 10:31:06 PM
Well said, jeffandNicole. That would be a typical politician's knee jerk reaction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on August 14, 2015, 10:51:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2015, 10:55:40 PM
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.

They're not built into the toll plazas.  Equipment within the roadway can count axles but that's it. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on August 15, 2015, 04:36:11 PM
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.
The Thruway actually has a couple truck inspection stations; one heading north between exits 19-20, and one heading west between exits 28-29.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2015, 10:38:45 PM
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.).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 15, 2015, 11:02:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on August 15, 2015, 11:24:07 PM
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.).

From what I've heard, this is true. I think it's tied into the axle counter. Many WIM systems work by summing axle loads. If that's the case, it's very possible the Ohio Turnpike, Indiana Toll Road, New York State Thruway, and New Jersey Turnpike use similar systems. Each of these has devices that appear to function as WIM/counter devices at its toll booths.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 15, 2015, 11:25:44 PM
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.

That is the standard in Maryland and Virginia too. 

WIM technology is used as a screening device only, but it vastly increases the productivity of certified static scales, since they only weigh trucks that the WIM has identified as being (close to or) over on gross vehicle weight or sometimes over on tractor or trailer tandems.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 02, 2015, 02:35:27 PM
Eh, they can buff it out...  http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/09/tractor-trailer_erupts_in_flames_on_nj_turnpike.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

Equally impressive, if the times stated are correct:  It went from a raging inferno to towed away in about 45 minutes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 02, 2015, 08:21:10 PM
Massachusetts gave up on permanent weigh stations, IIRC, sometime in the early 1970s.  While there are pulloff areas signed as Weigh Stations, some of which are combined with rest or parking areas (but have been gated off from those areas since about 2000 -the Weigh Station only pulloffs also have the same treatment) along several Massachusetts freeways, the State Police adopted the switch to portable scales due to lower staffing requirements (the MSP mobile "Truck Team" also handles weight enforcement), and to be able to adjust enforcement to address identified or perceived trouble areas.

There are a number of State Police barracks along I-90/MassPike, some of which have been closed and are now used as MassDOT maintenance depots.  However, I don't ever recall seeing any areas that are permanently signed or gated off as weigh stations.

Quote
Yes, the next question is, why was the tractor trailer on the shoulder of the road?

Unless it can be demonstrated that the driver deliberately parked in the shoulder to rest or to avoid a possible HOS violation, the fact the rig was parked on the shoulder should be irrelevant to the circumstances of the crash.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 02, 2015, 09:43:14 PM
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.

Weigh-in-motion weights are not admissible in court in Virginia and Maryland.  Weighing for the purpose of issuing a overweight ticket has to be on certified static scales.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 03, 2015, 07:15:25 PM
So, for all of you that complained there was never any signage on the NJ Turnpike directing you to I-295...

Spotted today on the Southbound NJ Turnpike between Interchanges 5 and 4 is a new Time Travel sign.  It will display the time to the Delaware Memorial Bridge via the Turnpike, and via I-295 using Exit 4!

For the most part, the time using the Turnpike should always be quicker, because the Turnpike is basically a straight line to the bridge at 65 mph.  Using 295, it may include the time to exit and take 73 to 295.  Plus, 295 is 55 mph for about 8 miles, and is prone to congestion in that stretch of highway. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 03, 2015, 11:06:17 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 04, 2015, 08:12:58 AM
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).

Generally non-existent.  When there is a backup, it's due to congestion issues on the Delaware Memorial Bridge or approaching I-95 in Delaware.

The Car/Truck lanes merge south of Interchange 6, and other than minor slowing during the busiest of times there's no issues there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 04, 2015, 11:45:37 PM
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.
The Thruway actually has a couple truck inspection stations; one heading north between exits 19-20, and one heading west between exits 28-29.
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.

But getting back to the New Jersey Turnpike, there's a beauty who works at the Walt Whitman Service Area.

 :love:

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 06, 2015, 01:39:04 PM
The MUTCD sign replacement project has piked up steam along the Eastern spur, with new gantries rolling out at a pretty good clip. It means that a lot of the old school signage that's survived for 40 some odd years (like Exit 17 advance signage) is on death watch.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on September 06, 2015, 05:27:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 06, 2015, 08:18:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 06, 2015, 10:23:55 PM
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? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2015, 08:03:32 AM
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? 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 07, 2015, 02:25:39 PM
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.

Also, for years I often wondered why the two exit numbers 16 and 17 (later 16E and 17) existed for the same interchange. I thought that was because of the barrier coin drop on 17 and the ticket for 16 (16E), but after seeing that the original Exit 17 was an interchange directly with ramps leading to NJ 3,  I then realized the real reason.  I also found, in addition,  that unlike the usual trumpet to trumpet interchanges that other original with two separate toll features instead of the usual trumpet to trumpet interchanges (or at least shared ramps with one single plaza as 13 and 14 were not really trumpets), that there were two Exit 17 toll plazas with only partial movements.  One plaza for the southbound exit which only allowed access to and from the EB lanes of NJ 3, and another for the northbound exit which only allowed movement to and from the WB lanes of NJ 3 is seen in historic aerials.

Also Exit 12 was only to and from the south with, I believe with a half diamond and again two plazas.  Plus the original Exit 13 did not connect with either the Goethals Bridge nor NJ 439 directly (278 was only a proposal at the time) and other discoveries are so cool to learn on historic aerials.

Edit: I mean to say Exit 12 was to and from the north and yes it was half diamond.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 07, 2015, 07:48:36 PM
Roadman65, if you haven't already seen it, check out the Images of America series book "The New Jersey Turnpike". It has the complete history of the construction of the Turnpike and lots of photos of the original interchanges, etc. Well worth the cost of the book, about $20. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 09, 2015, 01:27:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2015, 06:39:17 PM
Anybody know when this was put up on NJ-495?

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3903/18314654123_66e9331dba_z.jpg)

Probably when the interchange was built in the 1950s. After all, it references US 46 as the northern terminus.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 10, 2015, 08:24:00 PM
I believe that sign was erected circa 1964 as part of that same Interchange 16-17 reconstruction. Before that you could not access the northbound NJT directly from what is now called Route 495. You had to exit onto Route-3 and enter the Turnpike northbound at the original Interchange-17.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 13, 2015, 01:35:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on September 13, 2015, 09:28:06 AM
nah. these signs are invincible, why replace them?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 13, 2015, 09:52:20 AM
I drove the NJ Turnpike last week and I will say that the I missed the old button copy and the light up signage. It always screamed "New Jersey!" to me.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on September 13, 2015, 11:52:21 AM
I'm going to be stuck here in Pennsylvania for the next two, three years. I'm probably heading to Boston and see if the signs are up in 2017/2018. We use the NJTP around this area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2015, 03:21:24 PM
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 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.

Change the rest to include I-95 and add "Newark" and "Trenton" to the signs at the split for the SB NJT, and then add " G. Washington Br." for NB NJT and even maybe add shields for I-78 and I-280 as well as I-80 like they briefly did at the gore point to replace the old SOUTH Newark Airport and NORTH I-95 & US 46 that were there previously.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 13, 2015, 04:24:41 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on September 13, 2015, 07:02:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 13, 2015, 08:13:05 PM
Nah with the 95 completion you'll likely see Camden/Philadelphia control cities.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/SD-NJTA-SL18.pdf

All the new MUTCD signing that has been installed has used either Trenton or Camden as the southbound control city thus far. I think the only installed sign that has Philadelphia on it is the ones at Exit 6 which have it covered up at the moment.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on September 13, 2015, 08:29:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 13, 2015, 10:13:25 PM
Roadman65, I'm with you. When driving west from the Lincoln Tunnel enroute to Penna. or Virginia and I pass under that sign for Pa-Del-Md, and see the Turnpike in the distance I know I'm on my way. I too will be sorry to see that sign disappear.  It's been there since I was a kid. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on September 13, 2015, 11:32:10 PM

(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???
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2015, 11:34:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2015, 11:35:24 PM

(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???

No the lane control arrows for the contraflow bus lane is there and its just to help with the contrast of the arrows.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2015, 01:43:14 AM
I've seen a few other pull through signs as part of this project and they list Newark and Trenton on them, as they should.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on September 14, 2015, 10:31:05 AM
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.

Delaware puts Wilmington on 95 but Philadelphia on 495 which technically they want mainline through traffic to use anyway so that's acceptable.

And yeah I've never got what Maryland's problem with Philadelphia as a control city is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on September 14, 2015, 03:51:26 PM
Are the ancient signs gone? If there's enough luck, these signs may be missed when they hit the replacement schedule.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 14, 2015, 07:09:37 PM

(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 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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2015, 08:03:03 PM
Are the ancient signs gone? If there's enough luck, these signs may be missed when they hit the replacement schedule.

Not yet, but soon.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 14, 2015, 08:16:23 PM
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 drove through today and noticed this:
For the above sign, I saw rebar sticking up from where the foundation for the gantry will be.  The cement hasn't been poured yet, so I'm thinking that will have to settle for awhile. I forgot to notice for the "Tpke NORTH" and "TPKE SOUTH" signs just beyond it.

On I-95 SB, the foundations are settling now for the Exit 17 2 mile sign and I didn't see any work going on for the Exit 17 1 Mile sign at all.

I also saw these after the toll plaza for Exit 17.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/608/21237472399_2ffa0c23a3.jpg)

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5821/20801661954_a5214bd406.jpg)

 The signs these will replace aren't that old, maybe they want to update them with shields as the old ones don't have route shields I don't think.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2015, 08:47:36 PM
Scutari pushing for Turnpike access road in Linden (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/union-county/2015/09/14/scutari-pushing-turnpike-access-road-linden/72260652/)

I assume they're talking about the Tremley Point Rd connector. It's been in the STIP's for the past few years as the way to get the truck traffic off of Wood Ave and out of the residential neighborhoods in Linden.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 15, 2015, 09:58:02 PM
Took some pictures along the SB western spur of the new MUTCD signage. They use Newark as a control city  through 15W, so I assume we'll see the same coming off 495 as well.

(http://i.imgur.com/LT2g01k.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WEKb88z.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/LXhoN6p.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Fm9z2YV.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WGurWXC.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/TiAaEym.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/llXpoh0.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 15, 2015, 10:10:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on September 15, 2015, 10:20:02 PM
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 believe Trenton is used from the I-87 interchange which is very interesting considering Newark and New Brunswick, both of which have decently prominent colleges too, are closer than Trenton.

Of course, Trenton is also outside of the New York City metro if you go by the official MSA; the CSA it includes Trenton, but I don't think that would influence what city is used on a highway sign.

Regardless, the new signs look great, and while it's sad to see the old ones go, at least their replacements are not ugly to look at. We can all be grateful that the NJTA didn't experiment with Clearview for these signs...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 15, 2015, 10:33:47 PM
Amen Zeffy! At least they're not using Clearview............
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 15, 2015, 10:47:39 PM
The new southbound signs on the Cross Bronx have switched to using Newark. Ironically, Newark is the only control city posted that the Turnpike actually enters and directly serves.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 15, 2015, 10:48:26 PM
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.

It looks like their plan is to replace the overhead gore point signs with the actual split point signs with the arrow. For both 16W and 15W, they even reused the same cantilever (you can see where the illuminations are and how they don't line up now).

As for the Trenton signs, I think those are older NYSDOT signs. NYSDOT now uses Newark (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8451125,-73.9188789,3a,75y,245.88h,89.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJdPYUNgv6Xm5DAqr-Ag5ug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on the newer signage on the Cross Bronx. The signs on the Major Deegan are around 10 years old at this point.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on September 15, 2015, 10:59:45 PM
I miss the NJTP squiggly arrows.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2015, 07:02:22 AM

I miss the NJTP squiggly arrows.

Sadly, we live in a world where uniformity frequently trumps quality.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 16, 2015, 08:25:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2015, 08:35:36 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 16, 2015, 09:21:43 AM
What happened to Rutherford on Exit 16W?   Also why is 15E signed for US 1 & 9 and not US 1 & 9 Truck as that exit really only connects to that one, with an indirect connection to only to SB US 1 & 9?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 16, 2015, 09:54:20 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Fm9z2YV.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WGurWXC.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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 16, 2015, 02:20:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 16, 2015, 02:44:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 16, 2015, 02:57:23 PM
You might be right roadman. Could be wishful thinking on my part.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 16, 2015, 03:22:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on September 16, 2015, 03:25:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 16, 2015, 03:35:36 PM
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?

If the NFL teams could not get it shut down when they were building MetLife, no one else really will. The right people in government are on board.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 16, 2015, 05:12:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 16, 2015, 07:19:05 PM
Tell that to New York State DOT! LOL

But seriously folks, the way NJTA uses those letters denotes which leg of the Turnpike you're on, not the direction of the exit roadway, so it might fly.

On the other hand the Manual also says (Sec. 2E-31-04) that exit numbers are not to be consecutive but must be mileage based which in this case would open up a whole new Pandora's Box. I'm half surprised the NJTA didn't implement that while they're converting to MUTCD signing and that the Federal Hwy. Admin. didn't require them to do it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 16, 2015, 07:46:58 PM
Roadman, I found it, just not where I thought it was! Not in the Federal Manual, but in New York's Manual from almost 15 years ago, before they abolished it and adopted the Federal Manual with a State Supplement  Their section 252.23 (b) stated (paraphrased) that if the exit number plaque is wider than the Advance or Exit Direction sign then those signs should be widened to be consistent with the width of the exit number plaque. It was only a recommendation, not even a standard, but I knew I'd seen it somewhere. (chuckle!) I don't know if it's included in New York's current supplement. Funny thing is NYSDOT doesn't even follow their own rules in all cases.

And apologies to all for being off-topic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 16, 2015, 08:29:33 PM
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:

Quote
Exit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 16, 2015, 11:21:28 PM
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.

The original owners lost funding when lehman bros went under during the recession in 2009 and their other backers pulled out of the deal. that's how triple 5 (current owners) came to own the site.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 05:37:01 AM
In 2002, with the prospect of losing one or both its arena tenants (the Nets and Devils) to new facilities, the New Jersey Sports and Exhibition Authority started a process to prepare for redevelopment of the arena site. 

Construction started on the incorrectly-named "American Dream" project (then named "Xanadu") in 2004.

In 2005, construction started on a new arena in Newark.  The Devils moved there in 2007.

In 2010 construction started on a new arena in Brooklyn.  The Nots moved there in 2012.

The Meadowlands arena closed completely in January 2015.

American Dream is still neither finished nor open.  This month marks eleven years since the project was begun.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 07:08:37 AM
Not even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: spooky on September 17, 2015, 07:48:58 AM
Not even for concerts, is the IZOD Center still open for?

Not it is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 17, 2015, 09:33:06 AM
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:

Quote
Exit numbers shall not include the cardinal initials corresponding to the directions of the cross
route.
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.
Thanks for the clarification.  My bad - have removed the previous post.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 09:57:59 AM
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 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.

Such as shame that the Nets moved to Brooklyn and the Devils moved to Newark along with Seton Hall Basketball.  Of course we live in a sports world that changes arenas and stadium like people change underwear.  If the stadium is not upgraded every so many years, then the teams walk except for the Chicago Cubs, and Boston Red Sox who have fans that want to keep their respected stadiums.  Heck look at the fight the MLB had to go with Chicago just to get lights installed at Wrigley Field.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 12:23:35 PM

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 old

And at 34, third-oldest in both the NBA and NHL.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2015, 12:33:04 PM

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 old

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 03:21:45 PM
Back in the 80's things were different.  We had many landmark concerts there and some did not mind going to a place that had no mass transit unlike the Pru in Newark that is near Penn Station.

Yes, an arena nowadays is old after 10 years, but that is wrong as the old saying goes, "If it ain't broken, don't fix it."   However, that is the trend now to build new arenas to keep up with our fast times not realizing that a stadium/arena is just some stands with seats in them, but the owners of the teams want first class all the way.  The Orlando Magic threatened to leave Orlando if we did not built them a new arena, so Buddy Dyer did so.  If I could bet on how long this arena will last before the Magic decide to get a future mayor or city council to build another new one, I would say by 2030, if the world lasts, this present one will be imploded.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 17, 2015, 03:53:15 PM


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 old

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: OracleUsr on September 17, 2015, 08:32:46 PM
I miss the classic giant signs, but this new signage is pretty cool nonetheless.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 17, 2015, 09:00:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 17, 2015, 09:06:23 PM
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.

NB looks to be George Washington Bridge based on replaced signs near 16W.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 18, 2015, 07:18:54 PM


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 old

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 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 18, 2015, 07:35:12 PM
Yes the old Brendan Byrne Arena was a hassle to get to in them days and I won't argue with you on that one, but back in the 1980's we got used to it.  I am sure if the Prudential Center was built then we would have enjoyed this one more.

The debate was not about its limited accessibility, but the fact it was a cultural icon.  Many people from my generation saw such acts as Springsteen, The Dead, The Stones, and many more that John Scheer put out after it was opened.  Many had great parties outside and many had their dates join them for events, that will always be remembered just like those who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and 70s remembered the Drive In Movies that are very scarce to say the least nowadays. 

Some people have memories that you can take away the ole Meadowlands Arena from them, but you cannot take the person out of the Meadowlands.  Its a part of history if you became of age in the 80's and possibly early 90's as I left NJ in late 1990. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 19, 2015, 12:23:04 AM

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 Rock is indeed fantastic, but traffic on McCarter (NJ 21) sucks horribly. granted, my comparison is Philly's Sports Complex, which has awesome accessibility.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 19, 2015, 03:42:18 AM



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 old

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 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 20, 2015, 12:48:38 AM

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 Rock is indeed fantastic, but traffic on McCarter (NJ 21) sucks horribly. granted, my comparison is Philly's Sports Complex, which has awesome accessibility.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 21, 2015, 12:59:20 AM

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 Rock is indeed fantastic, but traffic on McCarter (NJ 21) sucks horribly. granted, my comparison is Philly's Sports Complex, which has awesome accessibility.
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.

Agreed on this. Driving into downtown Newark is horrendous, but Metropark -> NWK Penn is a short train ride and then it's a short walk to the Rock.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 21, 2015, 11:52:22 PM



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 old

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 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.
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.
  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.

Of course we had carburetors and other such gismos before the current electronic ignition systems as well as replacing the original factory substandard radios with a store bought stereo with cassette decks that produced greater sounds then the factory sound systems did, so that made things easier for us and a better challenge for all car owners.  Nowadays even some mechanics do not even know what is under the hood anymore, but I will save that rant for a thread.

Yes times have changed, however here in Orlando we have no choice but to travel like we used to in New Jersey. SunRail is only linear and you have to live along Orange Avenue north of SandLake Road and in the lined communities of Winter Park, Maitland, Eastern Altamonte, Longwood, Lake Mary, and Sanford to be able to ride into our city for events and that is only for the Amway Centre.  If its at the newly remodled Florida Toilet Bowl, then the SunRail goes nowhere near the Stadium, so it does no good there either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 28, 2015, 04:44:09 PM
Just an update on 2 old button copy signs from the 60s on death watch. The Turnpike entrance signs from 495 will be gone soon. New sign bridge is there with the new signs, just waiting for final install.

Also disappearing is the signbridge at Exit 10 just past the tolls. Again, new bridge is there with new signage waiting to be mounted (there were not mast arms when I drove through, so that one may be a bit longer). On a positive note, they actually signed 440NB's direction correctly. Who knows if they'll fix the rest of the signs through the circle.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 28, 2015, 08:02:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 29, 2015, 09:20:14 PM
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?

Looks like it's still Metuchen. Should be Morristown/Mahwah like rest of 287. But since the mainline signs still use Metuchen, it's unlikely to change.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 01, 2015, 08:21:48 PM

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.

I'd suspect not Mahwah since the most direct route there is the Turnpike north to 3 or 80 to 17.  287 is sort of out of the way.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on October 01, 2015, 09:09:58 PM
The only reason that Metuchen makes sense is because that's the next town on I-287.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 02, 2015, 01:19:01 AM
The only reason that Metuchen makes sense is because that's the next town on I-287.

I'm pretty certain that it's a holdover from when Exit 10 was originally built in the 60s, since it was before 287 went all the way. 287 didn't adopt Morristown/Mahwah as control cities all the way through until 1993 when the button copy signage was erected north of 202/206 (and extended all the way in 1998 when the signage was finally replaced between there and the Turnpike).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2015, 11:59:56 AM
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.

I never saw that done before. Usually they replace a whole sign panel to update it, however repaint over the old (probably blasted off the old paint first of course). 

Anyway, sometimes I even got the impression that someone might of been obsessed with them signs and kept them even during a sign update project.  Even when NJDOT added the SB Randolphville Road exit ramp in 1991, they even created another diagramical sign for it.




On another completely different note, but totally related, it took up to 1998 for the whole 287 freeway to be numbered with exit numbers.  I know a lot of that had to do with the Somerset Freeway, that if it were built the numbers would have been 4 less then they are now for each exit, so NJDOT did not want to assign exit numbers to them until the final work was done on the never built I-95 from South Plainfield to Ewing, or its cancellation.  That of course is understandable.

However, giving River Road, CR 527, and Weston Canal Road exit numbers only made no sense.  Three lone exits in between two long stretches of having no exit numbers did not seem feasible considering exit numbers are to show a relationship between two points, but most of the intermediate points are eliminated in this case.  As the rest of Middlesex County exits on the south end had none, and NJ 28, US 22, I-78, US 202/206, CR 525, and North Maple Avenue created the gaps for giving 3 lone interchanges exit numbers.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on October 02, 2015, 03:41:24 PM
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.

I-287 NB:
1       
2
3:
4:
5:
7:
8:
9A:
9B:
17A:
17B:
18A:
18B:
22A:
22B:
26A:
26B:
29:
31:
32A:
32B:
33:
35:
36:
37A:
37B:
39:
40:
41:
43:
48A:
48B:
49:
51:
53:
55:
56:
62:

I-287 SB:
62
56
55
53
51
49
47A
47B
43
41
38
37B
37A
36
35
33
32
31
29
25B
25A
21A
21B
16A
16B
12
9
8B
8A
7
5
4
3
2
1
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 02, 2015, 03:49:30 PM
For those people like me who are nerds about this series, the Flying Fish Brewery in Somerdale is coming out with Exit 15 beer real soon and is extremely limited. It is basically a coffee IPA.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2015, 05:25:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 02, 2015, 09:40:20 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 02, 2015, 11:39:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 03, 2015, 07:39:59 AM
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

Same for Texas.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2015, 03:11:49 PM
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.
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.

The funny thing is those diagramical signs were normal to me and guided me and several other motorists for quite some time, and now for quite some time they have been gone.  Since this last lapse in time technology expanded and created road enthusiasts groups and picture taking has become a major thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 03, 2015, 08:44:13 PM
Ditto Roadman! When I was a kid in the 1960's I used to draw sign displays while sitting in class and my teacher would ridicule me. Like yourself I never knew anyone else was interested in this stuff 'til I got on the internet.   :)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2015, 04:04:14 PM
Signbridge, I was always fascinated by the NJ Turnpike (as well as the others) and its own unique way of signing.  The curved arrows, the exit numbering inside the sign panel and not on tabs, and the way the overhead exit numbers are (were in North Jersey)used at the gore point.

Of course no more thanks to the feds making the nation uniform.  Oh well.

However, some changes to them were welcome like NJ 495 finally being acknowledged at Exits 16E and 17. A real southbound exit sign for Exit 15E after years of just being a number only due to the NJTA not wanting to be challenged by the elevated Passaic River Bridge to put a sign with control points.  Then some control cities that were always lacking at certain points that in the past used "TURNPIKE NORTH" or "TURNPIKE SOUTH" instead of Trenton, NYC, Camden, Delaware Memorial Bridge, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 04, 2015, 08:14:21 PM
I'm with you Roadman appreciating the unique character of the NJ Turnpike.

 It's also worth noting that the NY Thruway and the Connecticut Turnpike also had their own unique sign systems. I especially was intrigued with Connecticut's. Regrettably their old blue (upper-case only) signs were phased out in the mid-1980's and replaced with standard green MUTCD signs. Likewise the Thruway started replacing their old blue signs circa 1990 with semi MUTCD compliant signs.

Today's standard MUTCD system is an updated version of both the original NY Thruway system and original California practices. Please note, when I say original, I mean 1950's signing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2015, 09:36:39 PM
I remember when NY used "ROUTE" for US routes on Thruway signs, and PA used "ROUTE" for PA routes on the PTC erected Turnpike signs.  NY routes were texted NY on the old blue and US routes on the PA Turnpike US Routes were "US" in text.

Both states had their own use for "Route."

NJ Turnpike used "US" and "NJ" quite well, and up until the late 80's, a text US 206 guide existed on the NJT SB on its one mile guide for Exit 7 that was a copy over as it was reflective green replacing the previous dark green button copy it had before that.

Oh, the Garden State Parkway did use "ROUTE 33" on a 1987 replacement overhead south of Exit 102 out of nowhere.  Obviously it was short lived as no one here photographed it or ever discussed it here and last I checked it was gone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 10, 2015, 06:03:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 10, 2015, 07:11:19 PM
Routes 287 and 440 are actually the same road. It's interesting (and potentially confusing) that you can go in opposite directions that are both North. Why shouldn't 440 be signed as East?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 10, 2015, 07:16:18 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 10, 2015, 09:15:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 10, 2015, 09:29:32 PM
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.

Pretty soon there will be no reason to go to NJ for road-geeking-signing purposes. It's all going to be gone.  Did the NJ-495 East signage go up yet?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 10, 2015, 09:54:27 PM
The new display is actually pretty well organized. I'm a little surprised though, that it's signed Outerbridge Cr instead of Staten Island. With NJTA supposedly going with MUTCD requirements a place name should be shown in lieu of the bridge name, though I would show both if possible for max benefit to the driver. (Yes, we've been all over this debate before.......) Were these signs spec'd before the decision to go with the MUTCD?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 10, 2015, 11:41:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 10, 2015, 11:42:24 PM
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.

514 is directly accessible from this interchange so this is logical.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 11, 2015, 12:08:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2015, 02:21:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 11, 2015, 02:29:37 AM
Raritan Center has always appeared on NJDOT signs in the area. A new one went up recently on the exit from US-9 south to NJ-440 South. The old Industrial Ave. exit is now just signed "Raritan Center". Whats funny is NJDOT just replaced the sign to reflect the name change to Riverside Dr. Google has all three in street view.

https://goo.gl/maps/ddrG1NfHvmz

It was replaced when they replaced their other "oops", finally NJ-440 is signed north/south there: https://goo.gl/maps/oEfGAKiFbUG2

Note the backplates, they live.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 11, 2015, 07:53:43 AM

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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 11, 2015, 08:04:17 AM
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, which is why [besides the name's alliteration] his name sticks in my mind)

P.P.S. And when looking up *Bill* Bonham, I came across an earlier Bonham... http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bonhati01.shtml
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on October 11, 2015, 08:34:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 11, 2015, 10:20:20 AM
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.

No, this is pretty standard practice (or, at least it used to be) for NJDOT. As US and state routes have black backings for their shields, county routes have yellow ones.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 11, 2015, 10:23:15 AM
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

No one calls it that anymore, really. It's really just Edison over there. Unincorporated names within larger townships still exist in a lot of places, but I find that it's tied much more to either a strong identity or having their own ZIP code (e.g., Iselin and Colonia, which are both part of Woodbridge Twp, but have their own post offices so those names survivie much more easily. Same with Martinsville in Bridgewater Township).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on October 11, 2015, 02:31:22 PM
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.

FWIW, white backgrounds have also been used for county route shields within green signs (although I'm honestly not sure how many DOTs have used them).  The yellow background seems more intuitive to design, but the white background might be easier on the eyes (maybe this should be put to the test).  That being said, only the yellow background is specifically sanctioned by the 2009 MUTCD.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 11, 2015, 02:31:51 PM
I never understood why the GSP was signed here anyway, but I would assume it was just in case someone got off the Turnpike at the wrong exit or for the same reason why I-95 and NJT shields appear on US 22, even going WB through Bridgewater for the I-287 ramp SB.

Then what is even more interesting is that the NJDOT signs at the end of the ramp at the 440/287 split also included US 9.  That is most likely because on CR 514 going EB had both a Parkway and US 9 shield on the EB NJ 440 ramp so NJDOT included all ramp signs to it (although WB CR 514 I cannot remember if there is a Parkway and US 9 shield at the cloverleaf ramp there or not) as part of one sketch.  Of course CR 514 has reference to both US 9 and the GSP because of the interest of Raritan Center and Middlesex Community College motorists as the GSP does not connect with CR 514, and to use NJ 440 to US 9 is much easier than going through Fords along 514 to connect with it properly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 11, 2015, 03:40:31 PM
440 is also signed past the tolls of Exit 11, so I guess there's some symmetry.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 11, 2015, 11:03:23 PM
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'm from Bergen County, where not only were county routes originally never signed on green guide signs, they didn't even have the blue pentagon until after this was a well-established thing.

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 12, 2015, 07:50:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on October 12, 2015, 08:06:59 PM
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.
Not sure what year that sign is dated though. If it predates 1993, then yes you are right.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 12, 2015, 09:22:21 PM
I-295 has yellow-background CR shields all over the place.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on October 12, 2015, 09:31:48 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 12, 2015, 10:10:48 PM
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!
only in Gloucester County and south - none of the 6xx roads north of 42 are signed (e.g. exits 42, 45, 52...)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 12, 2015, 10:38:40 PM
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.
Not sure what year that sign is dated though. If it predates 1993, then yes you are right.

Those signs were erected in 1993 hen all signs on 287 north of Exit 14 were replaced as part of the completion of the roadway to the NY state line.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 12, 2015, 10:41:21 PM
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!

78 has a couple (Exit 36 comes to mind) where 5XX Spur routes were converted to 6XX routes and the shields were replaced instead of being removed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on October 12, 2015, 11:22:58 PM
Does the GSP still have CR 614 and CR 618 on the bgs in Ocean County
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 13, 2015, 07:09:34 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on October 13, 2015, 08:59:51 AM
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!
only in Gloucester County and south - none of the 6xx roads north of 42 are signed (e.g. exits 42, 45, 52...)

Depends on your definition of exit signs.  US 46 has a ton of 600 series routes on overhead signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 13, 2015, 01:04:47 PM
I think that NJ did a bad thing with first including them and then resending the order like on the GSP.  First they started to include 600 series routes on their guide signs as a new gesture to include all numbered routes.  Then the NJTA, at the advice I assume of NJDOT, got rid of them when the 63 to 80 widening took place and the new overheads now just include the control cities, but with some extra area to place them back if NJDOT decides to go back to including all numbered routes again.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 13, 2015, 03:01:55 PM
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!
only in Gloucester County and south - none of the 6xx roads north of 42 are signed (e.g. exits 42, 45, 52...)

Depends on your definition of exit signs.  US 46 has a ton of 600 series routes on overhead signs.
my comment was specifically about I-295 (which the listed exit numbers reference).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 14, 2015, 12:02:27 AM
Does the GSP still have CR 614 and CR 618 on the bgs in Ocean County

If 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 15, 2015, 05:50:43 PM


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.

Just to add to my self flagellation, I looked around at the other examples I could think of, and it turns out that they to all have this yellow backing and it never registered with me while driving by at 60+ miles per hour.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 15, 2015, 06:27:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 15, 2015, 06:37:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on October 16, 2015, 02:39:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on October 16, 2015, 02:51:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 16, 2015, 08:02:36 PM
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.
Yeah, that's definitely an older variant with limited application in the state.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 17, 2015, 12:02:28 AM
the new exit 2 signage on I-95 NB is sans background as well. personally, not a fan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 18, 2015, 08:54:50 AM
Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton? Turnpike Exit 2 isn't part of I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 18, 2015, 10:06:38 PM
Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?
yes.

Quote from: KEVIN_224
Turnpike Exit 2 isn't part of I-95.
exit 2 on the Turnpike is also not for a county route.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 19, 2015, 10:18:55 PM
Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?
yes.

Quote from: KEVIN_224
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 20, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?
yes.

Quote from: KEVIN_224
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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 08:48:59 AM
Do you mean I-95 Exit 2 near Trenton?
yes.

Quote from: KEVIN_224
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.

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 Straight Line Diagrams have a line in them for each map, showing the jurisdiction of the roadway.

It's also referenced in some areas of the NJDOT Traffic Regulations section of their website, including:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/speed/rt322.shtm
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/traffic_orders/parking/rt322.shtm



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 08:53:17 AM
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.html

Quote
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.

(Edited as the Exit here is 7A, not 7 as originally written)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 20, 2015, 11:44:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Mr. Peabody
Quiet, you!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 20, 2015, 12:44:17 PM
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.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/10/nj_turnpike_car_lanes_exit_at_7a_to_close_for_mont.html

Quote
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.
It's exit 7A, not 7.
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 20, 2015, 12:56:36 PM
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.

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/10/nj_turnpike_car_lanes_exit_at_7a_to_close_for_mont.html

Quote
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.
It's exit 7A, not 7.
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?

You're correct; I'll change my original post.

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.

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 NJ Turnpike has never encouraged thru-traffic to go through the service plazas just to change roadways, even though many people know they can do that. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 20, 2015, 03:41:42 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on October 20, 2015, 06:08:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 20, 2015, 07:10:20 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 20, 2015, 07:17:26 PM
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.html

Quote
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.

(Edited as the Exit here is 7A, not 7 as originally written)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 21, 2015, 02:42:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2015, 02:49:44 PM
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?

It's doubtful that this person would travel both areas at one time.  Give it a little time before you can give yourself a hardy pat on the back.

BTW, here's the actual announcement.  Exit 7 is mentioned as a detour option. http://nj.gov/turnpike/documents/NEWS_RELEASE_Interchange_7A_FINAL.pdf
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 02:57:58 PM
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.

Any other agency would do that.  Why does the NJTA have to be so anal about this? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2015, 03:08:17 PM
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.

Any other agency would do that.  Why does the NJTA have to be so anal about this? 

Whaaa?  You do know that if someone going south exits at Exit 8, rather than 7A, they are paying LESS in tolls, not greater!  And that's the optimal detour.  The secondary detour is using Exit 7, which would amount to about 50 cents more in tolls.

Besides that, it's normal NJ Turnpike policy not to have any crossovers, along with leftside ramps.

And...the NJ Turnpike isn't paying for the repairs due to contractor error.  Why would they pay millions to engineer, design and build a crossover, which would also involve numerous signage structures, for something that can be handled by 2 signed detours?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 03:32:46 PM
Get the contractor to do it.  Make them pay for the asphalt!

I never said that Exit 8 is more money, I said that exit 7 is.  And 50 cents and 14 more miles of spent fuel is not needed.

FYI in Florida they make temporary pavements and crossovers even for a week at most places. Granted not many express and local set ups, and yes they will close some ramps like with Ivanhoe Blvd. right now during that ultimate I-4 project, but its not like its seven whole miles before and after it like with 7A.

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. However, this all will not make me stop driving the NJT, nor am I going to lose sleep over it either.  Its just a simple disagreement that I think the NJT is doing wrong.  And if it were me I would say build the damned crossover and forget the image of presenting to drivers the spotless freeway of no left exits and entrances!

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 21, 2015, 03:49:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 21, 2015, 05:56:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 21, 2015, 08:42:01 PM
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.
I saw that on the Indiana Toll Road and I was actually pleased that someone else did that other than NJTA.

In fact, many years ago, the NJTA published a newsletter called "The Trailblazer" and they did an article on the oversize pavement markings.  It was fascinating to read about why they do it.  They admitted the feds want one length and width, but  the Authority wants to do it better for safety and so they have.

As far as the not having merges from the left, more power to them as I used to hate the left side South Street ramp to I-4 West in Downtown Orlando or that crossover in Newark from I-78 W Bound Express Lanes to the I-78 W Bound Local Lanes as it was sometimes a bitch to merge into high speed traffic  and having to turn your neck around to a 5 o clock position to see if it were clear.  However, I just think for one month they could make the exception.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on October 21, 2015, 09:25:43 PM
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.

Any other agency would do that.  Why does the NJTA have to be so anal about this? 

Couldn't you just go through the prior service plaza and use that as your "crossover" to the truck lanes?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2015, 10:00:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 21, 2015, 10:45:47 PM

Couldn't you just go through the prior service plaza and use that as your "crossover" to the truck lanes?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 22, 2015, 07:30:25 AM
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.

Was this when they installed the sound absorption walls that block the view of the streets below (a view unlike any other on the NJTP, and one that I miss BION)?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 22, 2015, 08:46:47 AM
I believe so, but I cannot be sure.  All I know is that lanes were shifted and if you were in the right car lane you got diverted into the truck lanes for about a mile coming into Exit 13 going SB.  I am assuming it was by I cannot be sure.

One thing for sure, though, I miss NJ Roads so much and following the many road projects.  I used to go up there once a year, but lately I have been bent on clinching other places roads as well as keeping myself alive.  The last time I was in NJ was in 2012.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 22, 2015, 11:11:06 AM
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:
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2015, 11:56:37 AM
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:
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


After the guiderail ends that separated the inner and outer roadway, there's a gore area.  Shortly after the gore area, the inner roadway's right lane and outer roadway's left lane have a passing line between them for a short distance.

Around the area of that gore area, the left two car lanes merge (technically, the left lane ends).  There's a solid line between the center and right lane of the inner roadway lanes.  Thus, by the time the 2 roadways have merged together, there's already been a merger of 2 car lanes.

Then, the right inner roadway lane and the left outer roadway lane merge together.  A solid line appears between the left and center lanes of the outer roadway.  After these two lanes have merged, the passing line reappears between the new left lane and the new center lane.  The solid line remains between the center lane and the 2 right lanes. 

Finally, the right two car lanes merge (technically, the right lane ends).  After that merger has completed, the solid line between the center lane and new right lane ends.

Here's a very crude drawing of how it would look (this may not even show up that well on your PC or phone, so I'll try to get pics or draw it up better at some point).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Inner Left Ln  __   __   __   __   __   __                    _____________________   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __
Inner Ctr Ln   __   __   __   ____________________/                         __________________________  __   __   __   __
Inner Right Ln____________________   __   __   __   __  __            /                  ______________________________
Outer Left Ln __   __   __   __   __   __  __   __   __  ____________/                   /
Outer Ctr Ln  __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __   __         /
Outer Right Ln_____________________________________________________/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 23, 2015, 12:37:28 AM
It looks like the NJTA is putting up portable VMS's at interchange onramps to the SB Turnpike that advises drivers to use the truck lanes to reach Exit 7A (and interestingly enough, the signs specifically say truck lanes, not outer roadway... thought the Authority did not like the phrases "car" and "truck" lanes).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2015, 08:43:43 AM
They don't, but I guess they are swallowing their pride for once and appealing to how the average motorists thinks. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 23, 2015, 12:53:41 PM
Given that the signage on the turnpike does not say "inner" or "outer" but rather "cars only" and "cars/trucks/busses", they probably didn't want to confuse people who don't know which is the inner roadway and which is the outer one.  Plus it makes the message shorter too; they just need to say "TRAFFIC TO EXIT 7A / USE TRUCK LANES".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 23, 2015, 01:21:23 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2015, 03:23:47 PM
Plus shadow traffic reporters are good at brainwashing people.  In Florida, Deano O' Neal (WPOS)  wants all his listeners to refer to FL 528 as "The Beachline" despite the signs are scarce to none using that particular verbal name.  He does the same for all of FL 417, calling it "The Greeneway" even in Seminole County when the name is officially "The Seminole Expresssway" or south of Exit 6 where it name is "The Southern Connector." 

Also the Beachline Expressway for FL 528 does not go all the way to Cape Canaveral, as it stops at US 1 in Cocoa.  For east of US 1 its officially "The Emory L. Bennett Causeway" all the way to the freeway's end in Port Canveral.  Yet ole Deano calls the whole length of 528 as "The Beachline."  One thing I will give credit to O' Neal for is that he will call FL 408 and FL 429 by number.

Some radio personality can be rather snarky and in some ways I can see why many claim that they, not only TV, but commercial non political bias radio too, are brainwashing our society.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 23, 2015, 05:08:51 PM
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.

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.
What's the punishment for calling a service area a service *plaza*?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2015, 07:50:51 PM
Probably the same as calling a toll barrier a toll plaza :bigass:.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 26, 2015, 09:21:33 PM
Any updates on the sign replacement project that we've talked about?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2015, 08:36:11 AM
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?

You thought wrong. 

The detour is signed thru Interchange 7 directing motorists towards 206 North, and detour signs are posted on 206 North itself.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 28, 2015, 10:32:06 PM
Any updates on the sign replacement project that we've talked about?

They're working on replacements along the Eastern Spur right now, mostly. Most signs replaced, including in advance of the 16E/18E toll plaza. New signs are down to 15E.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 07, 2015, 03:00:27 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 03:04:10 PM
Another part of Turnpike history gone.  I actually thought these signs would last forever like the large gantry over NJ 139 in Jersey City that still has "US 1-9" and "TURNPIKE" on it just at the foot of the Bergen Hill incline viaduct.

I am guessing that one is either NJDOT or PANYNJ, and that is why it lasted as long as it did and may be the last old sign assembly left in NJ.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 07, 2015, 10:21:07 PM
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:

(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)

I think this is the Eastern Spur, crossing between Kearny and Secaucus, south of today's Exit 15X?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on November 08, 2015, 12:46:01 AM
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:

(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)

I think this is the Eastern Spur, crossing between Kearny and Secaucus, south of today's Exit 15X?
This is the Eastern Spur. I believe that was taken south of the Pulaski Skyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 08, 2015, 08:50:56 AM
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

The Lombardi Plaza seems to be the only NJTPK service area mentioned in WCBS traffic reports (as the "Lombardi Rest Area").  Never the Edison or Cleveland Plazas (across from each other), or the Pitcher or Kilmer (although I recall the Alexander Hamilton Plaza mentioned in one report)...

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 09, 2015, 02:52:06 PM
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 03:01:02 PM
Heck its been well over 28 years since NJ 440 was changed to N-S in Middlesex County.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 09, 2015, 04:57:21 PM
(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 always wondered why the button copy "g" always has a tapering tail where as the non-button MUTCD "g" has a non tapering tail...

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 09, 2015, 05:19:12 PM
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:

(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on November 09, 2015, 08:02:45 PM
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:

(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
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.
It looks like the absolute value of 95.

|95|
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 09, 2015, 08:56:14 PM
Love that non redundant structural design!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Big John on November 09, 2015, 09:09:11 PM
I saw this picture in a Facebook group recently:

(http://i.imgur.com/GXEfW3w.jpg)
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.
It looks like the absolute value of 95.

|95|
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alex on November 09, 2015, 09:26:52 PM
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/).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 09, 2015, 10:29:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2015, 11:26:12 PM
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.

I would think the states were the ones flooding the mapmakers with this info, as they were proud to be building all these highways. It wasn't until the 90s when proposed routes became the exception, not the rule, in these maps as road construction slowed and anti-highway organizations became more vocal.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2015, 01:25:39 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2015, 01:28:04 AM
Heck its been well over 28 years since NJ 440 was changed to N-S in Middlesex County.

The Turnpike Authority's signs are vintage from when 287 was built and the "new" Exit 10 built back in the late 60s/early 70s. The DOT signage also dated from that period before it was replaced (some of it with the experimental directional signage in the 80s, the rest in the mid 00's) so that Eastbound designation held on for a very long time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 04:23:40 AM
I am impressed by the old NJ Map.  NJ 92 was on it, as well as I-195 even at the time was partially built.  In fact NJ 18 east of US 9 was under construction, so the interstate was actually opened first.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on November 10, 2015, 08:49:49 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 09:21:29 AM
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 10, 2015, 09:55:46 AM
I guess County 526 was pretty busy on summer weekends (with Belmar traffic) before I-195 was completed...

And getting back towards the topic...  notice the ski area near NJTPK exit 8A!

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alex on November 10, 2015, 11:17:08 AM
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?

Thanks! Yes, I just chose that section to scan because of the Driscoll Expressway alignment. I would need to scan other sections separately and piece them together in a graphics program to provide the larger picture.

The rest of the map has a number of other significant alignments, such as NJ 90, I-895, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 10, 2015, 12:47:07 PM
And getting back towards the topic...  notice the ski area near NJTPK exit 8A!

Thompson Park -- I doubt it was a ski area but it does have a big slope down (relatively big, +/-70 ft) to the lake there likely used for sledding and definitely used for cyclocross races (and because of the latter, I had to miss going to the Jon Stewart rally in DC with some of my college friends).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2015, 01:27:13 PM
NJ 18 is shown along River Road in Piscataway and the freeway segment in New Brunswick is nowhere near built at the time.

Also I-95 would have interchanged with I-287 at Durham Avenue in S. Plainfield.   If you look close River Road was shown as Exit 5 when NJDOT did not sign exit numbers to the freeway decades later.  I remember my dad's old map as a kid showing all of NJ Interstates having exit numbers even though some did not.  I-78 received all of its exit numbers west of Watchung in 1982.  The Union and Essex County segment east of NJ 24 are the only interchanges to actually have them from the start as it was constructed later on in the game.

I believe after 1970, all new freeways in NJ began having them installed from construction, except for NJ 18 which as many of you know received them in 1992 circa as CR 537 and NJ 34 both used little green signs even though that was constructed the same time as the NJ 79 cloverleaf and the CR 520 and Tennent Road interchange.  However, NJDOT did not consider exit numbering for non interstates a priority until the late 70's & early 80's.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 10, 2015, 04:20:45 PM
Will the New Jersey Turnpike ever get mileage-based exit numbers? Somehow I doubt it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on November 10, 2015, 05:03:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on November 10, 2015, 06:50:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 10, 2015, 07:34:50 PM
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.

So were some PATPK interchange names...

"Philadelphia" (U.S. 1) - now "Bensalem"
"Perry Highway (U.S. 19) - now "Cranberry" and reconfigured to directly feed I-79
"Scranton" (U.S. 6 and 11 and I-81) - now "Clarks Summit"

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hubcity on November 11, 2015, 11:38:01 AM
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/).

Well! It appears that my current home near Georgia (locality within Freehold Twp) is located roughly where the Driscoll Expressway's median would have been. The highway would have then paralleled Jackson Mills Rd. between Georgia and Five Points (the intersection of Jackson Mills, Ely-Harmony, Farmingdale and Chandler roads) on its way to its intersection with 195.

Nice find!

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on November 11, 2015, 08:25:48 PM
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.

It also shows the unbuilt NJ-74 freeway (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-74/) between Laurence Harbor and NJ-18 in South River/Sayreville.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on November 13, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
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).
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on November 13, 2015, 11:38:53 PM
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/).
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

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
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2015, 09:42:00 PM
The map shows another NJ 74 alignment as the one's I saw went through the US 9 and NJ 34 intersection and a spur to South Amboy branching off of it there that was to be a realigned US 9 freeway bypass of Sayre Woods.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2015, 10:22:03 AM
Drove through 16W yesterday, and another bit of button copy history is gone. This gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8026377,-74.077362,3a,15y,134.42h,92.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr_Gu7aOCMBN2OMcR2eHAXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. Of interesting note. The SB sign (which has a covered arrow for the second lane they're adding to the SB onramp) features both a 95 and NJTP shield, but the NB sign only features a 95 shield, even if the Turnpike technically continues northward for a bit. Control cities are Newark for SB and GWB for NB, keeping with what we've seen with signage elsewhere. Did not drive back onto the Turnpike at 16W so could not snap a picture but I'll try to grab one the next time I'm through there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2015, 10:25:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on November 23, 2015, 12:44:52 PM
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.
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.. 

The fear of suburban sprawl happened anyway but now they just have 2 Lane roads and a super congested US1.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 23, 2015, 01:03:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2015, 01:50:29 PM
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.

The NJ Turnpike is nowhere close to capacity between 6 & 9.  The only time it should really be heavy to the point of congesting would be on unusually heavy traffic days such as around Thanksgiving, and that should be kept to a minimum.   

When planning, forecast models looking out 25 years didn't even support 12 lanes (4 roadways x 3 lanes per roadway) between Interchange 6 & 7A (10 lanes would adequately handle the forecasted travel volumes).  However, keeping 4 roadways at 3 lanes each was necessary because if the 3 lane roadway was closed, 2 lanes on the other roadway wouldn't be able the additional volume.

When the PA Tpk/95 project is complete, in theory the traffic will only divert from Delaware and up the NJ Turnpike to going up 95 thru Philly and jumping on the PA Turnpike.  In essence, all things being equal, the total amount of traffic north of Interchange 6 shouldn't change. 

It's possible that, due to the ease of the interchange, some traffic may decide to take 95 North to the PA Turnpike East to the NJ Turnpike North, vs staying on 95 North into NJ, then take US 1 North, which would increase volumes on the NJ Turnpike...but it wouldn't increase traffic volumes dramatically.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2015, 03:17:52 PM
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.
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.. 

The fear of suburban sprawl happened anyway but now they just have 2 Lane roads and a super congested US1.

Those issues would not have been of interest to the Turnpike Authority, who have no control over what NJDOT or PADOT do with their roads :)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2015, 03:20:24 PM
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.

I can tell you from experience that traveling at a peak time, such as a Saturday afternoon in the summer, that you could easily have 30+ minutes of delays getting through the merge at 8A and then another 20-30 minutes of delays trying to get down and past 7A. Now, you sail through there and there isn't that much traffic. Trust me, they are not near capacity at the least.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2015, 08:04:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2015, 09:12:45 PM
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.

Can confirm it's open. It looks nice. I pass it every day on my way home and I would have stopped in there tonight if I had realized it was open before driving past.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on November 23, 2015, 09:36:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2015, 10:57:14 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 23, 2015, 11:35:02 PM
I just want to know if their Starbucks will finally sell New Jersey mugs in their "You Are Here" series, instead of the current untruthful "New York," "Philadelphia," and "Pittsburgh" offerings.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2015, 06:18:37 AM
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.

OMG...does everything need to be compared to the original building of (name your landmark)?  For one, there was no OSHA in the 1950's, and if some people died, it was pretty much expected.  There was very little opposition to the building of the turnpike.  There were plenty of workers available to build the turnpike, putting in long days and weeks.  In this case, there was a building that needed to be knocked down, remediated, or whatever they had to do with it.  There's water issues that need to be taken care of (obviously).  No doubt the original turnpike's construction period didn't include designing it...I'm sure there was no design on the books ready to go for this service plaza. 

So basically, while some people love to say it takes longer today to do something than it did 70 years ago...well, no shit it does! 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 24, 2015, 07:39:31 AM
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).

The article's slideshow includes the "Order here" console.  The Baltimore Orioles should sue the NJTA for ripping off their font. :)

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 24, 2015, 07:50:12 AM
From the comments under the article...

arealinvestor (...)

I'll give the rest area about a month; After that it will start falling apart by the seams. Plagued by heating & ac problems, faulty workmanship by contractors who go unchecked. Go back in month & interview some workers. The list of problems will be to long to list!!!  All those phony politicians & political hacks can do, is be a star at a ribbon cutting ceremony!! None of them know anything about construction, budgets, warranties & workmanship. With all the money the Turnpike has; how come the bldg. isn't a certifiable Green bldg.???


storm2k, when you stop there, see if the building is structurally sound, will you?

And...

noprofessionalpols (...)

Finished ahead of schedule my arse. 3 years after Sandy and for those 3 years visitors to NJ on their way north had no restrooms, no food, had to trudge behind trailers and trees to relieve themselves while the Turnpike Authority couldn't even keep the rest room trailers open to the public, couldn't even get a food truck into the rest area for people to grab a bite to eat.

They're proud of all that - the people responsible for that travesty should have their heads examined.

I can't believe the sheer incompetence and then they have the nerve to brag about it.


Yep, either go behind trailers and trees or hold it for the 38 miles between the Kilmer and Lombardi plazas...

Anybody pine for the Bull Halsey service plaza (replaced by exit 13A)?  Or the plazas that faced each other across the Jersey City extension?

ixnay

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 24, 2015, 08:22:03 AM
Usually when a rest area is closed, there is a sign prior to the previous one giving motorists the warning this is their time to stop.

When the Mass Pike had a fire at the Charlton rest area, not only was a bathroom trailer put in, but also a trailer version of a Roy Rogers restaurant (outdoor seating, of course).

However, both of these require a significant commitment to upkeep, particularly since they will be woefully inadequate compared to a full rest area.  They should not be put in unless that commitment is there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2015, 08:33:22 AM
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! :-)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2015, 08:38:57 AM
Approaching Interchange 7, the 'Exit 7 for Fort Dix' has been replaced with Joint Base MDL. (McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst).

A new BGS has replaced this one: https://goo.gl/maps/gi7pi3fKyoH2 after the Int. 7 toll plaza, indicating the Joint Base MDL as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 24, 2015, 08:46:03 AM
Interesting about the name change on the Exit 7 signs.   The image that you post, shows the gore overhead as looking trapezoid, but I am guessing that its another google distortion like the DO NOT ENTER sign on Western Avenue at Goethals Road on Staten Island is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2015, 10:51:21 AM
The 3 bases merged into one several years ago.  I-295 resigned their BGSs to reflect the change last year.   The NJ Turnpike went with Fort Dix when they installed the new signage during the widening construction...only to finally change it now.

Yeah - it's distortion.  The sign itself is a standard rectangle.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on November 25, 2015, 11:03:55 AM
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! :-)

Of course one can get off the highway to use a regular restaurant or service station, but many people like using the turnpike service plazas because it is quicker.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2015, 01:36:38 PM
Sigh.  1:30pm on Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and the NJ Turnpike is showing green throughout all of Central Jersey.

Not like the good ol' days when we get the alerts about 25 miles of jammed traffic!

http://www.511nj.org/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 01:39:48 PM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 25, 2015, 01:45:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 01:58:51 PM
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:

*shrug*

I like it and miss the squiggly exit arrows.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 02:03:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on November 25, 2015, 05:31:26 PM
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.

As of the last time I was on there (which was only four days ago), they were.  As of when they extended the car/truck lanes down to exit 6, they hadn't gone MUTCD yet, so only very recently replaced signs don't have them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:02:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 06:37:20 PM

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.

Do you feel it is simpler and/or safer to change lanes 6 times to exit than it is to change 2 or 3 times?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 25, 2015, 06:46:40 PM
I agree with the speed limit, but it's really not the NJTA's fault.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2015, 06:48:52 PM
Yeah, saving money on signs. That's what they're worried about.

The Turnpike probably spent a billion dollars extra on the 6-8A dual-dual design than a design where 6 lanes would be together. It's a very safe design that most other states would like to do, but simply can't afford.

As for the 'No Trucks In Left Lane' signs, they are posted anyway since trucks aren't permitted in the left lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 25, 2015, 07:39:51 PM
Some of the merging areas around the Spurs are rather short. The long broken lines just end. I've found myself in a jam saying "oh shit the lane ends"

SB on the western spur and NB where I-80 comes in. Plus in some spots the left and right lanes merge in the center of the road. That's dangerous.

The western spur could use an extra lane both ways.
Other than that I love it!
But I miss the old signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 25, 2015, 08:16:01 PM
I strongly disagree with NJ. To me the NJ Turnpike is probably the best engineered and safest highway in the Northeast. It is my favorite road to spend an hour or two driving on. And the Turnpike Authority's safety standards such as the wider, longer lane stripes meet or exceed the MUTCD's requirements.

Re: the changeover to MUTCD signing, I am a believer in standardization, but the NJT's sign system worked well too and the public probably didn't notice the difference. And yes, we will miss those unique NJT signs some day when they're all gone just like the original blue NY Thruway and Connecticut Turnpike signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 25, 2015, 08:54:24 PM
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.

Or the squiggly arrows.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on November 25, 2015, 09:08:37 PM
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.
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, IMHO
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 25, 2015, 09:19:44 PM
I too like the divided roadways for several reasons. The most obvious is that car drivers can use the truck-free lanes and not have to play tag with the semi's. Another reason is it facilitates traffic movement around accident scenes, etc. And maintenance and repairs can safely be done at night by closing one roadway and diverting all traffic to the other.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:53:59 PM
Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 09:55:20 PM

Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?

Signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 10:19:32 PM

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2015, 11:33:07 PM

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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 02:55:57 AM


Now that the Turnpike will follow MUTCD, what will change?

Signs.

Any examples?

All the new ones on the Eastern Spur, discussed upthread.

There's not a lot to say, as they're the same generic design you see all over the country.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 08:11:01 AM

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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 11:11:49 AM

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...

That I wish they would use.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on November 27, 2015, 12:42:49 AM
Off to the side by the gas station at the Alexander Hamilton service plaza there were what looked to be the new BGS attached to the canaliever arms ready for installation in the near future.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 08:29:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 27, 2015, 09:58:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 28, 2015, 07:37:25 AM
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.

That was already discussed a couple of pages up the thread.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on November 28, 2015, 09:34:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2015, 12:51:31 PM
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 and even I-495 at the time.  The NJTA never had it on 16E or 17 up until now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 28, 2015, 10:25:46 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on November 29, 2015, 08:31:44 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 29, 2015, 09:55:02 AM
I hope those signs gets replaced asap

Around here, this is considered heresy. Preserve history - not destroy it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2015, 03:46:49 PM
I would say leave the classic Pa-Del-Md sign and just redo the other sign at the actual split.  That could have the I-95 and NJT shields with "Newark" to the south and the "Geo. Washington Br." for the north.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 29, 2015, 08:15:02 PM
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)

They are not long for this world, for better or worse.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 29, 2015, 08:18:02 PM
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

Can I honestly ask you why you have so much hostility towards so many things involving the Turnpike? You have some really strong negative opinions that stand out in a place like this...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 29, 2015, 08:19:11 PM
I always found it odd how they spaced out "N J" like that rather than a more conventional "NJ" with no weird spaces. The much-lamented Exit 6 southbound sign bridge spaced it out the same way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 29, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ksIG5NJ.jpg)

Replaced signs just past the ramp to 514 WB that now show the correct direction for 440 now, and no Parkway shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2015, 08:33:44 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ksIG5NJ.jpg)

Replaced signs just past the ramp to 514 WB that now show the correct direction for 440 now, and no Parkway shield.
Looking good!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 29, 2015, 08:39:16 PM
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:54:01 PM
Am I the only one who sees the CR 514 shield as... misshapen?

No. The MUTCD agrees with you.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on November 29, 2015, 10:12:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 29, 2015, 11:03:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on November 29, 2015, 11:19:54 PM
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.
Will they add a GSP shield as a supplement here to direct motorists? I know that most would use exit 11 anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Zeffy on November 29, 2015, 11:33:01 PM
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.

They seem to mess these up as of late. Here's one closer to me:
(http://i.imgur.com/pusL1kl.png)

...of course, the one you posted is much more bleh than the ones I posted. Only thing wrong here is they tried to make a "wide" version of the county route pentagon.

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.

Ew.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 30, 2015, 12:34:49 AM
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.

Which is funny, because this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8306367,-72.9264174,3a,75y,103.26h,82.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbh2H7hmqWXFUS7YIOSn6ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on the exit for the next sign looks much more correct (unless the sign has been replaced since the last time the GSV car has been through there).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 30, 2015, 12:46:41 AM
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.
Will they add a GSP shield as a supplement here to direct motorists? I know that most would use exit 11 anyway.

There is a ground assembly GSP shield posted a little bit before this sign that was installed as part of the Interchange 10 roadway improvement project (specifically in this case, the realignment of the ramp to 514WB) so it's there. It doesn't need to be on the signs from the Turnpike anyway, as motorists would not use this exit to get to the Parkway. It is referenced on the signage from NJDOT on 514 and around the circle ramp because motorists on 514 do make use of the ramp to 440NB as a way to get to the Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 30, 2015, 07:31:28 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2015, 09:42:11 AM
To some on here it is the end of the world.  Not to me it is not, but I would rather see it preserved as well. There is plenty of space there for more modern signs or replace the signs at the split itself as these are not the only ones.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2015, 09:48:16 AM
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

If that sign was posted today, we'd have a 10 page thread about everything wrong with it.

It's a sign, and overdue to be replaced at that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mariethefoxy on November 30, 2015, 11:20:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2015, 01:20:45 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2015, 02:24:34 PM
The signs are old, yes, but it still is a piece of history gone when they are gone.  I did not lose sleep over the old Exit 6 sign when it came down for good, but it was at the same time a sad moment in roading.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MrDisco99 on November 30, 2015, 04:48:23 PM
Is there a comprehensive list of the variable BGSes on the Turnpike and what their options are?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 30, 2015, 07:08:49 PM
You can add my vote for the Pa.-Del.-Md. sign. Although that type of destination display does not meet MUTCD standards, it is effective and in my case kind of sentimental. When I go away on a vacation and pass that sign approaching the Turnpike, I know I'm on my way!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 06:54:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on December 01, 2015, 07:47:26 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 02, 2015, 12:53:01 AM
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).

It was in the 2009-10 timeframe. At the time I was commuting on the regular from Union to Bala Cynwyd PA for work so I saw all the new shiny signs down through Exit 4.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 12:59:08 AM
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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 02, 2015, 01:12:22 AM
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

The one for 1-9 at the Express/Local lane split in Elizabeth lasted well into the aughts, actually. It only was replaced in the last decade or so (sadly GSV only goes back to 09 and it was replaced by that point). I would have loved to see some pictures of the vintage signage on it before it was replaced in the 80s.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 01:20:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 02, 2015, 02:02:04 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2015, 03:44:39 PM
the NJ state archives has a picture of the original signs. The gantry was replaced when they rebuilt the North Ave. interchange.

(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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:32:40 PM
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.

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.
nel.jpg - 9/16/06
nelb.jpg - No date, predates 2006
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 11:20:33 PM
the NJ state archives has a picture of the original signs. The gantry was replaced when they rebuilt the North Ave. interchange.

(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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 03, 2015, 03:52:15 PM
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick.  :-P
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on December 03, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick.  :-P
I guess they think Philly is some dinky city in the middle of nowhere. And you're right! WRONG!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 03, 2015, 05:29:48 PM
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick.  :-P
No 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 04, 2015, 12:15:20 AM
Looks like Philly got some love in NJ back then. Now all the signs say Trenton and New Brunswick.  :-P

It was before the Turnpike or any iteration of 95. It makes perfect sense for that to be the way to Philadelphia at the time this thing was built.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 01:43:30 AM
It does look odd to see Philly on US 1 signs in New Jersey.  I wonder if they guided you onto US 130, or made you stay on US 1?  Remember the mileage signs along US 130 do give out mileage to Philly as well as Camden.

I imagine that US 130 was the better way to go to Philly in the pre Turnpike days.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 06:44:07 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8402193,-74.017941,3a,75y,0.99h,88.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snYRfgLrTxlAKTuLjBWeQpA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Does anyone know what is behind the flip panels for I-95 North to Fort Lee and the GWB?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on December 07, 2015, 11:03:17 AM
I LOVE this sign!

(http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/img/headlights-wipers.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kkt on December 07, 2015, 11:38:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on December 07, 2015, 02:22:19 PM
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.

Doesn't Washington State require "Headlights on Wipers On"? In NJ it's a state law
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kkt on December 07, 2015, 03:32:40 PM
Oh, it's a law all right, but law enforcement is more interested in speeding tickets than safety issues.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on December 07, 2015, 04:32:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 07, 2015, 09:03:03 PM
A point of info re: wipers on/headlights on laws. At least in New York your daytime running lights do not satisfy the requirement in the rain. The entire headlight circuit must be on including tailights, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 07, 2015, 09:56:29 PM
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.

And therein lies the cause of am uptick in the number of folks driving around with their headlights off at night.  I had to convince a friend recently who insisted the lights were on in his new car, only to finally realize they were not.  I have the same trouble in rentals.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 11, 2015, 11:19:16 AM
Yes if you have a car with auto lights like me, its hard to get used to manually turning on lights again.  It happened to me in Missouri after the sun set on I-70 when I was returning from Vandalia, IL to Wichita, KS.  I did not turn on the lights at first because with my own car, the car does it for me.

I noticed first the signs were hard to read.  I actually thought that MoDOT needed new signs, then I realized I was driving without lights.  Of course the signs only reflect your headlights which without them, it will not reflect any sort of light and therefore not showing anything at first.  Then every sign, of course, began to be seen in their entirety, but most of all I could be seen by other motorists which is why lights are necessary!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2015, 11:31:07 AM
Oh, it's a law all right, but law enforcement is more interested in speeding tickets than safety issues.


Not always true, if at all.

But if you have statistics to point out how many speeding tickets are issued vs. other violations, I'll like to see them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 11, 2015, 11:36:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2015, 11:40:45 AM
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.

The worst I saw was a large black SUV driving without any lights on whatsoever in the night.  It was nearly impossible to see, especially being in front of him.  I forget what allowed to be even see this vehicle in the first place. 

The best I saw was when someone was driving an SUV at night with only the DRLs on...and watching her get pulled over! :-)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on December 11, 2015, 01:45:41 PM
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. 

They have no lights on during a daytime rain shower.  "I don't need lights I can see well enough."  Never mind it will help others see you!!  Which is why many states have a rain/wiper law.

Even my 2011 Hyundai has manual lights.  But at least the car is sophisticated enough to turn them off after a while when the car is off. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on December 11, 2015, 03:35:23 PM
People in New York don't always follow the "lights on, wipers on" law and we've had one forever. Same with the cell phones. We were one of the first states to have a ban, yet I see it all the time. In many ways, I think auto lights made that worse because some cars don't turn on the lights if the wipers are active.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on December 12, 2015, 12:41:00 AM
NYSDOT's Ford Focuses have auto lights...except that the brake lights don't light up when they're set to "AUTO."  Made for a fun return trip from western NY a couple weeks ago.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on December 12, 2015, 12:59:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 13, 2015, 03:21:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 13, 2015, 09:05:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 13, 2015, 09:20:55 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 14, 2015, 12:18:42 AM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on December 14, 2015, 05:50:20 AM
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.

I agree with this.  The dashboard should only be lit up when the headlights are on (either automatic or manual).  I assume that my lights are on, even when they are not and that is a bad thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 14, 2015, 08:38:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2015, 10:00:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 14, 2015, 11:42:35 AM
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.

DLRs are an option on some Foci, but are not standard equipment.  And, according to my owner's manual, when the headlight switch is in AUTO setting, the headlights are supposed to come on when you activate the wipers (4 second delay).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 14, 2015, 11:45:20 AM
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 brake lights or taillights - which seems to be the latest design trend on many cars - are a bad idea?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 14, 2015, 12:53:31 PM
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 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2015, 01:30:55 PM
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 

While I prefer orange, because red could blend in to a tap of a brake light, I don't care what color it is as long as it can be seen!  Too often, the area set aside for the flashing is so small that you really don't notice the flashing light.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 14, 2015, 07:51:57 PM
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 believe Volvos have them as well. At least they used to, anyway–my mom had a 1995 Volvo 850 and now has a 2010 S80 and both of those cars had/have DRLs.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 14, 2015, 08:31:50 PM
In addition to DRL's, I also prefer amber rear directionals. They contrast with the brake lights for better notice. Also when on the side of the road with hazard flashers on, the amber lights stand out better than red when viewed with all the red tailights on the road.

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! 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 08:56:18 PM
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.

Likely. Most Canadians in southern Quebec and Ontario do a lot of long-distance driving on expressways, but not out west. There just isn't the traffic in most of the country to warrant more than 2 lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on December 14, 2015, 09:08:44 PM
There are some car-makers I have noticed in recent years that the rear-window brake light will flash red 3 or 4 times before going to solid red when the brake is engaged.

And speaking of flashing lights that really shouldn't:  The motorcycles that have the "pulsating" front headlights. I know they do it to make the motorcycle more visible to other drivers, but it also makes other drivers (like myself) think it's some sort of motorcycle cop with lights a flashing and there have been times I have slowed way down getting ready to pull to a stop in the shoulder only to see an ordinary motorcycle getting ready to pass me because I am now going real slow.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 14, 2015, 09:21:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on December 14, 2015, 10:32:54 PM
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?

They don't flash on and off -- more like pulsating high-beam/low-beam for the motorcycle lights.

Here's a video that covers BOTH examples -- both on a motorcycle: 

The tail lights on passenger vehicles could be either standard, factory installed option or aftermarket.  The motorcycle headlight could be factory option as well as the aftermarket device shown on the video.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 15, 2015, 08:33:05 PM
I still wouldn't be surprised if pulsating headlights are considered by the law to be illegal flashing lights. Looks too much like an emergency vehicle running in emergency mode.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 17, 2015, 04:18:02 PM
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 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 20, 2015, 01:35:51 PM
The other day I saw a high mount rear stop light on a vehicle that was flickering in rhythm that made me think police or ambulance activity was taking place ahead.  Instead when the light at the intersection turned green and traffic began movement, the truck that had them started to move which ended the flicker on the red stop lamps on his vehicle.  This made me for an instance wonder where the ambulance or fire truck went and made me think "Oh the emergency must be just getting over."  Then I realized its one of those new Johnny Come lately ideas of someone deciding to use a new form of something or another, like the clear rear lights on some cars back in the 90's forgetting that the red cover over the white bulb was placed on all vehicles for a specific reason.

I mentioned in another thread about license plate borders now being accepted as normal, because we all forgot that if not properly displayed it can block the view of the state of issue of the tag defeating its purpose of being displayed.  Well these lights are the same concept, another new things that someone thinks we need and hopes that it will catch on and eventually become the norm.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on December 20, 2015, 01:58:44 PM
Such an interesting New Jersey Turnpike discussion going on here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: CapeCodder on December 20, 2015, 02:03:45 PM
Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2015, 02:41:53 PM
Is the NJTP still unsigned NJ 700?
Up to Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: CapeCodder on December 20, 2015, 03:59:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on December 20, 2015, 05:36:31 PM
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 .
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 20, 2015, 05:40:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on December 20, 2015, 09:14:08 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 20, 2015, 09:34:29 PM
I agree with Pete. Adding another x95 number to the NJ Turnpike will just cause more confusion. There are too many such numbers already in some areas. They should just stick to the NJT logo which is a good, distinctive ID for that road, unless as Pete suggested they were to make the whole NJT I-95 would be the best answer.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 20, 2015, 10:07:58 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2015, 06:12:59 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 21, 2015, 09:35:30 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 09:40:38 AM

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.
  The I-95 end at US 1 is signed via I-295 S Bound and I-195 E Bound.

Before the early 90's it was signed via US 1 north to either NJ 18, or most definitely I-287.  The end at US 1 had "New York" for US 1 North's control city instead of "New Brunswick" and was cosigned "TO I-95".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 21, 2015, 10:25:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 10:56:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2015, 11:46:16 AM
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.

What about Philadelphia and points in PA on I-95?

I think you're missing the point here.  While motorists will reconnect with 95 down in Delaware, motorists that are looking for I-95 in PA are going to bypass it if strictly looking for I-95 signs.

Even in the future when PA finally finishes that I-95/Penn Turnpike connection, taking I-95 will still take people slightly out of the way.   If looking solely at speed limits and ignoring the speed at which people actually drive, it will be a longer ride timewise to boot as I-95 in PA is strictly 55 mph with significantly more congestion vs. a generally free-flowing 65 mph on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 21, 2015, 01:29:27 PM
When is someone going to start a "Top Ten Dead Horses" thread?   This one is getting its thousandth beating.

Change numbers only if a problem–an actual, real-world problem, not a I-think-about-route-numbers-all-day problem–can be solved by doing so.

Big problem with people missing the Turnpike by staying on 95?  Put up big signs that say "THRU TRAFFIC TO NEW YORK/DEL-MD-DC" at the respective junctions.  Problem solved.  If Pennsylvania doesn't like losing the potential for people to stumble upon the singular paradise that is Philadelphia (to pass through is to instantly fall in love, of course) they'll have to cry themselves to sleep.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 01:53:03 PM
Then the same should be said about I-95 in Baltimore.  The Harbor Tunnel Thruway was defacto I-95 until 1985 when the newer freeway finally opened to traffic.  One could say there that the HTT should have became I-95 instead of them building the freeway that is and of course the Fort McHenry Tunnel.

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.  At least with Baltimore the endpoints of the HTT were at least made so that no confusion existed as a motorist approached from each end before it was finally completed.

Remember the logical thing is not always the chosen thing.  Why is US 41 north of Terre Haute, IN on the least direct alignment and substandard highway instead of on the four lane straighter route?  Why is US 6 across the OH/ PA Border on a double back instead of on the straighter road across the reservoir there?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 21, 2015, 02:57:29 PM
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.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 21, 2015, 03:03:08 PM
I'm envisioning a map in which I-895 and I-295 run parallel to one another, with those designations implicitly existing for the sake of the Interstate designation informing a motorist's decision as to what route to take.  Would this scenario be more or less confusing than what exists now? I would call it a wash.

Of course, since we seem to be talking about a world in which no one looks at maps, a motorist on the Turnpike would have a little idea that 295 even exists, given how much reference is made to it along the way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 21, 2015, 03:41:45 PM
I think anyone originating south of the Delaware Memorial Bridge knows 295 exists, as it's signed profusely on both sides of the bridge, and the driver has to make a choice between 295 and the Turnpike. What they don't know is that they're actually on 295 before the Turnpike starts. As for 895, it certainly won't make the situation worse as long as they keep the Turnpike shields too, but it doesn't help anyone either, so I don't see why it needs to be done. But imagine if the Turnpike was signed as 895 from the beginning (well, from the time I-95 was planned). It would have to be renumbered multiple times. First the whole Turnpike would b 895, then only south of exit 10, and then exit 6. Imagine if the 895 number were used by the general public how much confusion that would cause. It would be like what has been going on (and still is) with the various moves of 295's northern terminus, only a lot more people would care.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on December 21, 2015, 05:16:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 21, 2015, 05:24:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on December 21, 2015, 05:51:01 PM
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 have a BGS designating the southern portion of the NJTP as "Philadelphia Bypass - Baltimore".  Now you're killing 2 birds with one stone -- encouraging people NOT to use I-95 or I-295 and to continue to spend money on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on December 21, 2015, 05:55:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on December 21, 2015, 05:59:18 PM
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.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 21, 2015, 06:17:47 PM
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.

Since you didn't read through my sarcasm, Philadelphia is not withering because it is not on the best through route (in fact, despite its best efforts, it is not really withering at all).  Nor have I seen any implication in this thread that it should not be signed as a primary destination listed for 95.

And–Shore Points?  Which shore?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 21, 2015, 06:28:09 PM

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?

People routinely go through Providence on 95.  295 is not a great bypass.  People also routinely go through New York City on 95, but I am careful about the circumstances under which I do this.  I don't know what happens in Richmond, Baltimore, or Wilmington. 

The concern with Philadelphia, if there is a concern, is that the best through route is unquestionably the New Jersey Turnpike for motorists traveling beyond Philadelphia.  Barring a major incident that shuts down the Turnpike and jams 295, the only meaningful benefit for a through traveler taking 95 through Philadelphia is as a shunpike or a scenic route ("Take a good look kids–this is the closest you'll be able to afford to Brooklyn by the time you're out of college!").

This is such a non-problem.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 21, 2015, 08:06:26 PM
I think dgolub hit on a good solution in his earlier post. Southbound NJT around Exit-6, just add Baltimore-Washington to the NJT pull-through signs that I think say Wilmington (?) now. That's an easy way to transmit the message to stay on the Turnpike for the best route to those cities. End of problem.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2015, 08:45:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 21, 2015, 09:54:37 PM

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.

Nope.  95 is less direct.  Much more zig-zaggy, and through more congested areas.  Look at the two on a map and ask yourself which wastes more mileage curving east and west.  The shortest distance between two points is...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on December 21, 2015, 11:03:41 PM
I think the forest is being missed for the trees here. Isn't the whole point of the even numbered 3di to provide a bypass of a city while the parent route serves said city directly (leaving Washington DC out of it)? If so then the system is fine the way it is. Some revised signage with better control cities will help but there's no need to go changing route numbers and the like. 95 should serve Philadelphia directly. Anyone coming from the north wishing to bypass Philly can easily stay on the Turnpike or hop on 295 at Trenton and same with those coming from the south heading to points beyond Trenton.

I think Delaware has the right idea with how it signs the big New Castle interchange on 95 heading north. 95 is signed as the local route to Wilmington, then 295 is signed as the route to NJ, and NYC and finally 495 is signed for Philadelphia. It's pretty hard to screw things up with that (although stupid people always put a wrench in things).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 21, 2015, 11:51:41 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2015, 04:41:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2015, 06:07:42 AM
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 NJ Turnpike never signed a control anything going south until they started using Wilmington.  NJDOT still uses Delaware and/or Del Mem Br.  They recently added a BGS around Exit 2C, with Memorial written out!

'Left Exit' also fools motorists...and I'll see many leave the left lane and merge right for no reason, as the left lane continues beyond the exit!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 22, 2015, 08:03:23 AM
Regarding the question about what people do in Richmond and Baltimore as to 3di versus I-95:

I believe in Baltimore most of the long-distance I-95 traffic usually stays on I-95, which is signed as the thru route via the Fort McHenry Tunnel. Before that tunnel opened a reasonable amount of traffic used to use I-695 over the bridge to bypass the Harbor Tunnel, but there's a lot less need for that now unless you're carrying prohibited items like bottled gas or perhaps unless there's a big football game.

In Richmond, I'm guessing over the years a much higher percentage of traffic has stayed on I-95 than the Powers That Be would like, given those diagrammatic signs on southbound I-95 approaching I-295 that show 295 bypassing Richmond and rejoining I-95. I presume they either believed or determined that people didn't know where I-295 went. It's certainly a longer distance, but it also has a higher speed limit and less traffic. Those signs have always come across in my mind as a bit of a marketing effort.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 22, 2015, 08:41:42 AM
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.

It's ludicrous to assert that most people aren't getting this drive right every single day.

I can tell you, working Exit 1, exactly what people asked about (especially on the Southbound side):

Enough said. You win the discussion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2015, 09:24:53 AM
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.

No, you win!

Quote
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! 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 22, 2015, 10:00:39 AM
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! 

When I was a kid and I-295 ended at US-130, my father connected between 295 and the Turnpike by going up to I-195 (he didn't know about the Exit 7 route yet). My mother used to complain because the drive took longer "because there are stoplights on 295."

People just get weird ideas in their heads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 22, 2015, 12:04:53 PM
There *is* a toll on I-295. It's called the Delaware Memorial Bridge
P.S. NJTA employees are allowed to talk about 295?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2015, 01:50:14 PM
O.K., my turn to beat the dead horse (not to be confused with Deadhorse, Alaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadhorse,_Alaska)).

Just because I dislike freeways that do not have a route number (IMO a legacy of the days of U.S. turnpike development prior to 1956), the New Jersey Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 should have a route number posted for the public to see. 

My own preference is I-895 with "control cities" of Delaware and Baltimore on pull-through signs or maybe Philadelphia Bypass (though I suspect the City of Brotherly Love would not be so loving of that), so southbound drivers approaching Exit 6 know that it is safe to continue south on the Turnpike and eventually end up back on I-95.  If New Jersey DOT and FHWA do not want to assign it I-895, then it should be signed "N.J. 700 to I-95" southbound (and northbound).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2015, 02:10:45 PM
There *is* a toll on I-295. It's called the Delaware Memorial Bridge
P.S. NJTA employees are allowed to talk about 295?

Well, they're going to hit that regardless.  And he was talking specifically in NJ.  But that bridge toll is probably what someone told him, but he probably misinterpreted it and thought there was a toll in NJ.  He probably wasn't too happy when he hit that "295 toll" anyway!!!

And yeah, we could definitely talk about it (well, they didn't tell us *not* to talk about it!).  If someone were to complain about the tolls, I would freely say "You can take 295 next time".  They had no clue where 295 was...even though they would've passed it in full view just a half-hour earlier, and they'll be merging into it in less than 2 miles anyway.   It's on every single map, so it's not like it's one of NJ's hidden treasures!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2015, 02:38:37 PM
How about a sign like this approaching Exit 6 SB.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8199/8154090898_a6c380c392_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2015, 03:07:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on December 22, 2015, 07:38:17 PM
And–Shore Points?  Which shore?

That's used at exit 7A for I-195 and on US 1/US 9 at the point where they split.  So it's not anything that it's already in use.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 22, 2015, 07:45:52 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on December 22, 2015, 07:51:00 PM
Why am I thinking that "Control City" sounds like the setting for some comic book superhero property?

ixnay
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 22, 2015, 08:48:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2015, 10:44:31 PM
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. ;)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on December 23, 2015, 07:13:01 AM
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. ;)

I wasn't talking about *just* the NJTA roads.  I was referring to highways in general (and limited access highways in particular).

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2015, 10:00:47 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 10:20:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2015, 10:22:37 AM
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?
NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2015, 10:29:16 AM
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?
NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
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?
NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 10:54:56 AM
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?
NJ, just west of the US 130 (Burlington/Bordentown/Florence) interchange.
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.
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.

If it's on their property, usually they care a lot.  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".  Same thing with all their interchanges - the ramp system is well within their jurisdiction, even though it's beyond the toll plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 29, 2015, 11:31:34 AM
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.

My earlier didn't care remark was both speculative and borderline facetious.  Nonetheless, the BGS is there (I was driving in the left lane when I saw it last night and couldn't exactly pull over to get a pic of it) and it sadly represents the first (and hopefully last) Clearview sign located in the NJ Turnpike system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 29, 2015, 12:51:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 29, 2015, 12:56:59 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

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? 

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)

And maybe this: https://goo.gl/maps/3xjqgijgUh52  No, not the Exit sign.  The itty-bitty "Please NO ENGINE BREAKING Thank You" sign.   :bigass:

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on December 29, 2015, 02:30:12 PM
"Please NO ENGINE BREAKING Thank You"
Oh. Who would do such a thing?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2015, 10:47:06 AM

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on December 30, 2015, 11:33:17 AM

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)


There is. Full color, mounted over right shoulder. The NJTPK helpfully erected one of their VMS/VSS signs just in front of it as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on December 30, 2015, 12:39:22 PM

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.
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.

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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 30, 2015, 02:00:41 PM
Here is a sign on NJTA property for Exit 1 off of I-295: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6791487,-75.4834749,3a,75y,274.06h,70.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLH_8exfLv6Jv0HLlQl99LQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2015, 03:31:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 31, 2015, 03:26:28 AM
Is the signs for US 1 & 9 still on the NJTA maintained section of NJ 495?  I remember them for a long time informing motorists for the Lincoln Tunnel to KEEP LEFT and for Routes 1 & 9 KEEP RIGHT (and yes they were text for the two US routes with Route instead of US).  I imagine that the texts are gone, but then again the NJ 3 was left on the Exit 17 signs for years as well as the post plaza signs at 16E were as well before they got changed out.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2015, 06:53:28 AM
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 doubt there's any relation to the bridge painting.

During the day the timed sign shows the time to US 13 in Wilmington.  During the afternoon rush hour, the timed sign shows 2 times:  Wilmington via the NJ Turnpike, and Wilmington via I-295, Exit 4 (meaning, if one were to exit the turnpike at Interchange 4, then take 295 South).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on December 31, 2015, 07:51:46 AM
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.

I agree.  Any problem with confusion can be remedied with a proper use of control cities. 

Southbound Turnpike should have the following control cities from the GWB:

Newark until I-280, Newark Airport/Philadelphia until I-78, Philadelphia until exit 6, Baltimore south of exit 6.  Northbound's control should be New York City all the way from the Del Mem Bridge to I-78.  There is no need to ever sign Wilmington, Trenton, or Camden on the Turnpike.  Newark should not be signed on the northbound turnpike.

Exit 6 should be signed Penn Turnpike / Philadelphia. 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 08:51:56 AM
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.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 31, 2015, 08:53:34 AM

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.
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.


So 95 in New Jersey has a sign for 87?  Your syntax suggested there is a sign on 87 informing motorists of 80's express/local split.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2015, 09:20:17 AM
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.

Besides, I think we've had more than enough posts for what control cities *should* be posted on the NJ Turnpike. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 09:28:06 AM
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 is 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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 31, 2015, 09:29:26 AM
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.  No mention of Trenton-Camden- New York on any of them to guide motorists through the giant interchange.

I guess the Parkway and Turnpike still operate separately when it comes to signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 09:44:48 AM
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.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 31, 2015, 09:53:22 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 31, 2015, 12:21:17 PM
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. 
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. 

OTOH, the ramp-split signage (1st one being a diagramatic type, scroll down) (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/s1.html) after one exits the southbound GSP signage that read 95 NJ TURNPIKE were of late 80s vintage (the slightly bulging 9 on one of the I-95 shields being a dead giveaway of its vintage).  Those 2 BGS' were recently replaced by the current BGS'
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 31, 2015, 01:07:37 PM
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).

Agreed in Principal as well.  Except this user has already posted their control city opinion for the Turnpike.  Granted, it was a few years ago.  But it's been rehashed several other times as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 12:20:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 01, 2016, 07:33:37 PM
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.

Good idea, roadman.

How about also bringing back the lit-from-within sequential signs in the median that said, KEEP AWAKE/FOR SAFETY/REST NEXT/SERVICE AREA (x) MILES ?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 08:20:35 PM
Oh the burma shave signs.  Yes I remember them as a kid.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on January 01, 2016, 11:16:05 PM
If you mean the tiny "TRENTON - 30 MILES" sign southbound, it's still there. :)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 02, 2016, 08:00:18 AM
Oh the burma shave signs.  Yes I remember them as a kid.

I would've compared them to Burma-Shave but they didn't rhyme. :(

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 02, 2016, 03:40:45 PM
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 also believe there is still a 30 mile sign for the Delaware Memorial Bridge, but not sure on that one. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on January 09, 2016, 10:13:10 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 03:03:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on January 09, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2016, 06:28:17 PM
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.

And the Survey says: No.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 08:18:18 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 23, 2016, 12:41:40 PM
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:
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle.php?id=877743

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 13, 2016, 01:52:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 13, 2016, 07:29:04 PM
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.

Oh, the humanity!   :no:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 13, 2016, 08:21:59 PM
Too bad, I always liked that sign with Pa, Del, Md. It was like passing thru a kind of "gateway" to wherever you were going.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 13, 2016, 09:01:10 PM
SIGH! So long text sign!  :-(

(http://i.imgur.com/ewmKdCg.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 14, 2016, 02:38:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 14, 2016, 11:23:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 14, 2016, 09:30:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 14, 2016, 09:51:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 14, 2016, 09:57:19 PM
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.

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.

NJTA certainly isn't the only agency that does that. In my view, the up arrow (outside of an APL) should only be used at the last sign before the ramp departs. I think the MUTCD says that as well if there are multiple signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 14, 2016, 10:09:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 14, 2016, 10:16:47 PM
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.

I wasn't including the gore sign. I was assuming that the 1/4 mile advance was followed by another sign with an identical legend, only an up arrow. My apologies. I have seen agencies (mainly NYSTA) give their 1/4 mile advance an up arrow, even if there is another sign.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 14, 2016, 10:25:14 PM
Right, now you have the picture. I am familiar with NYS DOT's practice that you mention, but as you see what NJT is doing is a "1/4 mile" sign as the last before the gore-point sign. This is potentially misleading, because as you correctly point out, drivers will expect an arrow sign with identical legend after the last distance sign, as per usual MUTCD practice.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 15, 2016, 10:19:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 02:07:33 PM
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.

That makes more sense. In that case, it will (eventually) be fully compliant.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Buffaboy on February 15, 2016, 03:04:32 PM
Why are the dash marks so long on the turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 15, 2016, 06:20:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 15, 2016, 07:42:11 PM
Storm2k, thanks for your post. Yes, as you and cl94 said they will be in compliance once that process is finished, based on the photos you posted. I had thought all the new signs were in place in that area; didn't realize NJTA is still working on it. Very good.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 15, 2016, 08:08:24 PM
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.

PTC uses a longer length as well, but theirs is not as long.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on February 15, 2016, 10:51:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 16, 2016, 12:07:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on February 16, 2016, 12:13:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2016, 12:40:36 PM
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.

The only ones requires the Turnpike Authority to use the long 25 foot lines is the Turnpike Authority.   So of course they could change them.  I wonder if the 'they' in the review meeting was someone not with the Turnpike Authority.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 16, 2016, 03:06:21 PM
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.

Absolutely correct.

it would be relatively long - and deep - to get under city water supply tunnels, subways and the rest of it.  The Lincoln tunnel is about 100 feet under mean high water of the Hudson, and the Queens Mid-Town is the same under the East River. 

On the other hand, the Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Bay_Aqua-Line) bridge tunnel features a tunnel section that is between 9 and 10 kilometers (!) long, with an artificial island about halfway across that provides ventilation.

it is apparently a bored tunnel (I have no idea what kind of geology exists under Tokyo Bay).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on February 16, 2016, 03:14:06 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2016, 06:37:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 06:40:26 PM
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.

I'd prefer reflectors. A hell of a lot easier to see at night.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 16, 2016, 07:29:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 16, 2016, 07:35:57 PM
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.

I've thought that while driving on the NJ Turnpike. It isn't as much of a problem in my new car because of where the speedometer is located, but I use dashed lines for speed measurement as they're typically placed at even intervals. Longer lane lines as found on a few toll roads make it harder to do that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 16, 2016, 07:36:50 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7334819,-74.1240672,3a,75y,252.87h,82.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saVicQ7hoJVijqtjQSJptAw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 

I see at the time google captured this the at exit guide for Exit 15E was being installed.  Great shot, and also its interesting to see a control city on a pull through sign as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: OracleUsr on February 16, 2016, 10:11:07 PM
Great capture.  I kind of like the new signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on February 17, 2016, 10:15:11 AM
^^ Perhaps maybe when NJ Turnpike goes MUTCD it will use standard lanes?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2016, 10:42:36 AM
^^ Perhaps maybe when NJ Turnpike goes MUTCD it will use standard lanes?

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.

As for the broken lines, here's what the MUTCD says about it:

Quote
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.

If anything, the Turnpike only errors on the gaps.  The current 25 foot line should be followed by a 75 foot gap.  The NJ Turnpike only has a 25 foot gap (and even a few feet shorter in some instances).  But there's no requirement the broken line needs to be 10 feet long.

As far as (E) - Dotted Lines go, the Turnpike has been painting them on the deceleration lanes (and on the accel lanes where room permits), replacing the former broken lines that were used.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2016, 04:15:24 PM
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).

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on February 17, 2016, 04:48:58 PM
Doesn't/Didn't the Illinois Tollway system have their own style of pavement markers as well?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:32:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 17, 2016, 06:33:35 PM
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're putting up new flip signs? Jeesh.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 17, 2016, 06:34:13 PM
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).


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.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 17, 2016, 08:02:08 PM
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2016, 09:09:12 PM
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.

Thanks.  I knew that FHWA only talks to the state DOT on most matters, but did not know if there is a New Jersey MUTCD supplement.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2016, 09:10:15 PM
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.)

Reflectors also wear out or get dirty, and even "plowable" pavement markers can (and do) get gouged out of the pavement sometimes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 17, 2016, 11:58:16 PM
Heh, the streetview image shows a rare proper I-95 reassurance marker. Wish they would put more up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2016, 09:35:03 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 18, 2016, 01:45:34 PM
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).

They've existed for a long time, but were sporadically put up, and not always frequently.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 21, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
This was put up recently in Carteret on the Industrial Highway at the intersection with the Exit 12 entrance ramp:

(http://i.imgur.com/EhF9tNU.jpg) (http://imgur.com/EhF9tNU)

What a lovely MUTCD assembly. Not sure who put it up, if it was the NJTA or Carteret Borough (though the NJTA has control of a couple of intersections around the exit. Haven't seen another assembly like this anywhere else yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 22, 2016, 11:33:47 PM
My, isn't that lovely trash, too? Cool assembly, though.  :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 22, 2016, 11:40:26 PM
My, isn't that lovely trash, too? Cool assembly, though.  :-D

That trash is about what I'd expect at Exit 12...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 05, 2016, 10:03:54 AM
My, isn't that lovely trash, too? Cool assembly, though.  :-D

That trash is about what I'd expect at Exit 12...

Heh. About 15 years ago I had to go to some depositions in a building adjacent to the Superfund site in Carteret. The attorney whose client had an office there offered us all tap water. Not surprisingly, nobody accepted.  :ded:  (it was somewhere near the intersection of Middlesex and Chrome, for those who know the area)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJ on March 15, 2016, 11:11:39 AM
When driving from Newark Airport to Bergen County I noticed new MUTCD signage placed on NJ Turnpike with up arrows. I like it but did not like how they placed two cities in one row with dash (Such as Newark - Elizabeth). Put Elizabeth below Newark.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 21, 2016, 08:13:55 PM
So what old signs are left on the Turnpike and ramps?  Anything? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 21, 2016, 08:35:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 08:26:14 AM
I always like the northbound signs at Exit 11 with the THRU TRAFFIC pull through on the inner roadway at the actual exit with the guide sign for the exit itself being on a partial gantry like the gor exit signs are.  Its reverse of the tradition there, but the outer roadway keeps the tradition with the pull through at the deceleration lane start.

Glad to see that still there and hope so as I have no picture yet of it.  Maybe if I am lucky I can get there soon to photograph it before it comes down.

Anyway, the NJTA needs to remove the US 1 shields after the Exit 11 plaza on the overheads as the new GSP signs on its service road have removed the follow up US 1 shield at the NJ 184 exit as well as NJDOT removing any trailblazing for US 1 within the US 9 & NJ 184 interchange several decades ago.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 22, 2016, 11:37:58 AM
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:
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 22, 2016, 11:59:21 AM
I see that Chester, PA was ditched for Glassboro at Exit 2.

Anyway, for Exit 8A signs, they were installed back in 1990 when the 8A to 9 widening took place.  In addition the Exit 11 signs had the same in an 1988 or 1989 sign replacement project there as well, and  have heard they were copied over to still feature that even though Camden, Trenton, and New York (City) are now used at Exit 129 on the Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2016, 12:20:13 PM
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:
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on March 22, 2016, 12:25:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2016, 12:35:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on March 22, 2016, 01:38:32 PM

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.

That's too bad.  I've always liked the NJTP-style signage, and the fact that you can only find it on the NJTP.  Not so sure how I feel about those extra-long lane separator lines though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 22, 2016, 06:59:42 PM
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.

It was not a Federal requirement. It was the NJTA's desire to comply now before their hand was forced.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 22, 2016, 07:14:34 PM
Ah, ok. What if their hand was forced? Would they have been required to actually put up the 95 shields?? Lol
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 22, 2016, 11:14:29 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on March 23, 2016, 12:40:02 AM
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
I always found it amusing that they replaced the other sign but kept the thru traffic sign button copy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 23, 2016, 06:57:00 AM
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

They installed the new overhead signs exiting after the toll plaza the other night.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on March 23, 2016, 10:15:24 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 23, 2016, 11:19:21 AM
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
I-95 shields appear on entrance BGSs after (inside) toll barriers as far south as Exit 8:
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2016, 12:13:02 PM
Yeah they have them in some locations, but oddly not all locations where they should've been posted as of yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on March 23, 2016, 02:05:46 PM
Yeah they have them in some locations, but oddly not allocations at locations where they should've been posted as of yet.

Autocorrect?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2016, 03:02:45 PM
Yeah they have them in some locations, but oddly not allocations at locations where they should've been posted as of yet.

Autocorrect?

I am the worst when it comes to typing on my phone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 23, 2016, 10:50:26 PM
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
I-95 shields appear on entrance BGSs after (inside) toll barriers as far south as Exit 8:
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)

The one for Exit 8 only came into existence when they rebuilt the interchange as part of the widening. Interestingly it did not get the same treatment as the ones for the other expansion exit redesigns which use actual location names instead of just "Turnpike North" and "Turnpike South" and include the NJTP shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 24, 2016, 05:31:37 PM
I should clarify, any button copy signage left?  I haven't been on the turnpike since November. 

Such as and more...
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5686/20442151684_c125013473_c.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/352/19222234960_9e60ce6c6d_c.jpg)

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3809/19770223930_8b24066d3e_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 24, 2016, 08:37:14 PM
I should clarify, any button copy signage left?  I haven't been on the turnpike since November. 

Such as and more...

The Exit 12 sign is still there, but endangered. All of the button copy will be eventually replaced by the MUTCD replacement project north of Exit 10.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on March 26, 2016, 10:07:06 AM
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)?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on March 26, 2016, 10:31:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 31, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 31, 2016, 04:53:38 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2016, 05:03:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 31, 2016, 09:25:58 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 31, 2016, 09:29:31 PM
I mentioned that on an earlier post. Looks like the DRBA got in on the same VMS contract as the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2016, 10:00:41 PM
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

Yes. Both they and the PANYNJ (I believe) went with the same structure design.
Title: Re: The main problem with the New Jersey Turnpike is .......
Post by: storm2k on April 01, 2016, 12:09:55 PM
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

I'm pretty sure the Exit 17 signs are gone. Everything north of Exit 10 is going away as the MUTCD project covers all of that. Everything from 6 to 8A is new from the expansion project and everything from 5 to 1 was replaced in the past four or five years (so still classic Turnpike style but all new reflective non-button copy signage). In the not too distant future, there won't be a lick of button copy left, depending on whether or not they replace the barrel signs at the on-ramps from 9 through 14 (excluding Exit 10 which is getting the newer hybrid barrel/VMS signs as part of the ramp work there).
Title: Re: The main problem with the New Jersey Turnpike is .......
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2016, 05:15:59 PM
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).
Title: Re: The main problem with the New Jersey Turnpike is .......
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 01, 2016, 05:23:22 PM
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
Title: Re: The main problem with the New Jersey Turnpike is .......
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 01, 2016, 07:59:21 PM
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).

Which ones...old or new?  And the route number has been and will be argued for centuries, even though no one seems to mind as it's one of the business roads in America (regardless if people know what route they're actually on).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 03, 2016, 12:24:00 AM
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

If you're referring to the old non-reflective button copy overheads approaching the Turnpike/GSP ramp from 9NB, those have been gone for the last six or seven months.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 03, 2016, 06:52:30 PM
Now gone:
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/old_njtp_gsp_bgs.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 26, 2016, 08:47:22 AM
Every month around this time, the NJ Turnpike Authority has their monthly meeting to approve contracts and conduct other business.  Occasionally some noteworthy discussions come about, but generally speaking they're pretty mundane.  Here's this month's agenda: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/BM_4-26-16.pdf .  The only thing of major interest is the approval of the bid to rebuild the GSP Interchange in Sayreville into a full interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/GDtBmmEtCo12), including replacing the overpasses over Chevalier Ave...no small task considering the Parkway is 15 lanes wide at this point.

Also, approval of some final payments for various contracts related to the NJ Turnpike 6-9 widening project (anyone remember that project...it was so long ago now!).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 26, 2016, 12:46:42 PM
Now gone:
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/old_njtp_gsp_bgs.jpg)

Correct, those were replaced last summer.

Speaking of which. It seems like some signs for the MUTCD replacements on the Turnpike are getting illumination, and others are not. Does anyone know what the deciding factor is for whether or not a sign gets illumination?

For example:
(http://i.imgur.com/WEKb88z.jpg)
No illumination

(http://i.imgur.com/LT2g01k.jpg)
Illuminated

(http://i.imgur.com/LXhoN6p.jpg)
Illuminated, but that's because they reused the old 16W overhead gore point exit sign cantilever.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 26, 2016, 10:52:13 PM
NJ Turnpike as a rule does not illuminate new signs because they are retroreflective. However, the Westerly Alignment has been identified as a fog location, so that is an exception to the rule. Don't know why it's not applied to the first photo, but maybe that's outside the limits of the fog area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 05:25:04 PM
Book 'em - toll fraud 1!

NJ.COM: Bamboozled: Contractor charged in E-ZPass scam, customer nightmare over (http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2016/05/bamboozled_e-zpass_nightmare_mess_leads_to_arrest.html)

Quote
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.

Quote
Zaragoza repeatedly gave proof the violations weren't his, but E-ZPass kept sending more notices.

Quote
More than 140 in all.

Quote
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).

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 06, 2016, 08:20:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2016, 08:34:00 PM
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.

Part of the problem appears to be the Delaware DMV continued to keep this guy's name associated with the stolen license plate. If they had disconnected his name from the plate, it would've prevented EZ Pass from getting his address.

Amazing that EZ Pass didn't do something sooner though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2016, 09:56:15 AM
Now gone:
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/old_njtp_gsp_bgs.jpg)
  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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 07, 2016, 05:11:49 PM
Someone many moons ago mentioned a traffic light at the exit 9 ramps (search function sucks here so I can't really look for it too well) but here's some photographic proof of it existing (check the upper left hand side):
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7736/26781305642_6e2cf4ae35_z.jpg)
(source (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ereiss1/26781305642/))

So thank you Governor Cahill toll workers for slowing down the tollbooth traffic that day so people's memories can be jogged 44 years later about a completely unrelated item!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 07, 2016, 05:55:13 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 07, 2016, 06:17:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on May 07, 2016, 06:29:08 PM
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.

Light was dead center of this image (http://historicaerials.com?layer=1969&zoom=18&lat=40.477753646321986&lon=-74.40989077091217)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on May 07, 2016, 11:19:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on May 07, 2016, 11:37:08 PM
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.

From what I can tell, it served no other purpose than to provide access to the HQ building. Some of the ramps minus the light existed until recently.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Stephane Dumas on May 08, 2016, 07:43:13 AM
I saw these vintage NJ Turnpike movies posted on Youtube.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2016, 09:16:32 AM
Loved the videos! Thanks for posting them!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 08, 2016, 10:28:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 17, 2016, 10:48:54 AM
NJ.com has an article (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/05/why_do_the_new_turnpike_and_parkway_signs_look_rusty.html) today about the use of weathering steel as part of the Turnpike/Parkway MUTCD signage replacements.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on May 19, 2016, 03:28:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2016, 08:39:11 AM
The Turnpike decided to change their pull-thru control city approaching Interchange 5 Sounthbound.

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) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0518161316_Burst11.jpg.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 09:08:23 AM
The Turnpike decided to change their pull-thru control city approaching Interchange 5 Sounthbound.

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
Did they change the Northbound one too? I would think getting rid of "Thru Traffic" would be more of a priority
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
The Turnpike decided to change their pull-thru control city approaching Interchange 5 Sounthbound.

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
Did they change the Northbound one too? I would think getting rid of "Thru Traffic" would be more of a priority

I didn't notice...didn't even look back to see!

I'm guessing this one was changed because at Interchange 6, the control cities are Wilmington & Camden.  At Interchange 5, the control city was Wilmington, but no exit for Camden.  So Camden kinda just vanished at that point, even though it should be the next large city one comes to.

In other news, the chosen control cities suck.  Baltimore would've worked just fine.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mariethefoxy on May 19, 2016, 11:22:31 PM
I miss the signs that used to tell you how many miles till the next exit, comes in handy when you're dealing with the monotony of the Turnpike in South Jersey, especially between Exits 1 and 4
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 20, 2016, 08:17:14 PM
I agree with J & N. Baltimore would solve the whole issue. Who cares if it's two states away? It still makes sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 20, 2016, 10:06:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on May 21, 2016, 01:00:05 PM
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?

From what I remember seeing (I was looking in my side mirror because I was going southbound and the sign was posted northbound), yes just one city listed with Route 1 and 18 shields.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2016, 08:32:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 21, 2016, 08:54:48 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 22, 2016, 12:18:52 PM
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

Apparently Illinois DOT and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority did not get the memo about the use of states as control cities.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on May 22, 2016, 12:36:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on May 22, 2016, 03:14:17 PM
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,

What's the logic behind prohibiting anything other than cities to be used as control targets?  I mean, the MUTCD's UK counterpart has no qualms with using "The North" and "Channel Tnl" as control whatchamacallits.

Quote
but me personally I can see some states keep using state names as control cities and not have a problem with it.

Same here.  Same with bridges and tunnels (as I hinted with the aforementioned Channel Tunnel).

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 22, 2016, 04:23:41 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on May 22, 2016, 05:01:11 PM
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.

Utah is the default control city on I-70 from Grand Junction west to the CO/UT line, although there is still a handful of Green River control cities on the older BGSs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 22, 2016, 08:12:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 23, 2016, 09:01:56 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on May 23, 2016, 09:41:05 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 27, 2016, 08:14:23 AM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 27, 2016, 12:55:57 PM
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.

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.
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.

Yes, NJDOT always has been (and continues to be) redundant about putting the Turnpike/Parkway name along with the shield on their signs. Given that a big part of the project for the TA was to include actual control cities, you would think they would have used them (after all, 129 gives control cities for the Turnpike).

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on May 27, 2016, 01:21:03 PM
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.

The only stated MUTCD prohibition regarding BGS supports on freeways is for new 'butterfly' sign posts in unprotected exit gores.  As far as I'm concerned, a center post sign in the median between the cars only and cars/trucks lanes is no different than an overhead gantry upright that falls in the median between opposing lanes.  And it doesn't even have to be ten feet from the edge of roadway.  Provided you have additional guardrail posts within the area adjacent to the post to minimize deflection should a vehicle hit the guardrail, it should be OK.  And a single post is a much simpler design than a full gantry spanning twelve lanes, which is the only feasible alternative if you wish to totally avoid having obstructions within the medians separating the lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 27, 2016, 03:26:51 PM
How is exit number visibility with MUTCD signs on those center post setups? One advantage to the old style NJTP signs was the size of the numeral on those signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 27, 2016, 09:36:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 28, 2016, 10:55:20 AM
GaDOT uses them a lot on both I-75 and I-95 and these two highways have the one direction carriageway.

Anyway, being that the GSP is sort of a bypass to NYC.  If you are going from Richmond, VA to Albany, NY, lets say, it is used to connect both I-95 and I-87 together.  You would figure that Albany would make it on there.  Yes the signage is so inconsistent here as the GSP uses control cities on 129 guide signs.  However, the pull through on the long c/d road still is redundant even though its right next to the ramp to the NJT with control cities on it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 28, 2016, 12:24:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 29, 2016, 11:42:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 29, 2016, 11:55:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 29, 2016, 06:00:24 PM
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.

Includes structure replacement as well, so they could have just as easily budgeted in the extra cost for the extra structures.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 29, 2016, 07:00:51 PM
Being the agency is pretty flush with money right now, I don't think money was an issue here. It has the soundings of a simple in-kind structure and sign replacement.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 29, 2016, 08:14:34 PM
Usually when a contractor replaces, that is all they do.  In the case of the 6 to 9 widening the signs were not replacements but new signs from a brand new road.  It was planned out by an engineer, as supposed to a simple replacement, which a work order is given out to change something without anything new to be added.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2016, 02:52:33 PM
 Well, that's not right!!   :-o

https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 01, 2016, 06:51:45 PM
Well, that's not right!!   :-o

https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Please. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 01, 2016, 09:47:02 PM
Yeah really; that's a pretty serious error..........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 01, 2016, 09:52:11 PM
Well, that's not right!!   :-o

https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Please. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 01, 2016, 09:58:43 PM
Well, that's not right!!   :-o

https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Please. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.

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!

Except when the XBL is open, the lane is typically coned off (and you won't be able to get into that lane with the constant stream of buses, anyway).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2016, 12:39:25 AM
Well, that's not right!!   :-o

https://goo.gl/maps/eMTUsefdwMr
Please. That stretch of 495 has alternating green arrows and red X's all the time.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 02, 2016, 02:58:48 AM
Well maybe someday, the PANYNJ will install a zipper barrier and end that :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 02, 2016, 07:34:34 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 02, 2016, 08:27:25 AM
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

Per the Straight line diagrams, the NJTA has authority from the Turnpike Mainline to NJ 3 (MP 0.0 - 0.8).  NJDOT's authority is between NJ 3 & Park Ave (MP 0.8 & 1.8), and the PANYNJ has everything east of Park Ave. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000495__-.pdf

While I like the SLDs, I also take them with a grain of salt sometimes.  Per them, the 1.8 mile stretch of highway has 5 speed limit changes, including a 50 mph limit that runs for barely 1/4 mile between two 40 mph stretches!  I think the actual signed conditions are 50 mph under NJTA/NJDOT jurisdiction, and 35 mph where it becomes PANYNJ responsibility. Conditions permitting, of course.

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.

LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2016, 07:42:19 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 02, 2016, 08:03:41 PM
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.

Those bridges will never be replaced unless they literally fall down. It's not going to happen.

Quote
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 often does that happen? I never see it on the traffic reports, so I'm assuming not too often.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 03, 2016, 12:49:18 AM
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.

Those bridges will never be replaced unless they literally fall down. It's not going to happen.

Quote
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 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).
As for buses stalling - hell, it's happened to me once, and I've only gone into the city by bus about 20 times. So anecdotally, 5% of the time. Realistically, every couple of weeks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 03, 2016, 06:50:53 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 03, 2016, 08:27:38 AM
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.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 03, 2016, 12:01:26 PM
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.

Color me shocked. I knew that work was coming up at the helix, but I didn't know the bridges were going to be replaced. That'll be a nightmare.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 03, 2016, 07:57:25 PM
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
Not a project yet. Just noting the bridges' age and condition.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 07:39:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 05, 2016, 11:23:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 05, 2016, 11:29:19 PM
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.

Yep. Have to place it at the toll plaza and back it up, or put it somewhere else and shut down WB while it gets in position. Either way, not pretty.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 05, 2016, 11:58:05 PM
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 Turnpike's 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  and hooked-up.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 06, 2016, 12:04:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 06, 2016, 12:08:46 AM
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?

That is a good question. I suppose provision for stopping westbound N.J. 495 traffic has to be part of the plan, so the wrecker can get to the disabled, and in that case, probably better to just hook-up the bus and get it to the helix area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 06, 2016, 06:32:44 AM
The XBL opened in 1970.  Again, we're finding solutions to problems that haven't existed for 46 years. 

In the event of a breakdown or crash, it would be like any other highway incident...see where the crash is located, and figure out the best way to deal with it.  There's also the matter of jurisdiction...if it occurs where the Turnpike, DOT or PA has jurisdiction, different towing companies may need to be called. And none of this reflects if there's an issue within the tunnel.

BTW, the rate for those large wreckers is something like $400 an hour.  If they utilized a standby for 4 or so hours every morning, That's a very expensive person just sitting there in case something happens.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 06, 2016, 08:37:01 AM
It's several years old, but NJ.com had an article regarding the day in a life of working at and near the Lincoln Tunnel.  Basically, "organized chaos" that deals with anything from pedestrians and birds in the tunnel to accidents.  According to one person interviewed, it takes a year, but you get used to the noises from the skidding and sudden braking. 

Definitely not a day in the life of working the Blue Ridge Parkway!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/traffic_team_based_in_weehawke.html

And when a large vehicle needs towing, the PANYNJ has that taken care of as well.  They have tow trucks that can make a complete U-turn within the 2 lane tunnel, and can pull out buses that get disabled within them. https://www.google.com/search?q=LINCOLN+TUNNel+TOW+TRUCKS&biw=1536&bih=674&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSz-a9spPNAhUFyj4KHY8cBGYQ_AUICCgD&dpr=1.25#imgrc=X0OSAgLRlANakM%3A
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 06, 2016, 04:10:03 PM
Got some sign updates today:

the NJ Tpke maintained signage is basically all gone in I-280.
This one remains and that's all I saw.
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7323/27507164245_846b6dab74_c.jpg)

and this is due to be gone soon as the foundations are settling.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7443/26898534593_28144df280_c.jpg)

and how old is this?  Yes the shield is an old spec shield...but is it really THAT old?
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7666/27408420062_0a5355a43c_c.jpg)

This is new on I-280.
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7612/27435549151_b570159d58_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 09, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
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)?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on June 09, 2016, 07:16:11 PM
Is there a reason why the sign is missing the exit tab?  Sure, the old sign was like that, but that was wrong too!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 09, 2016, 08:11:05 PM
I believe technically the exits for CR 508 are also part of Exit 15W is why that is.

Also at the WB Exits on I-78 for US 1 & 9 are left numberless for the same reason as its all part of Exit 14. 

The concept is that its a split in the ramps post toll booth, like the two directions of travel at Exit 4 for Route 73 which have no number either.  As the toll booths are the actual exit, so in essence 15W splits three ways into WB Route 280, Eastbound CR 508, and Westbound CR 508.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 10, 2016, 01:09:29 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 10, 2016, 07:13:45 AM
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)

As long as it's legible, I don't give a... :)

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 10, 2016, 05:34:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 10, 2016, 07:03:20 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 11, 2016, 12:00:28 PM
Are the Exit 12 button copy signs still there Northbound? Anybody drive by recently?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 12, 2016, 10:10:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on June 13, 2016, 03:50:55 PM
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)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 08:33:22 PM
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)



They likely will be later in the year as the MUTCD replacements continue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 13, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 11:00:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2016, 11:05:19 PM
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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2016, 08:54:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 20, 2016, 01:53:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on June 20, 2016, 02:25:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 20, 2016, 02:56:56 PM
Are any townships still listed on the BGS?
Woodbridge for Exit 11 (GSP).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2016, 04:33:46 PM
Are any townships still listed on the BGS?
Woodbridge for Exit 11 (GSP).

Swedesboro & Glassboro for Exit 2, Atlantic City Exp for Exit 3, Mount Laurel for Exit 4. All are not cities. 2 are boroughs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 20, 2016, 05:28:55 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2016, 09:03:41 PM
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

I think it was just a wild assumption without any basis to it...especially as you noted how our cities and towns truly work.  2 of our 3 villages have well over 10,000 residents in this state; our smallest city doesn't even have 500 people.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on June 20, 2016, 10:32:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 21, 2016, 09:20:59 AM
Would "Thee Brunswicks" be allowed by the MUTCD?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 21, 2016, 12:28:59 PM
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?

Most of the examples you mentioned were to go back to only having a maximum of 2 destinations on the primary signs and then putting others on a supplemental sign.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 21, 2016, 12:30:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 21, 2016, 12:50:46 PM
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.
I-95 in NH used to use The Hamptons for its Exit 2 listings.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 21, 2016, 12:54:17 PM
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.

In other states, their cities are 200 square miles large and have 30 exits for them to choose from. In New Jersey, our towns and cities are 2 square miles large and we have 1 exit for a whole bunch of them.    You miss your exit, you can get off the next one a few miles down the road, but you're already 5 towns away if not in another state! #slightexaggeration   :-P
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 21, 2016, 04:48:19 PM
I'm pretty sure "the Brunswicks" is used in real life if not on signs. Same with "the Wildwoods", "the Amboys" (even though Perth Amboy isn't just Amboy), and "the Oranges".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on June 21, 2016, 04:50:46 PM
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)

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 21, 2016, 07:03:44 PM
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)

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?
I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on June 21, 2016, 07:26:59 PM
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)

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?
I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.

NJ 300?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 21, 2016, 07:48:01 PM
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)

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?
I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 21, 2016, 07:50:48 PM
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.
I-95 in NH used to use The Hamptons for its Exit 2 listings.

Don't know if Maine still does the following, but at the time of my 1980 and 1983 visits to steprelatives in Nova Scotia, they signed one of the I-95 interchanges (on the untolled section between the NH border and the beginning of the Maine Tpk.) as "The Yorks/The Berwicks".

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 21, 2016, 09:31:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beeper1 on June 21, 2016, 11:18:55 PM
Exit 2 on I-95 in Maine is still signed for The Berwicks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 22, 2016, 12:39:02 AM
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)

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?
I'd say it looks like original NJ 300 was going to have a cloverleaf interchange.

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.
Damn, I mixed them up. 100 then.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 22, 2016, 05:47:18 PM
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. 

Also in the 70s even before I-280 was completed through Harrison and Kearney it was signed as "Newark- The Oranges." In fact it was that way when I left in 1990.

In fact on the Eastern Spur it read "Kearney- The Oranges" instead of using Newark for the longest time as well.  I believe that The Oranges were dropped when the other signs changed to Newark- Kearney.

Also to note the Parkway always signed Exit 145 as "The Oranges- Newark- Harrison" for many decades as well.  In fact I-80 had them for the longest time, and even Steve cannot dispute that one, in Parsippany at I-280's western terminus Exit 47A guides.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 29, 2016, 09:31:32 PM
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.

Exit 14A
(http://i.imgur.com/R8EVkOE.png)

Exit 14B
(http://i.imgur.com/XkXDxZr.png)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 29, 2016, 10:04:32 PM
Yes those signs are classic.  However at the former Grand Street exit (now Christopher Columbus Drive) that had them even when I left NJ in 1990, according to GSV has the new modern rust locked overhead signs with diagramical panels on it.   The pull through sign says "Holland Tunnel" exclusively with no route numbers and said so on the old back lit signs as well, as it might as well be being the interstate route has four signalized intersections along the route after the Turnpike ends and it connects to no freeway beyond it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on June 29, 2016, 10:23:41 PM
I drove the Turnpike from the north end to Exit 6 on Monday and noticed that there is still a decent amount of old signage between Exits 8A and 14. 15-16 has been replaced for MUTCD compliance, at least on the Western Spur. Most of the old mechanical VMS signs remain, but almost everything north of the Exit 14 advances meets modern standards.

On a different note, NJTA did a really nice job with the widening. Loved how fast I was able to take the ramps and pavement was in generally good shape throughout the system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 30, 2016, 12:30:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on June 30, 2016, 07:25:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 30, 2016, 08:06:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on July 01, 2016, 02:31:50 AM
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.

Are the signs immediately west of the at-grade section still there, or were those ancient signs also casualties?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 01, 2016, 11:00:10 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 02, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
That second gantry on NJ-139 is actually a brand new reproduction and technically not period correct design for that roadway!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 02, 2016, 02:20:33 PM
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.
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.
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/NJTP%2014B_zpso3oqmwpz.jpg)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on July 02, 2016, 09:05:38 PM
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.

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.

Shows how long it has been since I was through the Holland Tunnel. Seems like all of the old signs are going away.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 03, 2016, 07:32:42 AM
Except the ones at Jersey Avenue, on the former Boyle Plaza now again 14th Street.  That large overhead that supports the traffic signals as well still has text US 1-9 and Turnpike on it with a few PANYNJ signs for their destinations.

At least the last time GSV went through there it was still there anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 04, 2016, 04:07:41 AM
That second gantry on NJ-139 is actually a brand new reproduction and technically not period correct design for that roadway!

You're right. I forgot that the old sign there was basically a long eye-bar of steel on two supports with some old, old, old signs on them. Sadly no GSV for them, as it only goes back to 2009 when the current structure was already in place.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2016, 07:54:55 AM
Actually at the diverge point of I-78 and NJ 139 there was signs showing that US 1 and US 9 were two different routes instead of US 1-9 or US 1 & 9.  It was across the ramp to the NJ Turnpike with only "Turnpike" on it and not the NJ Turnpike.  It had a piece stick out over the main roadway with the "US 1" and "US 9" not reaching to the far left.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 13, 2016, 01:33:49 AM
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.
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.
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/NJTP%2014B_zpso3oqmwpz.jpg)

Here's the replacement.  Sad.

(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/NJTP%2014B%20New%20BGS_zpsk4pw4ruz.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2016, 12:34:10 PM
Trivia quiz from Funtrivia.com: The New Jersey Turnpike: What Exit? (http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz297450220dab8.html)

Note that one of the questions is clearly out-dated.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 13, 2016, 03:34:13 PM
No control city on the westbound sign? I guess everyone knows it goes to Newark.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 13, 2016, 03:54:47 PM
Are they also replacing these and others like it before exit 10?  These are the old format but not that old.

(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8879/27975466340_3d4eefb25a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/JC6zuy)Recent signage on the NJ Turnpike. Note: the overlays which will reveal an I-95 SOUTH shield and PHILADELPHIA once the I-95/Penn Turnpike connection is complete in 2018. (https://flic.kr/p/JC6zuy) by mergingtraffic (https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 13, 2016, 03:58:49 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on July 13, 2016, 06:04:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 13, 2016, 06:16:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on July 13, 2016, 06:58:15 PM
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?

Yes, but not particularly far.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 13, 2016, 07:59:29 PM
I don't understand roadman65's question. The new sign does say "78 East"...........

And re: I-78 West, the TA must have decided that the route numbers were more important to most drivers than the city of Newark or any other city.

Also re: the Penn Turnpike sign, how did they happen to use the wrong arrows? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on July 13, 2016, 08:53:15 PM
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 to both -  exit 14B to 14C and exit 16W to 18W (and the reverse) require a toll for the ridiculous short distances (I've seen the tickets, but check out Google Maps)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2016, 03:17:29 PM
Also re: the Penn Turnpike sign, how did they happen to use the wrong arrows? 

Did you ever see the arrow used prior to the decal lane for this exit?  Now THAT was a wrong arrow!!!

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.

14B & 14C are separate plazas.  The only dual-exit plaza is 18E & 18W.

The only access outside the ticketed system of the NJ Turnpike is the southern-most mile where US 40 overlaps the NJ Turnpike south of the Interchange 1 toll plaza; from the PA Turnpike to US 130 prior to the Interchange 6 toll plaza, and access to and from Vince Lombardi Service Plaza from the North. (Feel free to include I-95 north of that service plaza as well, since the NJ Turnpike "owns" this stretch of highway)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 07:32:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 14, 2016, 07:37:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2016, 08:08:50 PM
The barrier is hard to see in satellite view.  Interesting that they don't just extend the guiderail or jersey barrier.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 14, 2016, 11:57:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 15, 2016, 12:05:32 AM
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. ;)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 15, 2016, 12:19:52 AM
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. ;)

I was just thinking about that for exiting when I was looking at this again in GSV.  It looks like there were two exiting (NB) booths where they were set up to flip 16E and 18E access (in the GSV link below with the green lane indication signs above) depending on traffic conditions, before they fixed the split with the pylons up to the booth.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7770719,-74.0578796,3a,55.4y,358.65h,96.03t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSrQ3FRaSknB8vQnMfUUEmg!2e0?force=lite (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7770719,-74.0578796,3a,55.4y,358.65h,96.03t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSrQ3FRaSknB8vQnMfUUEmg!2e0?force=lite)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2016, 06:28:25 AM
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. ;)

Also if you got fortunate, the entry person for 18E brought out 16E tickets instead of 18E tickets, giving everyone a slightly discounted rate!

The barrier is hard to see in satellite view.  Interesting that they don't just extend the guiderail or jersey barrier.

In the past (pre-GSV), I think they used large neon 18E and 16E numbers above some of the toll booths.  Today, there's only a few booths that they will switch.  And they also rely more on advanced signage such as this (which I believe has since been updated): https://goo.gl/maps/4sjieSNJeEP2

As shown in the latest GSV, they don't care much if you think you're going to pull a fast one over on them prior to the booth by staying to the cheaper 16E side.  But once you go thru the booth, the pylons are tightly spaced, preventing someone from switching over!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 16, 2016, 01:36:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2016, 02:38:58 AM
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.

The buses also had EZ Pass before anyone else.  Not sure how it worked, but there was a lone EZ Pass exit lane for buses headed for the XBL.  There were no entry plazas with EZ Pass. The lane seemed to simply track the buses, such as how those tickets would have worked.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 16, 2016, 08:36:03 AM
That might of also been the lane that had the tracking devices for the time for the buses were located.  It was in the middle and the farthest left 16E lane, which is where the buses afterwards depart for the XBL as they must exit at NJ 3 for Secaucus which is the left split post plaza.  The sign was above the plaza canopy and it was a flip sign of course that was in two panels BUSES and ONLY.

It probably replaced the former coupon the driver used to use before EZ Pass, and it was for the buses only as the companies were flipping the tolls from fare revenue, which makes me wonder why our cabbies in Orlando don't use our version called the Sun Pass.  Our cab drivers wait in line and become victims of road rage when the car in front of them takes more than 30 seconds to pay the tolls, and don't even ask for receipts to get reinbursed either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 15, 2016, 01:25:50 PM
Just thought I'd throw out the update on the MUTCD conversion between 9 and 14. No new signs of late, but concrete base pouring and curing is happening at most sign locations in this stretch. I imagine that new signs will start appearing by the early fall period (I know on the Eastern and Western spurs once they got rolling on the actual sign structure erections, it went very quickly).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: epzik8 on August 16, 2016, 06:20:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on August 16, 2016, 06:37:11 PM
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). 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 19, 2016, 11:48:47 AM
The old truck/bus and car lane merges used to very near mile marker 73, close to Exit 8A, as mentioned. It is MUCH better now! :)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 19, 2016, 01:29:41 PM
Of course the merge is much better now, as going from 10 to 6 is a true bottleneck.  As I followed along with the project on line, as I have not lived in NJ since 1990, just before the extension of the truck lanes to south of 8A completed, so therfore I have no idea what went on since then.  Only that this last project claimed to be built to ease choking at 8A that was happening.

Prior to August 1990, I never really noticed any choking at 9 where all twelve lanes became six lanes, but I never drove the road religiously.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 19, 2016, 01:47:13 PM
A lot of development occurred since 1990.  The merge south of 8A was made worse as traffic from the car lanes wanted to access the Service Plaza less than a mile south of the merge point.   And while the merge was always the chokepoint, there was really congestion issues throughout the corridor between Interchange 6 and 8A in both directions.   

Going back to that development...Even though it never gets mentioned, the newer NJ Transit Hamilton Train Station in Hamilton, NJ really increased development in the general area.  It made the greater Trenton area, Burlington County, NJ and even Bucks County, PA a suburb of New York City.  People could move into the area where housing was much cheaper and land more plentiful compared to North Jersey, and even though it made for a long commute they would catch the train to work.  But unlike what a lot of mass-transit optimists think, those new train stations bring a lot of vehicle traffic with them too.  So that increased traffic in the area.  And warehouses found the area desirable to move their goods up and down the east coast, as it's fairly central to the region, and there was a boost in population to find employees.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 19, 2016, 01:59:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 19, 2016, 02:08:26 PM
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.

Much of my local travel takes me over the Turnpike in various spots, so I get to view this quite often without being stuck in it!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jemacedo9 on August 19, 2016, 02:19:25 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 19, 2016, 11:09:51 PM
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?
a) Both of the above are somewhat true.
b) The congestion south of 2 is due to the Delaware Memorial Bridge and the narrowing in DE to get onto I-95 and US 13 (specific problem: the I-95 weave to DE 1). No amount of widening will change that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2016, 12:40:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 21, 2016, 09:41:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on August 21, 2016, 10:14:41 AM
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.

I wouldn't assume that.  People who don't know where they're going may very well just follow I-95 straight down.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 21, 2016, 03:21:42 PM
I agree with Dave. Half of the motoring public has no clue and many traveling between NYC and Washington may well just blindly follow I-95 all the way thru Philadelphia and not even know the difference.

As an example, recently I was talking to a lady who lives in the Langhorne, Pa. area who drives to NYC on the NJT once in a while. And when I mentioned to her how great it is that the NJT finally has the widened dual roadways all the way down to the Penn. Tpk, she had no idea what I was talking about. So there you are.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 22, 2016, 09:34:04 AM
Sure, there will be people like that, but not enough to change the volume on the Turnpike. And ask yourself, will a person like that start taking a different route because there is a new I-95 shield on Exit 6? Anyone who takes the Turnpike even semi-regularly probably knows where they get on/off it (even if they think it goes all the way to the Delaware Memorial Bridge. I noticed a sign in Carneys Point yesterday that says "TURNPIKE SOUTH Use Del. Memorial Bridge"). I would bet that this will actually go the other way, and some people who might benefit from the interchange will not use it, just because they've always used Exit 4 or whatever.

And anyway, whatever happened to "everybody blindly follows their GPS"? Once the maps get updated, the GPS people will just follow the right route because their GPS tells them to.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 22, 2016, 10:32:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2016, 11:20:31 AM
I look at it this way:  There's about 6 ways for traffic to travel north and south between Delaware & North Jersey:

They look at paper maps and figure out the best route.
They use GPS.
They use handwritten notes or directions they printed out beforehand.
They use the BGS, using the destinations and/or route numbers.
They feel they'll save money by jumping over to PA.
They go by memory. 

Those using paper maps are probably getting lost if they're assuming they can get from the PA Turnpike to 95 directly.  These people will continue to go that way, but at least they'll have the direct connection.

Those using handwritten notes and directions printed out beforehand may change, based on what their source is telling them.  So there may be a shift here, especially those driving south and destined for Philadelphia or other points in PA.  For those continuing south into Delaware, the NJ Turnpike thru South Jersey is generally the faster/shorter way to go.

Those relying on the signage will have the biggest impact on traffic flow.  They will follow signs for 95 regardless.  Or, they know Philly is the next major city they'll come to, and when they see that on the signs, they'll follow that.  This is also the group that will be making those last second changes from the Turnpike mainline to the Exit 6 ramp, because they'll catch it at the last second.

Those that think they're saving money by exiting at Exit 6 will also be game changers.  When it's said and done, they'll save less than $2 in tolls, and probably lose it in additional mileage and congestion in Philly.

GPS and Online Maps may or may not change. Those have the ability to figure out the drive based on traffic, especially via GPS.
They just go based on what they're told to do.  Likewise, there may be a shift here, especially those driving south and destined for Philadelphia or other points in PA.

The going-by-memory people will never change, or will slowly change.  Even if they can save 15 minutes or miles by going another direction, if they've always gone a certain way, they'll continue to go that way.

So, that's my rundown.  While the majority of traffic has done the route before, many, many travelers won't remember the route they took.  They rely on directions every year, especially if they only take the route once a year.  And there's a lot of people that have never driven the route before, so everything will be new to them anyway.  And while we often focus on thru traffic, PA bound traffic will probably have the biggest impact.  Moneywise, it may actually be more expensive.  Time-wise though, they'll probably save time by using the direct 95 routing...depending on Philly congestion on 95.

I also focus mainly on those traveling South.  For those going North, I think most of them will use the current routing thru Delaware into NJ, unless Delaware changes their signage (which I don't think they will).

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 hope so...at least for the afternoon rush hour.  The morning rush doesn't have much of an impact on the Turnpike down that way.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 22, 2016, 11:56:10 AM
a couple of notes about signing:

-new signs up at exit 10 (replacing these signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5220087,-74.3511401,3a,75y,68.44h,94.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYAmMVSAKvqvrPG82K_-vsQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)). no mention of edison (that's on a secondary sign). there's a north banner over both 287 and 440, since they both are signed as north at their starting points. would have liked to see morristown as 287's control city since that's what njdot uses (morristown and mahwah).

-Driving home from KOP yesterday, noticed on the Pearl Harbor extension that they're going to replace the signs for the 130 exit (is it technically still 6A since they only have barrier tolls there and it's outside the ticket system?). Right now they are pouring the foundations for new structures. Will be interesting if they end up with MUTCD signage there. Signs were not replaced as part of the dual-dual construction.

-There is still a old fashioned speed limit and neon VMS on the PA side of the Delaware River Bridge. They don't work anymore, but surprised that they haven't been removed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 22, 2016, 01:29:50 PM
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,
Quote
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?

Also,
Quote
Or, they know Philly is the next major city they'll come to
How 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 22, 2016, 02:08:57 PM
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,
Quote
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?

Also,
Quote
Or, they know Philly is the next major city they'll come to
How 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.

Speaking from experience during my days at Interchange 1 on the NJ Turnpike, there were a few (not many) that got to my toll booth going south and asked how much further to Philadelphia.  I told them they passed the exits 30 minutes ago...both Interchange 4 and 3 were signed for Philadelphia (at the time).  They thought they were still on I-95, and figured they would be passing thru the city on the way.

Thus, this says that some people do know what the next city is that they are looking for, and they are looking for those route number trailblazers on the BGSs.  Only recently has the Turnpike used actual control cities on the pullthrough signage, so they didn't have that to assist them in the past either.  As far as missing 'Philadelphia' on the signs for Exits 4 and 3, it goes back to the traveler expecting the city to come into view, and since those exits would seemingly have nothing to do with Philadelphia, they ignored them.

While one would thing people wouldn't rely solely on BGSs and other related signage, there's a number of people that do!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 23, 2016, 10:30:55 AM
Jeff I get people all the time looking confirming that they are heading for I-4 when heading east on FL 528.  As you probably already know I-4 and FL 528 intersect at the west terminus of the toll road.  Its a common thing nowadays as no one is really comprehending what its written on road signs anymore.

I had one guy who asked me if he was heading to I-4, because his GPS told him was sending him the way he was going.  The funny thing is, again, it was the wrong way, but the guy said to me "oh the GPS must know a better way home, as I am heading there."  This man took off trusting the GPS knows a better way then he expected and did not even ask me how to turn around.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 23, 2016, 10:39:29 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 23, 2016, 10:44:24 AM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2016, 11:20:25 AM
I had them people too.  You know the hardest thing to tell them?  How to get back to I-95 when going South at Interchange 1.

Them: "How do I get to I-95?"
Me: "Go Straight 6 Miles"
Them: "Which side, left or right"
Me: "Straight"

Blow them away. 

After I saw this happen at Interchange 3, I never said keep left again. After you go thru the toll plaza, you can keep left for 168 South (to Atlantic City), or keep right for 168 North. 

Them: "Which way to Atlantic City?"
Me: "Keep Left"

What do they do?  They go *thru* the cones into the opposing direction of traffic, all the way to the left on-ramp going the opposite direction!  Certainly no signage or anything telling them to go the wrong way!  Thankfully it was late and very little traffic was on the road.  After that, "Go Straight" was my answer.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 23, 2016, 02:58:25 PM
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.  Plus the cliques that form which is why today morals are different in society as morals are only as good as the group that makes them during their gossip talks.

I had a guy yesterday from New York, go into the express Sunpass lanes, figure out he was there, stopped his car, hopped over a Jersey barrier, and walked the roadway in traffic just to pay the toll that he should have been paying in the manual lanes if he had been a careful driver.  He risked his life to pay a two dollar and some change toll.    Of course we have no means to process the tolls if he did pay it, so he did all that for nothing.  Of course he used the excuse "I am from New York, so I do not know how your tolls work."  That is the norm now, as nobody even realizes that we have guide signs that help motorists, like you said about I-95 south from Exit 1 on the NJT.  Its clearly marked and on large overhead panels.

I do not know if all this is ignorance or paranoia, but its really weird.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2016, 03:02:00 PM
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.

I worked the tolls about 15 years ago.  That practically is the previous generation.  And they're just passing that lack-of-knowhow down to today's generation of drivers!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2016, 12:51:58 PM
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_pop

The reporter tends to have some interesting articles like this.  He does a decent job of including the entire state in his reporting.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 24, 2016, 06:42:55 PM
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_pop

The reporter tends to have some interesting articles like this.  He does a decent job of including the entire state in his reporting.
He 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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 24, 2016, 08:50:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on August 24, 2016, 09:38:56 PM
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago). 

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.
ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 24, 2016, 11:46:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 25, 2016, 10:10:59 AM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2016, 12:46:45 AM
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...
Any idea how long it's been since I've been down there? (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2016, 08:17:35 AM
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago). 

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.
ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.

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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2016, 09:19:13 AM
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago). 

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.
ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.

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 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 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.

The Turnpike stated that if they stuck to the book, the Turnpike between 6 & 7A would only be 5 lanes wide as that's what the projected traffic volumes call for.  However, they learned from some of the issues of the 8A-9 widening including that when the inner roadway needs to be shut down, that only leaves 2 lanes available for traffic to use on the outer roadway.  Thus, they maintained the 6 lane roadway down south of Exit 6.

They still have the center merge and diverge, but it works amazingly well.  The only downside is that it puts motorists from the center inner roadway lane into the left lane of the 3 lane combined roadway.  Sometimes it can take these slower drivers a while to figure out they need to get their slow asses out of the left lane.   I only wish they did the whole merge/diverge area another mile south, where there's very clear sightlines.  For some reason, they chose to do it on a slight curve with a hill.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2016, 12:59:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on August 26, 2016, 04:28:07 PM
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago). 

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.
ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.

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 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.

The outer lanes between exits 8A and 9 opened in October 1990.....
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2016, 05:27:44 PM

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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on August 26, 2016, 10:57:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2016, 08:42:07 AM
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.

And at one of the public meetings prior to the 6-9 widening, I asked about this very scenario.  They said their numerous simulations showed that the best option was to run the 3 lanes thru the interchange, which I found out later was due to the 8A-9 experiences.

As for going NB to WB at Interchange 6, the Turnpike didn't want to invite unnecessary confusion at an area where there's already a bit of confusion.  Truck drivers seem ok with the area, but you'll occasionally see car drivers quickly change lanes at the last moment, not sure what roadway to be in.  Obviously, either roadway is fine; the inner roadway just is (mainly) truck free.  So the Turnpike kept ramps for Interchange 6 from both roadways, so no matter which roadway you chose, you can access interchange 6.  This also matters if they shut down a roadway.

As for WB to SB at Exit 6, the original plans did have separate ramps for the truck and car lanes. The turnpike decided just to build the ramp to the truck lanes, since the roadways merge together a 1/2 mile later anyway.  If the truck lanes are closed, it usually won't impact this area of the roadway, and some cones keeping motorists in a designed lane would work just as well.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on August 27, 2016, 08:52:20 AM
@ 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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2016, 08:54:51 AM
@ 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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 27, 2016, 09:42:39 AM
@ 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

They did a great job of threading County 678 through exit 6 (before and after the widening).

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 27, 2016, 09:47:54 AM
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago). 

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.
ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2016, 10:04:30 AM
The dual-carriageway of the NJTP extension to the PA Turnpike Connector (Exit 6) is relatively recent (roughly 2 years ago). 

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.
ISTR that the truck lanes between 8A and 9 (with only 2 in each direction) opened in '89.

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

Totally agree. Going North, it seems you're barely on the Turnpike for 45 minutes before it widens. And instead of industrial sites and tall buildings, you see farmland. And trees. Maybe an occasional warehouse. Planes flying just above your head and the NYC skyline are nowhere to be found. The dual-dual looks so out of place south of 8A, almost allowing you to forget that you can practically set the cruise control at 85 mph and not be bothered.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mtantillo on August 27, 2016, 08:17:50 PM
Agree that dual-dual so far south looks odd, but so does cruising down the Turnpike at 80 on the Sunday after Thanksgiving! And I'm def not complaining about that!!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on August 28, 2016, 09:55:20 PM

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 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 28, 2016, 10:13:17 PM

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 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.
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.
Yeah, you're right. I never noticed that in all my travels.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 29, 2016, 09:22:04 PM
A few posts back, I think J&N were actually talking 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 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 29, 2016, 09:50:27 PM
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 

I definitely need to proofread more!

Or...I hit the wrong letter on the phone's keyboard. EB and WB are just a button apart!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 29, 2016, 11:16:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 30, 2016, 12:01:09 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 30, 2016, 10:28:44 AM
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.
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 just think in my opinion that having two and two merge is more of way to get the 6 lane to 3 lane traffic down more gradually.  The problem of bottlenecks occurring is not because the road ahead is too narrow, but because the cars coming in from all angles into one spot.  Its like water leaving the bathtub where it takes a long time to empty because all that water has to flow into a two inch pipe.  This would cut down on the amount of cars at one given moment to merge as some of the traffic has been already cut back.

Obviously Jeff said the idea was thought of at the meeting to decide the whole thing that they are worried about the same at 8A and 9, but that would happen here as you are doing the same.  I would think that narrowing of 6 to 3 would be more congested then going from 4 to 3.

Anyway, I did not bring it up because of the traffic counts, but out of curiosity to why they did not choose the same scenario as in Newark at the other end. 


As far as Exit 6 going NB I had no idea there was redundant ramps, and it does not bother me either way as 8A and 9 always did.  However, being the subject is being brought up, you could actually move back the exit ramp for NB 6 about a mile sooner and have it depart before the split.  That too would avoid confusion at the split and already the NJTA done that in Newark as the SB 14 ramp is now before the Car and Truck Lanes split.  You now exit for I-78 on the Eastern and Western Spur proper and no longer from the truck lanes as it has been since the dual carriageway conception back in the late 60's or early 70's.

BTW I am not angry, so this is not intended to be a rage rebuttal but a reply to a discussion that is going on in a calm tone I would like to think.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 06, 2016, 03:05:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 06, 2016, 03:08:18 PM
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.
Interesting.  The signs include the I-95 shield, but green out the destinations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2016, 03:44:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2016, 07:05:47 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on September 07, 2016, 09:38:14 AM
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.

Why would they have greenout going north?  That makes no sense.  I feel like someone may have goofed and the intent may have been to have greenout over Philadelphia on southbound signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 07, 2016, 03:34:46 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on September 07, 2016, 05:15:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2016, 05:23:48 PM
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?

Much too far south for that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 07, 2016, 05:27:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2016, 06:57:29 PM
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?
Using my info - my guess sides with having put the wrong destination.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 07, 2016, 07:11:33 PM
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?
Using my info - my guess sides with having put the wrong destination.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on September 07, 2016, 09:43:02 PM
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?
Using my info - my guess sides with having put the wrong destination.
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.

Let's think about this logically.  New York and/or New York City is the control city on the pull-thru signing since entering NJ from Delaware. I think Alps is probably right. The wrong destination is probably being covered. If so, this destination must be Newark.  Instead of having some form of NYC consistently south of Interchange 9 or 10 then abruptly change to Newark, this effectively results in pull-thru destinations out of order to the northbound user.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 07, 2016, 10:19:13 PM
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?

They're only using the GWB as a destination beyond 16E/W, where it makes sense (since you could take either exit there to get to the Lincoln Tunnel). I'm going to bet they put Newark on those signs when they weren't supposed to.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2016, 10:25:26 PM
It would be nice if, prior to Exit 10, there was a sign or multiple signs, announcing the exits for various routes to NYC as there are probably a half dozen possibilities.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 08, 2016, 11:35:27 AM
IMHO, this is probably one case where the listing of two cities/destinations on one pull-through sign would make the most logical sense; i.e. use the old-school Newark/New York combo that used to be on many northbound entrance ramp signage.  Such would emphasize that the Turnpike passes by/through Newark first and then heads towards the Big Apple (via the G.W. Bridge).

Personally, and I've stated such on other threads; taking the rural approach to highway sign legends (single listings of only cities) and the like in a more populated metropolitan region is not a wise nor rational approach.  Someone's taking the U in MUTCD a bit too literally.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 08, 2016, 02:46:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2016, 03:24:31 PM
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.

But it's still New York.

Also, I-287 is an often-used route to New York.

For these reasons, that's why signage with destinations for New York Exits should be posted prior to Exit 10.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 08, 2016, 03:28:21 PM
I assume that any traffic signs referring to "New York" mean the city and not the state, so I-287 is not often used to get to New York, at least not from anywhere in New Jersey.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on September 08, 2016, 06:37:21 PM
Last I checked, Staten Island is both part of the City and the State.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 08, 2016, 09:07:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on September 08, 2016, 10:42:31 PM
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.

When I hear just "New York," I generally think of the whole state, but that's just me.  When I was in college and would introduce myself to people from other parts of the country, I would explicitly say that I was from New York, the state, not the city.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on September 08, 2016, 10:50:35 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 09, 2016, 08:27:58 AM
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. 

Supplemental BGS for Outerbridge Crossing & Staten Island located prior to the exit ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5493519,-74.315014,3a,75y,156.08h,77.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSfLVhrzkb-j6zI5K-GG-7A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on September 09, 2016, 08:43:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 09, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on September 09, 2016, 10:26:39 AM
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.

As far as New York goes, most people I've met that didn't grow up in the NYC area thought of Manhattan as "the city" and specified the other boroughs by name. From what outsiders see on TV shows and Hollywood, NYC might as well be just Manhattan.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 09, 2016, 12:04:09 PM
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.

Honestly, I don't know if the NJ Turnpike intentionally directs one to stay on the Turnpike.  Generally speaking, it is the most direct route.  Using those "To I-95" signs as an example, there are very few of them (1 or 2, maybe 3), and so far south of Interchange 6, that they don't really impact any traveler's decision making to suddenly leave the highway.  And while the free 295 is next door to the Turnpike, any GPS or mapping software would keep you on the Turnpike if you're on there anyway, since it's shorter in mileage, and faster when referring to the speed limit. 

Going south, a supplemental plate for Philly was placed for Exit 4.  If they wanted to keep people on the 'pike, they would've placed it at Exit 3.

Going north, at the southern base of the Turnpike, the signs could easily direct people wanting to go to Atlantic City to take the Turnpike (to Exit 3).  Instead, US 40's Control City is A.C. 

And in regards to the greenout plates, they could've printed "New York" on those greenouts, which they declined to do (assuming "New York" wasn't what was greened out).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on September 09, 2016, 10:31:48 PM
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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 09, 2016, 10:37:22 PM
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.

If a driver leaves the mainline of the N.J. Turnpike at Exit 14 to head for the Holland Tunnel, then NJTA is collecting revenue for the use of that part of the Turnpike, the "Peak/Weekend" toll is $13.30 from Exit 1 (Delaware Memorial Bridge) to the Exit 14C barrier.

It's $13.85 from Exit 1 to Exit 18E or Exit 18W headed to the GWB.  Not that much of a difference.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on September 09, 2016, 11:38:56 PM
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 anyone thinks of New York City is Broadway, Wall Street, Rockefeller center, Central Park....all in Manhattan.

New York was originally just lower Manhattan

 All the other boroughs are more or less very densely populated suburbs of New York City. Keep in mind they are separate counties as well

Some say Hudson County, NJ is the 6th borough if NYC. And no one would think it weird if someone from Jersey City said referred to Manhattan as the city
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 10, 2016, 11:56:46 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on September 10, 2016, 01:53:00 PM
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.

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.
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.

 Although there was not much reason to go to the "other boroughs", most people came from Newark or Jersey City a few from Trenton or Philadelphia, before they moved down to the shore
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on September 10, 2016, 02:32:26 PM
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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: swbrotha100 on September 10, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on September 10, 2016, 09:27:46 PM
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."

The thing is that control cities are cities, not counties.  You don't generally see signs for I-495 east to Suffolk or I-684 north to Putnam.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on September 10, 2016, 09:56:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 10, 2016, 10:08:31 PM
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.

Isn't Queens contiguous with Queens County and the Bronx contiguous with Bronx County?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 10, 2016, 10:21:13 PM
Yes they are. But Brooklyn is Kings County, Manhattan is New York County and Staten Island is Richmond County. Simple right? LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 10, 2016, 10:29:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on September 10, 2016, 10:31:33 PM
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.

Of course no one refers to the boroughs by their county names. Hardly anyone knows them. My point was that New York = Manhattan or Manhattan = New York does make a certain amount of sense, even if only reaching the surface in a vague sort of way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 10, 2016, 10:35:21 PM
1995hoo.......Us on this forum, hyper-technical? Surely you jest!   :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on September 11, 2016, 11:06:04 PM
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.
Until the 1970s Staten island was officially the Borough of Richmond.

Like Toms River NJ was officially Dover Township until 2006.  If you went to the Ocean County Mall in 1987 no one said I am going to the mall in Dover, it was Toms River

Back to the NJTP topic, there was a proposed spur from the NJTP to Toms River, that was canceled along with all of NJ's ambitious 1960s freeway plans.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 12, 2016, 08:59:25 AM
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. 

I can understand holding off signing such between Exits 7A & 6 due to the PA Turnpike interchange w/I-95 (currently under construction) being not yet completed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on September 12, 2016, 04:27:38 PM
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.

I'm still amazed at the huge number of posts and discussions related to what control cities should be used and what the new exit numbers will be after the switch to mileage based exits.  Yikes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2016, 01:26:05 PM
I think basically New York is Manhattan and not just my own opinion.  The signs on NJ highways, used to always point to that particular borough.  Staten Island was always signed on NJDOT signs as such.  Of course the other three boroughs have to be reached via Manhattan and of course Brooklyn can be via Staten Island as well which could be argued that all signs on US 22 for New York from Phillipsburg are referring to all the boroughs being Manhattan stands in the way of the rest.

Anyway, to me and most around me in North Central Jersey going to "the City" or "New York" was to Manhattan.  Everywhere else was "The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens usually by neighborhood name, or Staten Island."  Heck even the Skyway had signs crossing the Passaic River stating "To New York use Holland Tunnel & Lincoln Tunnel" and the black on white sign on the overhead bridge truss near the Tonelle Avenue exit uses "Midtown New York" for the Lincoln Tunnel's destination and not Midtown Manhattan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 19, 2016, 12:41:01 PM
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*
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 19, 2016, 01:43:46 PM
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*
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.

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.

That is correct, at least based on what they did further north on the Eastern and Western spurs.

Here is 15W:
(http://i.imgur.com/TiAaEym.jpg)

Here is 16W:
(http://i.imgur.com/LXhoN6p.jpg)

In both of these instances you will see they put the signs right on the same cantilevers that the old large Exit signs were.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 26, 2016, 08:40:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 26, 2016, 01:02:25 PM
It's probably because the sports complex has a dedicated interchange just to the north of there for SB traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 26, 2016, 03:43:14 PM
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.

The Turnpike is the main road that brings traffic to and from the Meadowlands complex. Many people come, especially to MetLife, who are not familiar with the area. I think it's appropriate in this case that they mention the Sports Complex on overhead signs because it really helps aid in getting traffic to the right place.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 26, 2016, 08:17:12 PM
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!)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 27, 2016, 11:28:02 AM
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!

However we have the Disney places on the signs here, especially on I-4.

I have no problem with the idea, but it does seem strange though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 10, 2016, 01:10:37 PM
Finally have some news on MUTCD signage between 9 and 14.

First, for you button copy enthusiasts, this sign bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5894071,-74.2376472,3a,28.5y,22.87h,92.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf6csQR8pA0sj0SYu1LTLJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is gone completely. Has new MUTCD complaint bridge.

Seeing the empty gap at the bottom of the 95/NJTP pullthroughs. Did not see greenout. Not sure if they will add New York later or what the plan is there.

New sign up at 13A. Newark Airport is in a white on brown box, like this (http://imgur.com/LXhoN6p). Not using either the EWR logo (like NJDOT does) or the generic MUTCD airport plane symbol, which is an interesting choice to me.

Gore point exit signs are up. In places where there isn't a lot of room, they're putting them vertically on a skinny sign, with the word exit on top, exit number in the middle, and arrow on the bottom. they need this for several exits where there isn't a lot of room. they're not using very sturdy supports either it looks like. I think the days where they use the steel tubes for small green signs is done.

Still curious to see how they're going to handle signing the connections at 14 and the Newark Bay Extension.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 11, 2016, 11:14:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2016, 12:47:47 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2016, 05:17:46 PM
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. 

Isn't it understood that the NJTA management wants to see what the impact of completing I-95 through the interchange at Bristol, Pennsylvania (if the PTC ever gets it done) will have on Turnpike traffic and revenue between 1 and 6 before they decide to spend dollars on a design for and widening of the Turnpike south of 4?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 11, 2016, 05:58:32 PM
I'm well aware of that, but it'll still be faster for through traffic to continue using the Turnpike, if only because of the higher speed limit and not having to drive through Philly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 11, 2016, 06:23:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2016, 09:57:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 12, 2016, 07:50:20 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 12, 2016, 08:03:22 PM
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.
[/quote]

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 12, 2016, 08:08:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 12, 2016, 10:23:24 PM
Quote
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 12, 2016, 10:50:24 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kkt on October 13, 2016, 09:58:48 AM
Seems to me whether stripping causes a backup depends on what she looks like.  :-P

 :clap:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on October 13, 2016, 10:57:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on October 13, 2016, 11:27:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 14, 2016, 02:26:44 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on October 15, 2016, 07:40:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 16, 2016, 12:55:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: OracleUsr on October 16, 2016, 01:22:31 AM
First time I headed to New York from DC I made the I-95 mistake, then took 168 to the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on October 16, 2016, 09:07:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 16, 2016, 06:55:15 PM
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.

Here's a list of them.  Plan your drink and fuel consumption accordingly.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-roadways.html#service

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 16, 2016, 11:07:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 16, 2016, 11:13:32 PM
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.

From what I can tell, everything north of the widening is being replaced (if not already done) regardless of age.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 17, 2016, 11:11:58 AM
To put it in a simple list:

Service Areas by Milepost:

NB:
5.4
39.4
58.7
78.7
92.9
116

SB:
116
111.6 (Easterly Roadway Only)
92.9
71.7
58.7
30.2
5.4

Thus, they are definitely more frequent the further North you are in the state.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 17, 2016, 08:56:59 PM
And don't forget the demolished William Halsey service area (NB just past the current exit 13A)....

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hh88lb9

And the service plazas that faced each other on opposite sides of the Newark Bay Extension...

http://tinyurl.com/gor5zgh

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hubcity on October 18, 2016, 11:23:37 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2016, 11:58:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 18, 2016, 07:47:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 18, 2016, 09:10:05 PM
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?

In a way, the NJ Turnpike is similar.  It's really 2 separate roadways, NJ 700 & I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 19, 2016, 06:30:34 PM
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?

In a way, the NJ Turnpike is similar.  It's really 2 separate roadways, NJ 700 & I-95.


It's not really the same. The DRBA is a multistate authority operating a bridge which carries I-295 which has normal mile markers outside of DRBA maintained stretch in both Delaware and NJ.

Had the Somerset Freeway been built, yes, the Turnpike would have imposed its own mileage on the stretch of I-95 it was concurrent with, with I-95 mileage resuming where the Turnpike ended, but with the current (or soon to be current) routing of I-95 over the PA Turnpike, the mileage won't add up anyway, so I-95 experiences three different and unrelated mileage systems in NJ (0-6, 51-122, and 72-75, the last only implicitly as no mile markers are actually installed there to my knowledge)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 19, 2016, 06:51:57 PM
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 19, 2016, 07:03:15 PM
Well I haven't seen any other examples...thus, "In a way".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 19, 2016, 07:17:00 PM
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.

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?
Yes.
(http://www.nysroads.com/images/gallery/NJ/i95/101_4138-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 19, 2016, 11:27:32 PM
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.

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?
Yes.
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 20, 2016, 09:22:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 20, 2016, 06:44:44 PM
The Fletcher Ave. (US-9W) overpass is where PANYNJ jurisdiction begins. NJTPA put up a 122.03 mile marker on it anyway. PA doesn't milepost the roadways they maintain from what I can see.

NJDOT's old MILE END sign is still hanging around there!: https://goo.gl/maps/96cQzr2M52U2

Might actually be NJ-4's end come to think of it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 20, 2016, 08:46:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2016, 11:43:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on October 21, 2016, 08:49:21 AM
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.

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?
Yes.
(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.

They still had to capitalize "Palisades Parkway" (ugh....)!  I thought we were through with that - the new exit 11 signs have GSP without the caps.  So we're still not in a perfect new world...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 21, 2016, 01:32:19 PM
Signage updates:
-New signs at 13 show Elizabeth and Staten Island as destinations. Goethals and Verrazano Bridges moved to a supplemental sign. NJTA seems to really be sticking to the 2 destination max for the new signage.
-All signs over the outer roadways are on full span gantries, not cantilevers. I assume this is so they can put HOV signage over the left lane as part of the replacements.
-At both 13 and 13A, the last set of signs before the exit point (the ones that used to have the Turnpike Arrow (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6593303,-74.1858743,3a,50y,29.46h,89.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBUwDMq-vFARGQfkhs1qO6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) show NEXT RIGHT instead of 1/4 Mile as has been done everywhere else thusfar.
-Managed to grab a photo of the 2 mile approach sign for 13A to show how they're signing the airport:
(http://i.imgur.com/AC0Ymfu.jpg)

Still feels too much like they're stuck inbetween with that brown box. NJDOT includes the EWR logo (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7083713,-74.18786,3a,51.3y,78.52h,103.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s74iAQ3GICwf8IQYgYYR-VA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which makes it look more "proper" (should not be a brown box there since the airport isn't a cultural attraction, but it harkens back to the classic brown signs the airport used in the day). They should have either included the EWR logo with the brown box, or skipped the brown box and used the I-5 MUTCD standard airport icon. Hell, even their own signage at the start of NJ-81 from a few years ago gets it right (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6702994,-74.1841909,3a,75y,311.07h,116.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRdoBdDpT2Sxp73uIMXkx2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 21, 2016, 07:40:45 PM
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.

And Alps re: the arch bridge, would you believe that canyon and right-of-way did not even exist before the mid-1960's? It was blasted and excavated out of the Palisades to build I-95. Must have been quite a job. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 21, 2016, 09:24:13 PM
I find it interesting that in the photo vdeane posted, the sign on the left is so verbose instead of using the term "HOV." I thought that term was ubiquitous enough nowadays that longer explanations of the sort seen here weren't needed on the main sign.

The sign reminds me of Virginia's old sign referring to buses and "4 Rider Pool Cars."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 21, 2016, 10:08:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2016, 12:07:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on October 22, 2016, 12:26:02 AM
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.

Per Section 2E.35 (Other Supplemental Guide Signs), paragraph 3:

Quote
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.

Other than weigh station signage, this is the only time NEXT RIGHT appears in Chapter 2E (Guide Signs - Freeways and Expressways) and, depending on how we're classifying supplementals, may be advanced signage. However, we have Section 2E.33 (Advance Guide Signs), paragraph 7:

Quote
STANDARD: Except as provided in Section 2E.24, Advance Guide signs, if used, shall contain the distance message.

In the Manual, "advance guide signs" consist solely of the route number and primary destinations. Section 2E.24 covers lane drops. A lane drop isn't applicable, so there should be a distance message. Of course, the Manual doesn't explicitly prohibit text messages, but the standard should imply that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2016, 12:54:14 PM
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.

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?
Yes.
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 24, 2016, 12:22:03 AM
The northern section of I-95 in Bergen County to the GWB uses mile markers based on the main line.

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?
Yes.
(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.

Any new gantries or cantilevers they put up are rusted. They've been reusing gantries here and there, I guess ones that they've determined are still in good enough shape to hold up new signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 24, 2016, 09:16:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 25, 2016, 09:22:29 PM
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.

They replaced the majority of them around 2000 or so when they put NJTP-style signs up on that stretch and took down the non-reflective button copy NJDOT signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 16, 2016, 08:45:34 AM
Continuing from the PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange thread...

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.

The distance is closer than most realize.  The ramps from Interchange 3 and an Interchange with Rt. 42 would only be about 3/4 mile away at the most; substantially closer than the other examples provided.  Design requirements today are much different than what was built in the 50's, 60's and 70's.  Except for 6/7, the other interchanges are in 55 mph zones, due in part to the numerous interchanges in the area.  The southern 90 miles of the NJ Turnpike (south of Interchange 12) has the same number of interchanges as the northern 28 miles.

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 turning up anything.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on November 16, 2016, 08:49:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 16, 2016, 08:50:59 AM
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.

LOL...I went back to modify that...hoping no one read that yet! LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 16, 2016, 04:21:42 PM
"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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 18, 2016, 09:07:52 AM
Are the Exit 6 signs with the overlays still there or are they being replaced too?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on November 18, 2016, 04:43:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 18, 2016, 11:39:12 PM
"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.

It's not just that. It's also that the Authority won't do an interchange that they do their way. This is how we're going to get the Tremley Point Connector Road.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2016, 12:53:23 PM
Someone possibly passing thru the state made their trip worthwhile...

While it wasn't a big, multi-million dollar Powerball winner, a ticket worth $50,000 for matching 4 out of 5 plus the Powerball was sold at the Kilmer Service Plaza on the NJ Turnpike for Saturday night's drawing. No one hit all 6 numbers.

http://patch.com/new-jersey/hoboken/n-j-powerball-details-winning-ticket-site-revealed-jackpot-hits-359m
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 25, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2016, 01:00:00 AM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on November 26, 2016, 03:41:18 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
They'll never realize that more enforcement never helps. Haven't they heard of Waze?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2016, 06:00:31 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on November 26, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
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
noelbotevera applauds your ingenuity.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2016, 06:59:14 PM
Waze drivers are easy to identify.  They're the ones speeding along in the left lane, then out of the blue simply slow down to the speed limit (or lower), and now they're committing another offense by failing to keep right.  Or even better...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!

Has that ever happened...I can't say I know specifically of any instances, but when cops stop people tens of thousands of times a year, I'm sure it's happened a few times!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SidS1045 on November 26, 2016, 11:18:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2016, 02:02:15 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 28, 2016, 04:58:07 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 04:35:50 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 29, 2016, 04:56:21 PM
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.

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.
Correct, Edison Twp. has now been moved to supplemental BGS'.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 09:16:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 30, 2016, 03:18:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 30, 2016, 03:46:42 PM
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.

Somerville isn't really a primary destination for 287, as it only has 1 exit (for NJ-28) signed for it NB. They should use Morristown, which is what NJDOT uses (along with Mahwah) and makes more sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2016, 06:52:30 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on December 03, 2016, 03:44:09 PM
I noticed a few newer signs up on the Turnpike at Exits 9 and 11. Exit 9 now states "NEW BRUNSWICK" with US 1 and NJ 18 shields. The gore sign at the Exit 9 off ramp is brand new. Exit 11 now has both the GSP and US 9 logos on it. It looked like there were pieces of an older sign off to the left of the north.

Also just noticed the Exit 13 sign in the Elizabeth area for I-278 is brand new. The control cities say Elizabeth and Staten Island.

Separately, a couple of the VMS signs said the Bayonne Bridge was closed.

The cables are mostly up on the replacement Goethals Bridge now. Progress! :)

P.S. I hadn't been on the NJ Turnpike south of the Exit 13 area since January, so wasn't aware of most of these changes! 

6:25 PM UPDATE: They've updated the signs on I-95 North from the Lincoln Tunnel access in Secaucus northward to the GW Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on December 19, 2016, 01:53:13 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2016, 12:57:30 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on December 19, 2016, 02:11:42 PM
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 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!8i6656
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2016, 02:20:51 PM
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 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!8i6656

Oh! LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 19, 2016, 04:14:40 PM
Those pull-thru signs are using pre-2002 NJTP shields without the thicker border. Somebody screwed up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 19, 2016, 07:25:32 PM
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 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!8i6656
I'd have to say that's about 1/8 mile at best.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 19, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 19, 2016, 10:45:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 20, 2016, 09:21:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 20, 2016, 09:59:59 PM
Not really!!

The Turnpike historically had a 2 mile ahead sign, 1 mile ahead, then the arrow sign (exceptions exist based on various conditions). The decel lanes tended to be unusually long.  Steve probably has the best guess/knowledge above.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2016, 10:43:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 20, 2016, 11:00:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on December 21, 2016, 10:48:40 AM
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.

The world is not perfect and the NJTP is not either - although they actually try.  My biggest peeve is with the inconsistencies of the  new "Parkway" references on the NJTP - I've heard at exit 11 they now correctly use "Garden State Parkway" in standard font (not caps) but as shown above in a picture for the Palisades Parkway they've continued to use (on the new signs) the old-style PALISADES PARKWAY (with PALISADES in smaller font).  Different contracts, different engineers, different management, etc...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 23, 2016, 09:48:39 AM
As long as there are different signing contracts expect inconsistencies to happen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 23, 2016, 08:33:20 PM
"Next right" is not even shown or approved in the MUTCD anymore. The last Manual that allowed it in place of an arrow on the "exit-direction" sign was the 1971 edition. All conventional type signs (not APL or diagrammatic) should have either a distance message or an arrow. So why it would be used in new signing on the NJTP in 2016 is a puzzle.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 23, 2016, 11:25:54 PM
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.

I'm not a cop and I can see the difference, mainly because the drivers head is turned down and to the right, and they are drifting left and right all over the place.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 16, 2017, 01:41:11 PM
so i was on the turnpike on saturday night after we had gotten a light snowfall, and the vms's had the usual warnings about winter driving conditions, but the authority had set the speed limits at 50. 50 is weird for them. usually when there are hazardous conditions on the roadway, they will post a 45 mph speed limit, or 35 if it's really bad (especially when it's snowing very hard and the spreaders and plows are in operation). it's been that way for time immortal as far as i know, at least through out my 35 years on this rock. just thought that 50 was arbitrarily weird for this event.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 16, 2017, 09:17:51 PM
50 mph is probably a more realistic number that larger numbers of drivers might come close to following. I can remember as a kid seeing those 35 mph limits posted that my Dad would scoff at as he drove at 50 and many other drivers went flying past us.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2017, 09:58:29 PM
50, while not used all the time, isn't completely unusual.  It's been used most notably at the onset of a storm before conditions worsen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2017, 01:01:46 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 30, 2017, 07:33:30 PM
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.


The MPT is going to be upgraded soon. Can't speak to detour signage though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on February 01, 2017, 04:13:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on February 01, 2017, 04:18:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2017, 08:13:13 PM
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.

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?

No.  They were all built specifically for the new plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 01, 2017, 08:55:45 PM
Those pickups are getting replaced with traffic control devices soon enough.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 02, 2017, 10:10:55 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2017, 10:41:00 AM
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?

While it depends where you're going, in general, I can't think of a good reason to ever go from Rt. 42 to the NJ TPK to Exit 6, as there are numerous other cheaper routes that are more direct to get to anywhere one needs to go, including the 2 you mentioned.  But...the world's drivers aren't made up of everyone using the most direct route, or the cheapest route, or the fastest route.  And it is impossible to know exactly where one needs to go.  Thus, the generic 'Use Alt Routes'.

NJDOT has put the same message on a limited number of VMSs, including on 295 North, north of Exit 52 and NJ 29 South, south of the tunnel.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on February 02, 2017, 11:46:49 AM
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 saw that same message on 195 VMS signs too, coming back home last week, and thought the wording was extremely odd.  But "customers" is technically correct... If you choose to drive on the PA Turnpike, you are choosing to pay for that service just like a customer of anything else.  There are other "providers" (roads) where you can "take your business" (drive) if you so choose; you just pay for those roads with your property tax dollars instead.

Though technically I suppose my employer was the "customer" here, since I was driving a company car with their logos all over it and using their E-Z Pass tag.  If I were driving my own car I might have chosen to be a "customer" of some other road instead. ;)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2017, 04:35:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2017, 06:02:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 03, 2017, 07:12:50 AM
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 know which sign NJRoadfan is referring to. It's this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5799002,-74.5949523,3a,75y,253.27h,83.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjFgmg85aVJfm9NW4BU8UKg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) which is past the 287 interchange, before the 202/206 on. I noticed the same message when I drove through there last Saturday. It's not in a sensible place, unless the idea is that they would have motorists stay on 22 to 78 west, or take 202/206 NB to 287NB to 78WB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on February 03, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
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...

I'm not sure if they've got it up north, since the last time I've been around the exit 6 area was a couple months ago.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 03, 2017, 04:07:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2017, 04:13:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 03, 2017, 06:15:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on February 03, 2017, 06:59:01 PM
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.

I completely agree. I don't have counts, but I'd say at least half of the traffic on I-81 south of the Turnpike is to/from the east. If you're going between the northeast and much of the south and southeast, that's the fastest route.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2017, 11:25:57 AM
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.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10210182827879290.1073741882.1596953667&type=1&l=135437d519).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 13, 2017, 11:46:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on February 13, 2017, 11:52:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2017, 12:35:03 PM
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.

Thank you and corrected. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 13, 2017, 08:56:00 PM
It's working now. Good photos.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2017, 09:21:45 AM
In the minutes of the NJ Turnpike meeting on January 31, 2017, contracts were authorized by the NJ Turnpike Authority to start the repair process of the Delaware River Bridge between the NJ & PA Turnpikes.  One project is to construct the foundations for the 8 towers that will be used to lift the bridge back into place.  This work includes drilling 6 shafts up to 125' deep for each tower.  The project was given to Moretrench American Corp of Rockaway, NJ...a company the Turnpike had preauthorized in the past for construction work, although they have never done work for the authority (I don't recall seeing their name all that often on bid results, so it's possible they simply haven't placed a bid on many/any Turnpike projects).

Cornell and Company was also requested to do some work with this project (this company happens to be located near me), including building the actual towers.  They were also already involved in the painting project that discovered the crack as a subcontractor, and had a lot of their equipment on site.  This company has also done a fair amount of emergency bridge work when necessary as well, and is apparently a preferred contact when emergencies arise.

Other work was approved for engineering, which includes the closures, barricades and signage necessary for the closing of the roadway leading to the bridge.  Design, inspection, and supervisory work was also approved.

The approvals can be viewed in full here: http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/BM_Minutes_1-31-2017.pdf , pages 10 - 13 and 16 - 18 of the pdf.  No mention was made of splitting costs with the PA Turnpike Authority, although historically large repair projects with the bridge are split 50/50, with the NJTA being the lead agency.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 15, 2017, 09:49:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2017, 10:21:01 AM
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)).

However, getting the current bridge repaired and again open to traffic should be a higher priority (given that PTC and PennDOT are still slowly working to partly complete the Bristol interchange - at least enough to finish I-95).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2017, 10:40:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 15, 2017, 09:06:06 PM
J&N, I'm glad you mentioned that NJTA is the lead agency on any major projects involving the bridge. That way, the work will be completed efficiently, in the short possible time. If PTC were the lead, it would take the next ten years to fix the bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2017, 01:36:41 PM
EZ Pass usage for the Turnpike and Parkway for years 2016, 2015 & 2014:

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/EZPass_Usage_TPK_December_2016.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/EZPass_Usage_GSP_December_2016.pdf

To sum it up, average for 2016:

NJ Turnpike:
   Cars (and other non-commercial vehicles): 81.4% used EZ Pass
   Commercial Vehicles: 90.8% used EZ Pass

GS Parkway:
   Cars:  79.5%
   Commercial Vehicles: 89.0%
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on February 17, 2017, 05:17:22 PM
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.

They've been spending a ton of money on this span. Suspender cable replacement, redecking, etc. It's repairable.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2017, 05:25:18 PM
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.

Yes, there's the lane drop northbound and southbound I-495 at U.S. 13 in Claymont, Delaware.  I was trying to be as conservative as possible, given that the implied discussion was about "thru" movements, from the Delaware Turnpike part of I-95 to the Delaware/Pennsylvania border.

But your point about most of Delaware's I-495 being six lanes is correct. 

Just wish it had a posted speed limit of about 75 MPH. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 17, 2017, 05:34:43 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on February 17, 2017, 07:31:47 PM
Could it be that eventually the Connector Bridge is only reopened to automobiles?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 17, 2017, 08:53:17 PM
Is it known how long that fractured beam had been in that condition before it was discovered?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 17, 2017, 10:52:01 PM
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.

Is it known how long that fractured beam had been in that condition before it was discovered?

It's been estimated not very long...a few weeks at most...best guess is probably a few days...but even as short as a few hours.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2017, 12:40:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2017, 08:56:17 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 18, 2017, 09:51:43 AM
From what I understand the Parkway had to be built to certain standards for military convoys to use, because they are not restricted from any road unless there is something physical to stop them.

As far as the trucks go, I can believe that one might actually ignore the signs and drive on the restricted part north of 105.  Heck I have seen a semi use the left lane of I-4, where it is restricted for trucks from MP 7 to MP 72, to pass me in while I was in the center lane of a three lane roadway passing a slow poke in the right lane.  FDOT does print large NO TRUCKS LEFT LANE signs that are more noticeable than NJDOT or NJTA signs.  Who is to say that they are not already.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 18, 2017, 12:21:27 PM
When the GSP went to one way tolling at the Raritan plaza, almost all the VMSes northbound from the Asbury barrier were displaying the message "No Trucks north of Exit 105" for a good couple of months. If a truck did stay on north of NJ-18. they were likely stopped from crossing the Driscoll Bridge at the toll plaza. I wouldn't be surprised if the old bridge had a weight restriction before it was rebuilt.

Otherwise, there is plenty of clearance on the overpasses until Exit 129/NJTP. North of there, trucks that accidentally wander onto the GSP hit low overpasses.

As for the trucks allowed north of Exit 105, the weight limit has actually increased from what it used to be. Now trucks up to 10,000lbs (5 tons) are allowed north of Exit 105. It used to be 7,000lbs (3.5 tons).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2017, 01:21:12 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2017, 04:28:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2017, 06:25:52 PM
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.

I have seen trucks stopped by the NJSP on the section of the GSP between the N.J. Turnpike and the New York state line.

As regards design, in addition to the right and left lanes having low clearances,  it seems to me that the lane widths are too narrow (in places) for Class 8 and similar trucks, though intercity coaches are apparently allowed on the entire GSP.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 18, 2017, 09:30:20 PM
Re: the Penna. Tpk. bridge, lets not forget also that heavy fire trucks have to be able to use it for responding to vehicle fires and accidents.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2017, 11:49:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2017, 11:58:44 PM
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.

It may  be that those weight restrictions are about the classes of trucks that are allowed on the GSP.  I believe that the entire GSP allows intercity coaches.  A double-decker coach (81 passenger seats) like the Van Hools that Megabus runs in the East can weigh over 57,000 pounds on three axles.  Conventional coaches (54 to 56 seats) scale out at around 50,000 pounds (also on three axles).

7,000 pounds gross is about the GVW of a 1/2 ton truck.  Most parkways outside of New York seem to have no problem with 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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 19, 2017, 12:44:09 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2017, 02:03:01 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2017, 10:03:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on February 19, 2017, 10:44:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on February 19, 2017, 11:52:10 AM
There are several aspects to a complete analysis of this failure on the Connector Bridge.

1. Why did the member fail in the way that it did?  It is almost unheard of for a beam to sever in this manner.  The usual mode of failure is bending or twisting.  (By the way, this was probably a farly recent failure as it was reported that there no signs of rust.). Once the cause is determined all other members would have to be inspected accordingly.

2. The design of the bridge would have to be analysed, with the failed member being omitted, to determine how the load it was bearing would be transferred to the other members (and their connections) and then if that overloaded any of them.  Since the original design work was performed over 60 years ago, they may have to start from scratch with this analysis.

This will all take time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2017, 12:21:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 19, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
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.

[Bashing of Pennsylvania and Act 44/Act 89 follows]

The  Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission would have a billion or two dollars in the bank pretty quickly if the Act 44/Act 89 payments to PennDOT for transit subsidies (https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/finance/PTC_Fiscal_2017_Act_44_Financial_Plan.pdf) were to cease or be delayed?

Maybe the transit projects that are supposed to be funded by PTC could be delayed until there is a sound structure carrying traffic across the Delaware River?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 19, 2017, 04:11:41 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 19, 2017, 04:52:53 PM
Quote
Glad I clinched that bridge when I did.  Just a couple months before it closed, too!

I guess at this point I am all but saving it until the I-95 re-route.  Oh well at least if the NYC meet happens, I still have not done I-80.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2017, 09:42:49 PM
Glad I clinched that bridge when I did.  Just a couple months before it closed, too!
So it was your fault.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 20, 2017, 09:23:58 AM
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?

I know when the fracture first happened they brought in experts from thoughout the country. Have they brought in more, or was it that original story you had read?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 20, 2017, 11:16:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2017, 11:34:34 AM
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 some cases, the problem is that the files used by GPS do not show a section of highway as being a toll road or toll crossing.  I ran across this (on a tiny scale) talking with the toll collector at the privately-owned Oldtown Low-Water Toll Bridge (http://www.oldtownbridge.com/) over the upper Potomac River between Oldtown, Maryland and Green Spring, W.Va. Traffic there is very light (it's a one-lane wood-deck bridge) and E-ZPass is not accepted, so we talked a while and he complained bitterly about people not knowing that this crossing of the river is tolled. I actually submitted a change to TomTom, and at least for TomTom users that have a current file in their GPS units or on their phones or tablet computers, they are now told that the route involves a toll to use that bridge.

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.

Unfortunately, truck driving is not (for many drivers) the honorable work that it was some years ago (even in my lifetime).

But all law enforcement officers that deal with traffic incidents should be under general orders to always confiscate GPS units from truck drivers that blunder up to a low bridge (or, for that matter, drive on roads that forbid truck traffic or have posted weight limits).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 20, 2017, 12:46:10 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 20, 2017, 01:07:44 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on February 21, 2017, 09:07:36 AM
Interesting timing on your comments, cpzilliacus. A truck was stuck on Rock Creek Parkway during this morning's rush hour.

My sat-nav won't even send me on there at all because it's a fully-reversible road.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2017, 12:19:34 PM
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. 

For the people that need to look around for their money...after trying to find their ones and fives and look thru their coins for the change, they eventually just hand me a $20. They could've had that ready when they got to the booth, and they and everyone else would've been thru a lot faster.

Twice, when I asked for their ticket, they gave me their speeding ticket.

Granted, I worked weekends where many people aren't used to the Turnpike.  Weekday traffic I would imagine is a bit different when regulars approach, ticket and money in hand.  On the weekends, the closest I got to that was on Race Weekends down at Dover Downs.  Those people understood the Turnpike.  They sped in, handed over the correct money, and took off. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2017, 12:27:06 PM
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).

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!

From a look at the highway network, I think you are correct.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2017, 12:33:48 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2017, 12:49:32 PM
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!

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.




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).

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on February 21, 2017, 07:10:20 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kkt on February 21, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
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. 

They were probably too busy hunting for their cell phones so they could take a picture of the last living toll taker to count out their money ahead of time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 21, 2017, 08:52:32 PM
Thanks J&N for your candid comments about the drivers you experienced as a toll-collector.

Looking For America On The New Jersey Turnpike is an excellent history of the Turnpike's early days and current (as of 1989) operations. I bought the hard-cover when it was first published. Really interesting reading.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 21, 2017, 10:13:51 PM
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!

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.

Whence motorcycles?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on February 21, 2017, 10:30:49 PM
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?
Then again, motorcycles are permitted (I presume) in the "Cars Only" lanes on the turnpike mainline.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 21, 2017, 10:51:56 PM
Motorcycles were originally banned from the GSP. The law was amended later. Whats funny is that some original "NO TRUCKS/BICYCLES/MOTORCYCLES/PEDS" signs still stand on on-ramps in Union County. They had "MOTORCYCLES" covered up, but most have worn off again.

https://goo.gl/maps/3vdtHRt5tp42
https://goo.gl/maps/1EHLfLSpXmT2 (this one went missing recently)

Whats funny is the standard NJDOT freeway prohibitions sign includes horses, but not these parkway ones. I guess horses are allowed on the Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2017, 12:20:41 AM
Quote
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).

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.

I assume that they stopped the truck and its trailer because it was too long/too wide/too heavy for the GSP, though I have no way of knowing that with certainty (if it matters, the truck had commercial markings on it, which may  have included a USDOT number). I have driven the GSP many times in my 3/4 ton truck and never even gotten a dirty look from a NJSP trooper.

It did not appear to be a breakdown (there was no evidence of any mechanical problems).

There may have been construction going on there to create the narrow shoulder, but it was a few years ago, and I am not certain about that. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 22, 2017, 12:54:55 AM
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

They discussed that case in some detail.  The guy that  was charged with violating the New Jersey  Administrative Code that dealt with  photography and filming on the Turnpike was convicted after a trial.  But he had the last word, as the section of the NJAC that forbade such activities was invalidated by a state appeals court for being too broad (and I believe too vague), and charges against the person in question were dismissed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: GenExpwy on February 22, 2017, 01:05:15 AM
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?
Then again, motorcycles are permitted (I presume) in the "Cars Only" lanes on the turnpike mainline.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/regulationsunofficialversionforWebsite.pdf, § 19:9-1.1 Definitions
Quote
"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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 22, 2017, 06:17:40 AM
For what it's worth, the regs are slightly out of date, as they still mention the 50 mph zone on the GSP around Interchanges 9 - 11 due to the traffic lights which are now gone and is now 65 mph thru that area, and the 55 mph zone on the GSP MP 80 - 100, which is now 65 mph as well.

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?
Then again, motorcycles are permitted (I presume) in the "Cars Only" lanes on the turnpike mainline.

Technically, motorcycles (and all vehicles) are permitted in both the car and truck lanes of the NJ Turnpike.  They are clearly better suited for the car lanes though!

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 22, 2017, 06:15:30 PM
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.



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.

We have both the FL 417 Greeneway and the FL 528 Beachline running between the I Drive/ Disney area and the Orlando Airport.  The former has two mainline plazas charging the cars $1.50 and the latter has one $2.25 toll booth.  The GPS sends a driver to the airport on 417, but sends them back via FL 528 and of course after shelling out twice a buck fifty and coming into the other booths, they assume the rates are different both ways.   Heck one motorists accused one of my fellow collectors of trying to pocket 75 cents, all because all toll plazas look the same.

You are so right as it is scary to know what is on the mind of other motorists as you see it in the toll booths.  I like the one where some drivers think that the Pre Paid Tolls mentioned on the ORT lanes for Sun Pass is referring to the fact that they paid at another area toll booth already that particular day.   Then the ones who exit the road at Exit 8 heading west on FL 528 because the top of the exit guide sign says "CASH TOLL $1.25" and being the plaza for that ramp is alongside the main freeway on a distributor ramp, some pay the toll thinking that is a mainline plaza and the through lanes are express Sun Pass lanes.  Even with the traffic signal that is on the ramp leading back to FL 528 does not even tell the driver that he left the toll road proper, as Exit 8 leads to the parallel service road McCoy Road with an on ramp to FL 528 west right after the merge.

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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 23, 2017, 11:22:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2017, 12:00:22 PM
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.

When giving directions (ie: Stay Left), I've had a few people hold up their hands, then sticking up their index fingers with their thumbs out.  The left land forms an L.  That's how they know which side is their Left.

I've had people ask what state they're in.

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.

People may be unfamiliar with toll roads, but some of the questions you get and some of the things you see have nothing to do with tolls.  Now, imagine situations like this on every road everywhere all the time.  You honestly have no clue what the guy next to you is doing or thinking.  I always thought there's probably an incredible amount of gas wasted by people simply going the wrong way.

Working a toll booth, you hear this stuff multiple times a day.  Asking how many miles it is to a city is one thing.  Asking how many miles it is to a city in the opposite direction is something totally different!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kphoger on February 23, 2017, 12:07:07 PM
......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.

While that may be true, the point remains that a sign that only says "No trucks" doesn't do much to deter someone whose vehicle/combination is not considered a truck in his home state.  Weight restrictions vary by state, and I think it's a failure that restrictive signs can make no mention of that state's weight threshold.



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 sometimes wonder how people have managed to get anywhere at all, but then I remember that a lot of people don't really travel very far from home.  A long-distance driving trip is normal to us, but not to a lot of people.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kphoger on February 23, 2017, 12:11:42 PM
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 used to be good friends with a man from Bolivia.  He was a coworker, and a roommate for a while.  Anyway, when he first moved to the USA, he lived in Birmingham (AL), then later moved to the Chicago suburbs (where I knew him).  He told me he once set out to drive from Chicago to Birmingham but ended up in Saint Louis before realizing he had gotten on the wrong highway.  This is laughable to people like us who have a working knowledge of the road network and geography of our nation, but said knowledge is not universal.  My own sister-in-law still gets confused as to whether a particular location is a city or a state, and driving long-distance for her can be a challenging thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 23, 2017, 01:11:21 PM
I've had people ask what state they're in.
And did you answer... Confusion ?  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 23, 2017, 02:07:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2017, 03:05:57 PM
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.

Yep...I worked at the old Interchange 1, along with Interchange 3.  On a rare OT shift I worked 4 and 7A.  But 1 and 3 were my base interchanges.  3 was quite dead on my weekend overnight shifts.  1 was quiet, especially after about 1am.  But holiday weekends, such as Thanksgiving, we would have traffic already backed up at 6am at that old plaza!

I left the Turnpike just 2 months or so after new Interchange 1 toll plaza opened.  While the 23 toll lanes were needed back then, it's massively overbuilt for today's typical Turnpike traveler, as most people use EZ Pass.  Actually, the original design didn't include any express EZ Pass lanes.  A minor design change took out 3 traditional toll lanes each direction and replaced them with the 2 Express lanes.

In regards to zoning out...if they're heading south, you could be correct.  But if they were heading north, they managed to ignore the 95/295 split in Delaware, then the 295/NJ Turnpike split in NJ if they got to me.  Of course, between the 95/295 split, there's numerous references to New Jersey, along with 'NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE' posted right above their heads as they approached the toll plaza.  I used "You're on the NEW JERSEY Turnpike" sometimes.  For a few people, that didn't mean anything to them...they still wanted to know the state they were in.  And that big Delaware Memorial Bridge they just crossed...it meant nothing to them.  Some people didn't even know they crossed a bridge!  Now, at the old Interchange 1 plaza, if they were going the wrong way and wanted to go back south, we were allowed to inform them to take the employee entrance out to Rt. 40 to try again...although it required them to cut in front of a live EZ Pass lane (the 15 mph type travelled at 30 mph).  If traffic was busier, or they didn't want to get off right away, they had to take a toll ticket and had to go to Interchange 2.  I don't think they were too happy when they got up there as it was 11 miles away!

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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 23, 2017, 08:47:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2017, 07:34:40 AM
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.)

The NJTA and NJDOT really ought to make application to AASHTO and FHWA to sign the Turnpike as I-895 from Exit 1 to Exit 6 in the near future when the Bristol, Pennsylvania project is completed enough (and the Turnpike Bridge over the Delaware River is open to traffic again). I suspect it would be quickly approved, for the southern Turnpike, like the rest of it, would appear to comply with Interstate design standards.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2017, 09:17:44 AM
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?

I believe the interchange opened in late 2004 or early 2005.  While the very first designs didn't include express lanes, the design was updated before any construction to include the express lanes, so they opened at the same time as the rest of the plaza.

Here's a website I found regarding the construction.  If you scroll thru the pictures, you'll see traffic going thru what would be the express lanes while the rest of the plaza was still under construction.  The old plaza was still open (which probably caused the traffic congestion seen in one photo).  http://www.louisberger.com/our-work/project/new-jersey-turnpike-interchange-1-toll-plaza-relocation-new-jersey-us

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 24, 2017, 08:51:49 PM
Excellent J&N. Thank you!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 25, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
People are already disoriented so adding the GPS to the equation adds insult to injury.  Plus the new school teachings do not teach people the history of the roads like they used to and of course each state teaches different stuff too. 

It took me a long time to get this, as when I was being taught I was always told that ignorance is no excuse for mistakes, that you learn and it makes you fearful of authority and who us humans really are.  Now I dismiss all these complaints I hear and just do what I have to.  I accept that people are this way and do not find it unbelievable and am seeing its normal and most of all that nobody fears making a mistake anymore is more a norm we as a society must accept.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 25, 2017, 08:23:42 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 25, 2017, 09:24:04 PM
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

IMO, un-numbered (but named) freeways like the New Jersey Turnpike (and  years, ago, many other legacy toll roads, including (but not limited to) the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway)  are a thing of the past.  I could be persuaded that parkways should not always be numbered, since they mostly serve a different role in the transportation system, and many exclude commercial vehicles.

Some have suggested (and it makes sense to me) that the entire New Jersey Turnpike should be I-95, but that's not likely to happen.  I-895 is the most-logical number for the southern Turnpike, so drivers have an idea that they will eventually return to I-95 if they stay on the Turnpike (though I concede that even with the bridge over the Delaware River open, I-276 eastbound does not return to I-76).  It's also a form of advertising, to tell people (that do not frequent this forum) that it will be O.K. to stay on the Turnpike even when I-95 leaves the Turnpike at Exit 6 southbound. I-895 looks a lot better than the alternative, NJ-700, since it means something even to non-roadgeeks. Same for northbound movements from Delaware, though it will involve adding another Interstate shield on the signs approaching I-95's exit for I-295 on the northbound side as well as changes to the signs on the Turnpike approaching the Turnpike/U.S. 40 "split" after crossing the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 26, 2017, 01:25:49 PM
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.  Also back before the contraversal (so what I spell it incorrectly, I am not going to websters to find the correct spelling of a word for this message) five of Union County for I-78, I argued with a trucker about the section of I-78 from I-287 and Drift Road in Watchung, as he kept calling Exit 29 the eastern terminus of I-78 when in fact it was not except maybe in the 1960's considering the Newark Bay Extension was orphaned from the rest and not signed back then.

Bottom line is you cannot please everyone and as far as numbers go still people in NYC and NYS use names over number hence I-87 never called by it but by its three freeway names along its entire route.  So living in NJ I can tell you its always going to be the Turnpike, The Parkway, etc.  Heck it took years to get used to Route 495 (if people ever did) for the defunct NJ 3 east of US 1 & 9 or even NJ 139 to be called it as for years it was always "One and nine" all the way into the Holland Tunnel.

Adding a route number to the NJ Turnpike would not confuse anyone nor would it change anything.  The GPS might as it sends people on any road which the average person now does not even orient themselves with the signs and surroundings.  As long as they don't hit the guys around them and being we live to speed most of us just want to accelerate as fast as we can and get around the other motorists who just does not accelerate to our liking.  I believe that may be why society (or at least the ones who pay the tolls, as there still could be conscious drivers out there, but I am not aware of them at the toll booths because they are smart enough to avoid it) is so ignorant of road signs including speed limit signs.  We can be thankful that DO NOT ENTER signs are red as that does reach a certain area of our brain to wake it up and create awareness.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on February 26, 2017, 03:49:38 PM
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. ....

I'm not surprised at all. I know quite a few people who believe that. I have no idea how that is when the signs in Delaware very plainly direct I-95 traffic away from the bridge to New Jersey, but it's not worth arguing with those types of people about it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2017, 06:18:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 26, 2017, 07:41:51 PM
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.

Would have made sense, though NJTA and NJDOT would have had to replace them several times, given the snail-like pace of the Bristol, Pennsylvania interchange project.  Now that the end may be in sight for the discontiguous sections of I-95, I suppose we can just wait for PTC to get enough of it done to complete I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on February 26, 2017, 08:13:09 PM
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.

The people with whom I've had that discussion would have travelled it both ways. Hence my comment about the Delaware signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 26, 2017, 08:16:26 PM
Cpz, let's just hope the bridge gets reopened before the 95/276 interchange ramps are finished. LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2017, 07:46:41 AM
Are the signs being replaced along the Newark Bay Extension yet, or is that going to be done much later like the 1 to 9 section?

Just had to ask. :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2017, 08:04:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 28, 2017, 08:26:59 AM
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??
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 28, 2017, 08:46:37 AM
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??
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 28, 2017, 01:11:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 28, 2017, 01:18:40 PM
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).

That does include other phases.  The 2 direct ramps they are building are still due to be complete late 2018. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 28, 2017, 01:37:26 PM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:
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 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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 28, 2017, 02:21:57 PM
ADT of the bridge is 42,000.  That's 21,000 vehicles each way.  We can figure the EB direction may be slightly heavier, but we're going for simplicity here.

Tolls for the PA Turnpike AET is $5/$6.75 (EZ Pass/Cash) for Cars, $20/$27 for the typical 5 Axle Truck, with other amounts depending on axles.  For kicks, let's just say the average toll collected amongst all vehicles is $10.  That would mean the PA Turnpike is losing $210,000 each day; or about $1.5 million per week, at this toll alone.

The NJ Turnpike's toll isn't as straight forward...let's just say on average, motorists pay $3.00 additional for using Exit 6.  Since the NJ Turnpike collects tolls both ways, that's not 21,000 vehicles like the PA Turnpike, but nearly the entire 42,000 daily volume.  However, traffic can still enter from 130 going towards the mainline turnpike, so that's a few thousand vehicles that can still use the EB toll plaza.  All-in-all, let's say they're losing $120,000 a day; maybe $1 million a week or so.

If motorists coming from NY are using I-78 to the PA Turnpike, or even coming south and exiting at 7A and picking up the PA Turnpike further west, that's an additional financial burden to the Turnpikes, as they miss out on the revenue for all those additional miles vehicles are taking.

However, let's look at the weather out there...we don't get too many 70 degree days in February in this part of the country (it's not uncommon never to hit 60 for the entire month of February, much less 70).  Nicer days tends to increase traffic, so now that hit is lessoned slightly because people are out driving, enjoying the nice weather.

Follow any of this?  Still with me? 

Yeah...that's what the Turnpikes are all trying to figure out...a whole shitload of what-ifs and maybes.  More or less, the PA Turnpike is probably losing about 50% more money compared to the NJ Turnpike for what they would've collected for this interchange. 

That all said, the NJ Turnpike collected over $1.1 Billion in tolls last fiscal year...about $100 million per month.  Taking a $4 million hit isn't horrendous to their financial future.  But that hit, combined with the repair cost is more significant, now at about $12 million (to be split equally with the PA Turnpike authority).  If they need to fund an entirely new bridge...now we're talking serious dollars.

Today's news story...http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/02/turnpike_authority_spends_3_more_to_fix_closed_del.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2017, 03:14:34 PM
Well, there's:  Light Speed, Very Fast, Fast, Average, Slow, Very slow, boringly slow, and PTC slow.  How much slower can they get??

There's also STOP, something that PTC and PennDOT are pretty good at. 

The Bristol interchange project has had plenty of STOP (recall that Congress enacted by statute (and the President signed) provisions re-routing I-95 away from the northern part of the Delaware Expressway (between the Turnpike underpass and the Scudders Falls Bridge)  and onto the eastern end of the Pennsylvania Turnpike East-West Mainline, then  the "Pennsylvania" extension of the New Jersey Turnpike and then the N.J. Turnpike itself north of Exit 6 in 1982 as part of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Transportation_Assistance_Act).

It took PennDOT and PTC 10 more years just to start a study of the project.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 28, 2017, 07:14:17 PM
Bold emphasis added to the below-quote:
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 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.

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.
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.

Of course, the toll rates on the PTC are obscenely high, so that could be a factor, but not one that was mentioned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 28, 2017, 09:02:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 01, 2017, 01:07:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 01, 2017, 09:57:21 AM
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. 

One has to wonder had this bridge closure occurred prior to the AET conversion/toll increase; would PTC's financial hit been lower or higher in terms of dollar amounts.

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. 

Prior to the AET conversion, I used the Turnpike Connector & bridge (I would exit off at the US 13 exit just beyond the PA Turnpike toll plaza & bridge) for just about all my return trips from New England due to the cheaper overall toll (NJ Turnpike toll + PA Turnpike toll).  Today, I normally use I-195/295/76 to get back to I-95 in PA.  A few times, I've used NJ 29 to US 1 to I-95 but not too often.  Going all the way around via I-295 North to I-95 South and crossing at the still-free Scudder Falls Bridge usually takes longer.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2017, 10:18:23 AM

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 DRPA's 2016 annual report isn't posted yet, but if last year was any indication it should be posted sometime this month.  FWIW, toll collection increased 3.36% in 2015 compared to 2014, and 1.16% in 2014 compared to 2013.

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.

I would be interested in knowing how the PA Turnpike is doing collecting from toll-by-plate motorists...many of whom get a bill and probably think that they already paid a toll on the PA Turnpike, not realizing there's a separate toll area they went thru.  If they fail to pay 1 toll, I doubt the PA Turnpike will go after them all that much.  That also brings up...collection expenses for such toll must be down, since they don't have to mail out those bills.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 01, 2017, 10:33:51 AM
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 Bucks County or further west; no regarding using the DRPA bridges as an alternate. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2017, 10:58:39 AM
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.

For most people, that should be the way they should have been going all along then...especially as they didn't have the ability to connect directly with 95.

For many people, something like this incident opens their eyes to a new, better main route to their destination.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 01, 2017, 11:36:18 AM
Allow me to give you a real-world, real-life, personal-usage synopsis (since mid-1990):

Back when there was 2-way tolling for all tolled Delaware river crossings (through much of the early 1990s); I always used the Turnpike Connector bridge for my trips to & from New England.  Keep in mind that back then, I-295 still had a gap in it between Exit 57 (US 130/206) & I-195 (Exit 60) and the NJ Turnpike Exit 7 upgrade project was still under construction.

Heading north, I exited I-95 at PA 413 (Exit 40, then Exit 26); followed 413 South to US 13/Bristol Pike and took US 13 North to the PA Turnpike at the Delaware Valley interchange (Exit 358, then Exit 29).  Back then, the mainline NJ Turnpike Exit 6 plaza was located closer to the bridge; such was relocated further east when the full-movement US 130 interchange was built.  I used the above in reverse for my return trips home.
     
When one-way tolls across the Delaware became reality; I pretty much abandoned using the Turnpike Connector Bridge for my New England-bound trips.  I used I-295 North to Exit 56 and got on the NJ Turnpike at the then-newly-completed Exit 7.  When the missing I-295 link was opened (circa 1994(?)); I used I-195 East between there and the NJ Turnpike just about everytime since then.  However, for the journey home; I still used the Turnpike Connector bridge whenever I was working at my firm's Philadelphia office.  When I worked at its branch office in Pennsauken, NJ for a few years; I purchased a DRPA commuter sticker (that offered a discounted toll rate), only then did I use I-295 South to I-76 West to pick up I-95.

When I first got E-ZPass circa 2001; even though I was working in Philly, the DRPA still offered a discount for all E-ZPass users/accounts regardless of how many times per month one crossed into PA.  As a result, I stopped using the Turnpike Connector bridge for a few years. 

I started using it (Turnpike Connector bridge) again for New England-bound trips when the DRPA restricted its discounted toll rates to only those who used the crossing more than 25(?) times per month.  Since I lived & worked in PA then & now; I wasn't crossing the Delaware enough times a month to get the discount.

When I learned of the new AET rate over a year ago (& commented on such on this forum); I stopped using the bridge for westbound crossings ever since.  I only used the free eastbound crossing once last year when I had to stop at Bucks County for something prior to my heading to New England.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 05, 2017, 10:20:59 AM
Wow I see NJTA did almost follow the new MUTCD completely here. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7146882,-74.0550897,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfXI9yUwQ1SLOlb_ZoeBaMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Except for the "Holland Tunnel" its all there as "Jersey City" omitted due to the street name/ destination ruling, but glad Grand Street was removed as that exit never went there directly.  Also glad I-78 is now signed on the pull through.

Love the speed limit sign, though, going the opposite way. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7146882,-74.0550897,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfXI9yUwQ1SLOlb_ZoeBaMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 06, 2017, 05:37:59 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 07, 2017, 10:17:30 PM
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)

Almost all gone. The Exit 9 one is definitely history. This guy (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6785572,-74.1701576,3a,20.8y,45.9h,102t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY8VDsRv4dteE7QE9-1gYmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is holding on, but likely not for long.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on March 08, 2017, 02:11:39 PM
The 440 shield under that is as interesting.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on March 09, 2017, 06:44:34 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 10, 2017, 09:35:21 PM
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

You can tell that there used to be a different shield there. IIRC, it only showed US-1 for many years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 12, 2017, 12:02:11 PM
As long as I lived there it never had US 9.  That change came later in the 1990's sometime after I moved away. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on March 13, 2017, 11:21:39 PM
The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2017, 09:30:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on March 15, 2017, 09:40:53 AM
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 15, 2017, 11:10:26 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 15, 2017, 01:16:46 PM
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.)
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 20, 2017, 12:30:40 AM
The new exit 14 signs on the mainline turnpike omit the US 22 shields.

The 22 shield is a holdover from the days before 78 came through. If you check the historic aerials, you'll see that the original Exit 14 ramps dumped out onto 1-9 right near the Rt 22 interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 23, 2017, 03:23:23 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 23, 2017, 03:50:14 PM
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
I can't help but think of this
(http://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/view-from-9th-ave.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on March 24, 2017, 07:21:11 AM
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.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 24, 2017, 10:39:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 24, 2017, 08:47:34 PM
Those service areas on the Newark Bay Ext. were still open into at least the early 1970's when I was driving that road weekly. Not sure how long after that they closed down, but definitely open in 1972-73. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 24, 2017, 10:46:23 PM
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.

I suspect that having service plazas there would be a winning proposition today, especially with the largest possible parking area for truck tractors with semitrailers.  Grover Cleveland near the north end of the Pike seems to have more truck customers than it  can handle.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 25, 2017, 10:38:47 PM
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.
Probably not all that great. I-78 east of 14A is mostly a commuter route.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2017, 12:16:43 PM
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
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 27, 2017, 12:27:02 AM
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
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.

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.

It's still Phillipsburg on the signs at Exit 29 (287), even after signage replacements. Plus 287 still shows Easton for the WB destination even though Allentown is a better choice.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 27, 2017, 08:34:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 27, 2017, 03:28:42 PM
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.

Not to get too off topic, but not showing Newark on those signs is from a different time when NJDOT seemed to want to forget that Newark existed. 78 is the prime E-W road in and out of there from the south and west, so it would make more sense.

As for the Turnpike, I think more mileage signs will be on tap. They are probably part of the final phases of the MUTCD conversion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 28, 2017, 07:57:26 AM
Newark was added in 1986 to the Bedminster interchange when the Berkley Heights segment opened.  Before that it was signed "Local Traffic" and even Newark & New York were directing motorists south on I-287 to US 22 East via ground mount signs there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2017, 09:10:08 AM
An active day on the Turnpike yesterday: One man was shot and killed by Troopers at the Molly Pitcher Service area: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/rest_stop_police_shooting_what_we_know_what_we_don.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured .

Further South, between Exits 4 & 3, the Turnpike was blocked for a time when 3 guys were arrested.  At first some news agencies made stuff up saying the arrests were part of the incident at the Service Area, but the State Police later said the incidents were unrelated.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on April 03, 2017, 01:46:03 PM
Quote
At first some news agencies made stuff up repeated anonymous tweets saying the arrests were part of the incident at the Service Area

FIFY.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2017, 08:02:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 23, 2017, 11:23:45 AM
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.

Well, for one, the sign replacement project only covers the northern half of the Turnpike. All signs south of 9 won't be replaced for a while (8A to 6 were replaced with classic signage during the dual-dual extension and 5 to 1 were replaced in the mid aughts). Secondly, who knows how hard it would be for them to reprogram all their toll equipment to handle different exit numbers and then the cost of printing new tickets. Also, I honestly just don't think there's any real interest on the Authority's part to change the exit number scheme.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 23, 2017, 11:44:32 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on April 23, 2017, 03:14:19 PM
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.
Not to mention everyone having to relearn the answer to "What exit?"

I grew up near the parkway so it has always been mile based for me.  The answer is 98.  Although from the NJTP it would be 11,7a or 4 depending on direction or time

LGMS428

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on April 23, 2017, 06:27:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2017, 10:21:16 PM
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.

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.
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.

This was back in the snail mail days and I would have to find his actual name for you to Google.  Then again it might of been an idea by engineers then and gave up on it before they all quit or retired.  I am sure the engineers in the 90's are not all there now and a new blood has been in there as a lot can happen in 20 years.

Its funny though the Turnpike is the only NJ freeway without mile based numbers other than the PIP, but that is only 10 miles long and 3 exits as the Scout Camp is really not an actual interchange.  You figure that Trenton would be putting pressure on the Turnpike to get it all done like PennDOT did with PTC.

You know one thing they could really do is replace the NB Extension with I-78 numbers from 58 on as it would not confuse the current numbers as 18 is the highest sequential number and any mile based on I-78 using its free NJDOT sections scheme would be in the 50's not making duplicate numbers and far apart.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2017, 12:55:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2017, 08:31:27 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 24, 2017, 11:27:21 AM
I don't know, but its interesting in general to know if NJTA wants to make the big change which is why I asked.  Being its optional and the fact NJTA probably does not get money from the feds as they like to use their own to pay for things.  I did get that impression from an old email from their webmaster as I was curious to know about federal interstate funding long before I joined here.

The email is long gone from my hard drive, but remember that the person responding to me said that NJTA, even though both I-95 and I-78 are interstates and aligned on parts of it,  to some extent were not using the funds for whatever reason. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 24, 2017, 11:29:40 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 24, 2017, 12:53:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2017, 01:17:18 PM
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.

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...

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.

If there is a conflict, such as with two Exit 51s, they can work around that (fudging one or another to become Exit 50 or Exit 52 would be perfectly acceptable, even if it's off a mile).

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 24, 2017, 01:44:51 PM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2017, 02:05:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 24, 2017, 02:20:37 PM
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?
The one on I-76 because otherwise they'd tell you to use the "Fort Washington" interchange.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2017, 02:31:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2017, 02:33:08 PM
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?
The one on I-76 because otherwise they'd tell you to use the "Fort Washington" interchange.

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.

Many travelers are only given exit numbers, not interchange designations.  And if they're on the PA Turnpike but are only knowing it as I-76, they could potentially exit the turnpike onto I-76, still looking for that 'Fort Washington' interchange.

I think you get my point.  I also think you had to look up Exit 339 on the PA Turnpike to figure out what the interchange name was, providing my point.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2017, 02:46:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 24, 2017, 02:55:29 PM
Yes, I did have to look it up and anyway, that was an attempt at humor. I'm also not arguing with anything you're saying, so maybe we should drop this. My only point is just because there are already instances of potentially confusing exit numbers, it doesn't mean we should create new ones.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 24, 2017, 03:23:21 PM
To the best of my knowledge, I have never heard of anyone mistakenly exiting for City Ave. (US 1 South, Exit 339 off I-76/Schuylkill Expressway) when they intended to exit for Fort Washington (PA 309, Exit 339 off I-276/PA Turnpike).

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

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

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

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

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

And while I know I'm a little hot on the subject, I'm mainly pointing out a different viewpoint...that when I-95 is actually signed on the NJ Turnpike, the actual function of how travelers treat the Turnpike may be different if they pay more attention to the I-95 signing vs. the NJ Turnpike signing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2017, 04:11:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on April 24, 2017, 08:55:09 PM
There is a solution to make mile-based numbers work on I-95 and the turnpike: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744.0
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2017, 11:46:23 PM
Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.
That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

So should that be construed as NJTA having a goal of going mile-based, or should that be construed as a general question, amongst many other general questions that the NJTA asks their consultants?
Definitely a general question.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 24, 2017, 11:49:40 PM
Maybe he works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers?  I recall a rumor that they were considering it, but at the time that had intentions of going AET within a decade (that effort seems to be dead), so it's possible that mile-based numbers would be something that would only be considered after going AET.
That's a large part of it. Source: Works for a consultant and NJTA asked about mile-based numbers.

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

At that point the NJTA may need to decide if they want mileage-based interchange numbers counting up from the  (currently) not numbered U.S. 130 interchange in Florence to the end of Turnpike maintenance approaching the George Washington Bridge - or retain the current numbers (or do something else).
Mile-based exit numbering is based on the MUTCD requirement. The requirement follows the number. So if they went mile-based, it stands to reason the numbers would be following I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on April 25, 2017, 02:11:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2017, 02:19:56 PM
Look at I-76 when it enters NJ and becomes Rt. 42: You have, in this order: Exit 354, 1C, 1B, 1A, 14, 13, 12, etc...
I know you know this, but for those unfamiliar: Exit 354 should be Exit 2 since it's located in NJ.  Such was a DRPA screw-up.

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

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

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

The next question could be...what if I-76 was extended down Rt. 42 and/or the ACX?  It would certainly be necessary to renumber the exits.  This pretty much shows that NJDOT never considered the idea...and still doesn't.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 25, 2017, 03:08:33 PM
Extremely valid point.  I suspect it may have something to do with both NJDOT and PennDOT not knowing exacting how the routing was going to take place anyway.  I-76 could have gone thru Center City Philly via the Ben Franklin Bridge if what became the Vine Street Expressway was completed first (and honestly, never truly completed because of the Franklin Park issue), but when the highway connected to the Walt Whitman Bridge was completed first, that was given the I-76 designation.  Since NJDOT started their numbering with I-295, it wouldn't need to reassign exit numbers based on wherever 76's ultimate routing became.  Granted...it had to reassign a route number, but whatever. 

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

The next question could be...what if I-76 was extended down Rt. 42 and/or the ACX?  It would certainly be necessary to renumber the exits.  This pretty much shows that NJDOT never considered the idea...and still doesn't.
It's not like it's hard to renumber four exit numbers that few people use (the numbers, not the exits), might even get away with just changing exit 2 to 1D. Of course, if they extend I-76, there would be a lot of exits to renumber (or do reverse numbering the whole way and renumber 12)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2017, 03:20:28 PM
Extremely valid point.  I suspect it may have something to do with both NJDOT and PennDOT not knowing exacting how the routing was going to take place anyway.  I-76 could have gone thru Center City Philly via the Ben Franklin Bridge if what became the Vine Street Expressway was completed first (and honestly, never truly completed because of the Franklin Park issue), but when the highway connected to the Walt Whitman Bridge was completed first, that was given the I-76 designation.  Since NJDOT started their numbering with I-295, it wouldn't need to reassign exit numbers based on wherever 76's ultimate routing became.  Granted...it had to reassign a route number, but whatever. 

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

The next question could be...what if I-76 was extended down Rt. 42 and/or the ACX?  It would certainly be necessary to renumber the exits.  This pretty much shows that NJDOT never considered the idea...and still doesn't.
It's not like it's hard to renumber four exit numbers that few people use (the numbers, not the exits), might even get away with just changing exit 2 to 1D. Of course, if they extend I-76, there would be a lot of exits to renumber (or do reverse numbering the whole way and renumber 12)

Actually, 1E, as 1D is Rt. 130 North. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on April 25, 2017, 03:35:39 PM
NJDOT considers I-76 to be a north-south route, per their Straight Line Diagrams, hence the south-to-north exit numbers and mileposting.  Field signing carries east-west to continue from Pa.

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

My thoughts, for what they are worth.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kphoger on April 25, 2017, 04:04:03 PM
I have heard the argument used that the toll road markers (which appear on guide signs sporadically) constitute route markers as much as the numbered ones, so that the mileage is based on the toll road mileage and the interstate is considered an overlapping route.  Adapting justification to the situation, perhaps

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

Its southern terminus is the Oklahoma state line, so both the KTA and I-35 have their zero points there.
At Emporia, the mileage splits:  Both the KTA and I-35 keep counting up from 127, so I-335 has no zero point.
At Topeka, the mileage continues, with I-70 traffic seeing Exit 366 (I-70 mileposting) followed by Exit 197 (KTA mileposting).
Then, where the KTA ends at K-7, I-70 traffic sees Exit 224 (KTA mileposting) followed by Exit 410 (I-70 mileposting).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 25, 2017, 09:45:54 PM
This issue of MUTCD compliant exit numbering where pre-Interstate era Turnpikes were grandfathered into the Interstate system creates an absolute nightmare. I'm guessing that when the Feds came up with the mileage based numbering system, they may never have considered this issue or if they did, they thought they covered it with the rule  that Interstate Highway numbering would dominate on "overlapping" routes. Well, it's turned out to be a little more complicated than that.

I'm thinking maybe the easiest solution would be for the MUTCD to have an exception to that rule for pre-Interstate toll roads. Let the toll-road use it's own mileage-based numbering system (specific to the toll-road). A reversal of the existing rule.  It seems to me this would create less confusion than all the proposed numbering schemes we've discussed. That way too, the toll-roads could maintain their separate identity, which I think is preferable to having their identity getting lost in the Interstate System.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on April 25, 2017, 10:06:16 PM
Agreed.  Rather than having the tunpike have two different exit sequences in the "completed-PA Tpke/I-95 era", number exits on the turnpike from end-to-end based on turnpike mileage.  I-95 will come in at MM 50-51, and that will be that.  Southbound, it will exit from itself at Exit 51, then jump on the turnpike extension to the PA Turnpike.  On the "north of the original pike" section, renumber exits and mile markers based on the same turnpike system.  It could work, better and less confusing than the MUTCD idea of Exits 1-51 for the non-numbered southern half of the turnpike, and the rest going off I-95 mileage. 

As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 25, 2017, 10:22:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jp the roadgeek on April 25, 2017, 10:29:21 PM
As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one.


Easiest option for NY is just retain internal Thruway mileage and number from 1 up to 495.  Only confusion would be the NYC-Montreal driver who has Exits 0-8 (many with suffixes), then 1-148, then a jump to 157.  MUTCD wants 87 and 90 with separate numbers, so it would start at 9 in Yonkers (including Deegan mileage) and go to 156, then down from 347 to 1.  But you'd have a numbering problem for current Exit 24 (156 vs 347 vs unnumbered?)  In all cases, Northway would start at 157 and go to 332.  Free 90 would go from 348-367.  Berkshire Spur exits would be I-90 mileage based (368, 377, 385).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 25, 2017, 10:58:16 PM
You run into competing considerations. The motorist is best served by numbering following the route number, as a general rule. But there is usually a separate agency running the toll road, and they are best served by numbering following their facility. Since signage is supposed to benefit the user, I would award the tie to the motorist, and make the agencies have to deal with it. But the agencies have more political power than the users.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on April 26, 2017, 07:06:54 AM
As for the New York Thruway, there ain't no easy way of keeping the MUTCD and the Thruway authority happy with that one.


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

It's not unprecedented for an interchange to carry a different number for opposing directions of traffic. On the Capital Beltway in Virginia, the Springfield Interchange carries Exit 170 on the Inner Loop (uses I-95 exit numbers) and Exit 57 on the Outer Loop (uses I-495 exit numbers). In theory the same type of thing could be done with the Thruway's current Exit 24, given that any renumbering is going to confuse people anyway. (Emphasis on "in theory" because I don't think it's a great idea here either. Trying to explain the exit numbers to non-local visitors is never as easy as it should be because "just go by the signs and don't worry about logic" doesn't seem to work well, which is a problem when you live near Exit 173 and the exit immediately before that is Exit 57!)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: OracleUsr on April 26, 2017, 07:25:33 AM
We have that too in Greensboro.  US 220/I-73 at I-85.  Northbound (I-73) at the junction is exit 95A/B.  Southbound (US 220) at the same junction is Exit 78.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 26, 2017, 09:24:17 AM
There is a solution to make mile-based numbers work on I-95 and the turnpike: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7744.0
I'm not sure if such was already suggested but another possible alternative to the above (if NJ did not want to include PA mileage for I-95) would be to have the NJ Turnpike interchanges south of Exit 6 retain their sequential numbers but have the I-95 portion be mile-marker-based with 0 starting at the Delaware River Bridge.  The PA-Turnpike Connector from the bridge/border is just about 6.5 miles; so Exit 6, in theory, could remain as such for both the Turnpike & I-95. 

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

The above would both satisfy the FHWA/MUTCD mile-marker-based interchange numbering requirements for Interstates and keep the mainline NJ Turnpike from having duplicate interchange numbers.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on April 26, 2017, 02:02:10 PM
Right shadyjay. No matter what configuration is used, it's going to be confusing for drivers. And the NY Thruway is a good example. I'm starting to understand one reason why California resisted exit numbers for as long as they did. Sometimes they actually create as many problems as they solve.
California doesn't have any pre-interstate Turnpikes, so the issues described here aren't applicable to them.  Plus, starting from NO exit numbers, they avoid pretty much any other issue I can think of.  I think CA was just intimidated by the size of the job.

As for renumbering the NJ Turnpike, my favorite options are continuing PA's mileage along I-95 (as described by NE2), which coincidentally results in I-95 and the Turnpike having the same numbers, and keeping the Turnpike sequential south of exit 6 (though that could possibly cause confusion between US 130 and exit 3 or 4).  Of those two, I prefer the former.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 26, 2017, 09:11:06 PM
Vdeane, your point is well taken as far as the Turnpike grandfathering issue not applying to California. What I was trying to say is that the exit numbering issue in general seems to create confusion in a lot of places, and that's  why I understand California resisting the concept. But you're probably right too re: the size of the task being the issue there.

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

On a related note, on the German Autobahns exits are numbered sequentially and the exit number only appears once, on the first advance sign.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 26, 2017, 09:50:21 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 27, 2017, 06:12:25 AM
I may be in the minority here, but I'm just fine with leaving the Turnpike exit numbers as-is.  As much as the roadnut in me wants conformance to the rules and I like mileage based interchange numbers, for the Turnpike at least I'd rather it left alone.  I'm sure the average motorist would agree as well. It's the one highway where I can easily recall each exit number and I frequently end up giving directions to people involving Turnpike exits.  Mixing sequential exit numbers on the southern portion with I-95 mileage based numbers to the north is an absolute mess.

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

(1) Make U.S. 130 (currently with no number) Exit 6A (or something similar); and
(2) Change the numbering of the I-95 exits north of the end of the Turnpike's ticket system to be consistent with the Turnpike (presumably starting at Exit 19).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: zachb on April 27, 2017, 07:14:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2017, 07:31:42 AM
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.

That wouldn't have been a NJ decision. PA would not even allow that consideration to take place.

Being that the NJ Turnpike isn't even designated an interstate South of Int. 6, they appear to want no part in even making it a 3di, much less a 2di.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 27, 2017, 09:28:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2017, 10:35:18 AM
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.

As far as the numbers go, sooner or later we got to adjust.  Yes Elizabeth is 13 and that is why so long Exit 15E SB on the Eastern Spur had substandard signage as Newark or Jersey City was not the reference to it as much as the number 15E hence the lack of control cities there.

NJT 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2017, 11:12:32 AM
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.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 27, 2017, 11:28:46 AM
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.

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!
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2017, 01:06:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 27, 2017, 01:34:13 PM
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.
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).

Bottom line is this: If FHWA/MUTCD pushed the NJTA to redesign their guidance signs to MUTCD standards; then what's not to say that they will force them to adopt mile-marker-based interchange numbering for at least the Interstate-occupied portions of the Turnpike?

Additionally, if such were to occur; it wouldn't be the first time that NJ changed interchange numbers along its highways.  I-287's numbers changed years after the fore-mentioned proposed Somerset Freeway was canned; and, more recently, several Garden State Parkway interchanges recently underwent some renumbering... particularly between the Turnpike & I-78.

I've said such before & I'll say it again; a compromise solution would be to keep the Turnpike's numbers from Exit 6 southward as they are and use I-95's NJ mileage for the one north of there.  Such would eliminate any chance of interchange number duplication along the mainline Turnpike.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on April 27, 2017, 02:28:13 PM
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.

Before the adoption of mile-based exits, and adjusting the mile-markers to align with Blue Route mileage, they were numbered sequentially starting with 31 for Lansdale. (Old exit 30 was the former Delaware River Bridge toll plaza, #359).

Mid-County was signed as Exit 25A when exiting the East-West Turnpike or south from the Extension. This continued the E-W Turnpike sequence.  Upon renumbering, Mid-County changed to 20 to match I-476 mileage and sequence. (The last free exit on the Blue Route northbound was 9, so sequence was 9, [25A], 31, 32....; The first free exit southbound was for Norristown, exit 7; so it was ...32, 31, 25A, 7...). On the topic of numbers, when Mid-County was 25A, the lane numbers continued from the E-W Turnpike's exit 25 nearby.

Further-back and farther-north, when Keyser Ave opened, it was first a southbound exit only with a part-time staffed toll-booth with a flat rate charged from Clarks Summit, then exit 38. Keyser Ave was made a full interchange with the opening of the barrier tolls in that area (truncating the ticket system to a new barrier plaza in between Wilkes-Barre and Wyoming Valley Interchanges) Keyser Ave then acquired exit 38, and Clarks Summit became 39.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on April 27, 2017, 04:05:11 PM
How did PTC do it on the extension
The 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2017, 04:09:42 PM
How did PTC do it on the extension
The 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on April 27, 2017, 04:42:17 PM
How did PTC do it on the extension
The 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.
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 27, 2017, 05:17:40 PM
How did PTC do it on the extension
The 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.
Current Fort Washington/Exit 339/PA 309 interchange signage:
(http://www.eastcoastroads.com/states/pa/painter/i276/fullsize/276e339_10.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 27, 2017, 08:54:45 PM
How did PTC do it on the extension
The 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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 27, 2017, 09:12:44 PM
The NJ Turnpike's interchanges do have names. See the list on their website.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 27, 2017, 09:27:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on April 27, 2017, 09:42:34 PM
Re the PA Pike signage at Ft. Washington, up until about 50 years ago, I want to say that that sign would have probably been in all MUTCD caps and referred to "U.S. 309" before 309 was struck from the federal rolls.  Same for U.S. (now PA) 611 at Willow Grove.  Thanks, pahighways.com.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 27, 2017, 09:47:20 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 27, 2017, 10:39:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beeper1 on April 27, 2017, 11:22:25 PM
Both the Maine and Mass turnpikes' interchanges do have official names.  They were listed on the toll tickets back when those roads were ticket-based systems.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 28, 2017, 12:59:47 AM
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.

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!
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.

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:

In non road geek reading exit signs is a thing of the past.  People ask me as a toll booth operator what the speed limit is on the toll road I work at despite the signs are all there.  People who have been driving all these years cannot tell the difference between a permissive left turn and a protected left as many stay behind the stop bar even when the opposing traffic is clear hence the yellow flasher.  (Also I have seen a motorist wait for the next green arrow with that FYA at one intersection).

I know now the NJT (or NJTA as its like me saying the GSP even though that is not an official acronym and I do not think NJ Transit employees would mind lol) probably won't change the exit numbers.  It would be nice though, but then again ask FDOT over 30 years ago or even in the early 90's about if they would go mile based with the exit numbers and they would tell you never back then.  Look at FL interstates now, minus the Selmon Expressway in Tampa that is still sequential.

However, with the exit guides change in the 9-10 and 14 to 14C it could have worked with high mileage numbers north of Exit 9 and and the single digits sequential as well.  Only the tickets would have to be reprinted which most likely is not a big thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 28, 2017, 08:16:26 AM

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:


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.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 28, 2017, 09:32:11 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on May 01, 2017, 09:35:27 AM
Did the Northeast Extension duplicate the mainline's exit numbers before the change to I-476-based numbers? I seem to remember a range of exit numbers on BGSs at the exit to the Northeast extension much like this one on the Northeast Extension approaching the mainline (now also gone):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.117587,-75.2789193,3a,75y,163.24h,109.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1KfB_SlEM5jje9xde56DxA!2e0!5s20090501T000000!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e1
If I'm not misremembering, that would not have worked if the Northeast Extension duplicated exit numbers on the mainline.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on May 01, 2017, 10:27:39 AM
No.  Mainline exits were 1-30, while Northeast Extension was 31-38/39.  Mile-based conversion along Northeast Extension went directly to I-476 mileposts.  Mile markers themselves originally had A prefixes and started from 0, but they ultimately changed to begin at 20 and dropped the A.  Not sure if it was at the same time as the exit number conversions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 11, 2017, 01:01:45 PM
Some signage changes at Exit 12:

(http://i.imgur.com/qBQdTSy.jpg)

For reference, here (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.592778,-74.2295435,3a,71.9y,120.67h,96.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9b-bcbFU8C8y0I6p8X2QjA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the previous signage.

No more mention of Roosevelt Ave and CR-602 on the right side. The ghost CR 6-- shield for the Industrial Hwy is gone, and now includes the to Middlesex Ave and ProLogis Way, which will be useful for truckers. The legend text is bigger and easier to read now as well.

They also changed the signs for the North/South ramp split, but I will have to nab a picture of that another day.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2017, 06:11:46 PM
The Turnpike and Parkway users ways used numbers over names. The CB era of users always used them and it was the way in NJ for a long time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 19, 2017, 10:57:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 19, 2017, 08:07:09 PM
Much as I approve of standardization, I'm already starting to miss the NJTA's unique sign system. Among other things, I always liked the large upper case lettering they used for "Garden State PARKWAY". 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 20, 2017, 02:29:26 PM
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.

Probably a bit too blurry but this is what I took this morning:
(http://i.imgur.com/tvTEEHq.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2017, 09:45:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 30, 2017, 12:44:36 PM
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.

That's to stay more consistent with how NJDOT signs 440, as Perth Amboy is its NJ destination.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 30, 2017, 07:47:01 PM
No control cities for the GSP though. Oh well, can't win them all :P
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 31, 2017, 03:24:09 PM
No control cities for the GSP though. Oh well, can't win them all :P

Honestly, I don't get that rationale either, other than that's how NJDOT always signs Parkway entrances. I would like to have seen them actually adopt the control cities they have in place.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 02, 2017, 01:10:38 PM
At least on NJ 70 in Bricktown they have Toms River and Woodbridge used at the new Exit 89 interchange.  So, I have to give em credit there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 02, 2017, 01:21:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 02, 2017, 02:08:24 PM
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.
That's a very recent replacement.  This past Memorial Day; the old BGS for I-95 North was still there.

BTW, I do agree w/you that NJTA needs to be consistent with the way it signs I-95 Northbound.  Although I think I would only use NYC south of Exit 14 and GWB for Exit 14 & northward.  MUTCD prohibition of using bridges & tunnel for control destinations be damned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 02, 2017, 09:02:10 PM
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.

I absolutely agree that NJTA should standardize on this stuff.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 02, 2017, 11:40:42 PM
I hope the SB sign gets changed out.  Looks odd with a control city for NB and none for SB.  Plus the shield denotes NB while all caps denote SB.

In addition the Parkway uses Trenton and Camden on 129 guides.  So it should be consistent.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 03, 2017, 01:18:01 AM
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.

I absolutely agree that NJTA should standardize on this stuff.
The left sign is not new. As for standardizing, they HAVE. I don't know why it's not coming out that way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 03, 2017, 11:27:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 03, 2017, 05:26:38 PM
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.

I really hope that MDTA will treat Philadelphia and Wilmington better in Maryland once Bristol is done sometime within the  next 10 years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 09, 2017, 08:43:19 AM
It is my guess that either Trenton or Camden will be the likely candidate for the control city on that replacement southbound ramp sign.  The question is which one will be used?  Brand new southbound pull-through signage along the Turnpike, south of Exit 11 (see new signage at Exits 10 & 9) uses Trenton (note: the predecessor to the older southbound ramp sign used Trenton) as well as the newer northbound Parkway Exit 129 ramp signage but its similar-vintage Exit 129 ramp signage along its southbound counterpart uses Camden for a southbound Turnpike/I-95 destination. 

The likely reasoning for jumping the gun and using Camden on the southbound Parkway Exit 129 signage is due to Trenton being already used for Exit 130B (US 1 South).

That said & IMHO, using both Trenton & Camden for this one particular BGS (past the Turnpike toll plaza) would be logical & justified.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 09, 2017, 09:56:30 AM
It would not be the first time that happened where the contractor took it upon himself to assign the control destinations.

I wonder if Paramus on the pull through GSP sign in East Orange was just that as Paterson is supposed to be used as one user here found a link to the GSP list naming what was to come at the time of the publication.  Plus why that anyhow?  Yes Paramus is the retail capital of NJ, but its only that with no significant meaning, and not enough to fulfill a requirement.  Heck  Saddle Brook would be more appropriate as that is where a major east-west interstate junctions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 10, 2017, 12:40:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 10, 2017, 09:14:57 AM
Yeah but NYCDOT or NYSDOT ( I'll have to check on that one to please the bipolar dude) removed "Perth Amboy" off NY 440 signs on Staten Island. So the NJTA is not only guilty of that one.

Plus the new NJ 495 guides at I-95 in Secaucus use the George Washington Bridge now to go north, so a double whammy here for the NJTA.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 13, 2017, 05:27:05 PM
Every Rest Stop on the Turnpike, Ranked
https://www.eater.com/2017/6/13/15783216/best-new-jersey-turnpike-rest-stop-service-plaza
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2017, 05:56:49 PM
Every Rest Stop on the Turnpike, Ranked
https://www.eater.com/2017/6/13/15783216/best-new-jersey-turnpike-rest-stop-service-plaza

OMG...talk about an article that has no connection with an audience. Do they really think that the most important thing is salad shaming?  They barely even mentioned the food in some service areas!  And rating one based on a side of green beans...really?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 13, 2017, 09:34:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2017, 09:46:43 PM
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.

Most of them were rebuilt in the early aughts (00-02) and more or less designed identically. The Thomas Edison one is the newest one, rebuilt after Sandy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 09:59:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2017, 10:01:58 PM
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.
You mean the compliant signs that lack errors? Are they atrocious on all the other highways too?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 13, 2017, 10:04:04 PM
Well 1995hoo it was actually a her; Helen Rosner was the name on the story. But yes, I agree with you about her comment on the signing. I had to wonder if we were talking about the same Turnpike, because NJTA's old sign system was quite good, and the new MUTCD signing could be good as well with some minor changes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on June 13, 2017, 10:44:52 PM
Well 1995hoo it was actually a her; Helen Rosner was the name on the story. ...

Heh. Obviously I hadn't bothered to look at the author's name, hence why I used "he" by default!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 13, 2017, 11:48:23 PM
The one thing I've liked about the Walt Whitman Service Plaza is that there's a really cute brunette who works in the convenience store. As for the service areas in general, I really wish they'd make better use of those former tiny Howard Johnson's that they've closed off for decades.

Anyone think the two service areas on the Newark Bay Extension should be rebuilt?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 14, 2017, 06:04:18 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 14, 2017, 07:20:33 AM
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.

What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2017, 09:26:07 AM

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.

How come the Alexander Hamilton Service Area is still open?  Its way too close to the Vince Lombardi and even after the Lombardi Area was constructed (to allow the Western Spur to have a service area too) it should have been closed.  Is there a demand for gas and food for Lincoln Tunnel motorists heading into NJ on their commute home?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on June 14, 2017, 02:39:42 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 14, 2017, 09:17:17 PM
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.

What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on June 14, 2017, 09:26:35 PM
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.

What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000

Is it a borough, township, or CDP?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 14, 2017, 10:40:15 PM
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.

What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000

Is it a borough, township, or CDP?

ixnay

It's a city with a year round population of 873, and a summer population of 726,917
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on June 14, 2017, 11:18:39 PM
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.

What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000
Zip would be. 077xx or 08xxx

LGMS428

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 15, 2017, 12:21:50 AM
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.

What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000
Zip would be. 077xx or 08xxx

LGMS428


Unclear on the concept.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 15, 2017, 12:13:07 PM
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000

04440?  ;-)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kkt on June 15, 2017, 12:26:31 PM
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.
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000
Is it a borough, township, or CDP?

ixnay
It's a city with a year round population of 873, and a summer population of 726,917

 :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: epzik8 on June 16, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 17, 2017, 12:03:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on June 17, 2017, 09:58:45 AM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 17, 2017, 03:09:41 PM
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...
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)??
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 17, 2017, 07:50:41 PM
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.

SB sign has been replaced, and it's for Trenton, keeping in line with all the other signage in place. They should have signed 129 SB with Trenton instead of Camden for a control city. I know 130 says Trenton, but this should too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2017, 12:29:17 AM
Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 18, 2017, 01:47:53 AM
Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.
Dammit I agree with you. I hate when that happens. :P
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 18, 2017, 10:55:03 PM
Actually SB 130 should use New Brunswick and Trenton should be 129 SB.

They were keeping with NJDOT, which uses Trenton and Newark as the control cities on 1 even though it passes through New Brunswick on the way (and some LGS's on some of 1's intersections in Woodbridge and Edison will use New Brunswick instead of Trenton as the control city).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on June 19, 2017, 10:14:22 AM
Seen at Exit 11:

(http://i.imgur.com/tQQVKvZ.jpg)
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on June 19, 2017, 06:52:27 PM
What's Shore Points, NJ's zip code?

ixnay
07000

04440?  ;-)

Until you get down toward Atlantic City.  Then, it becomes 04460.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2017, 07:33:02 AM
Seen at Exit 11:

(http://i.imgur.com/tQQVKvZ.jpg)
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.

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.
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.

I even think Newark is a bad call for 130 NB after the cloverleaf ramp was retrofitted as the Parkway just came from there itself.  As US 1 does serve Woodbridge and can also be used for a control city with 129 or even drop Woodbridge from 129 guides and add Staten Island (even though the NJ 184 Breezewood) or Raritan Center.    In addition you have Avenel, Rahway, Linden, and Elizabeth to use as well for a NB US 1 control place, or you could leave it blank and use the already existed New Brunswick and Trenton for the main guides before the split.

Also a note:  I do not have photos and some of you may say I am making it up, but I do not care what you think, but before the 1980 widening of the GSP from 129 to 140, there were no control cities listed for 130.  Just US 1 in text was used and it specified no direction either as Ford Avenue jughandle was used to make the movement missing.  Obviously in those days the US 1/ Ford Ave. Intersection did not have traffic queues that filled the merge areas and jughandle itself and a movement could have been made rather easily.  In addition a supplemental guide that read "Shopping Centers" was there denoting all the malls and strip malls along US 1 in Woodbridge and Edison that was removed in that widening as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 25, 2017, 01:10:16 AM
Drove through Interchange 9 today. The new NB signage leaves room for a control city but does not include one. So, the inconsistency of the new signage continues.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2017, 05:21:42 PM
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.

This is the  first time I have seen an I-95 shield southbound south of Exit 10 (I-287), where I-95 was originally planned to exit off the Turnpike headed south.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 04, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
and I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 04, 2017, 11:24:56 PM
and I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?
Some exits still have some.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: JJBers on July 04, 2017, 11:26:38 PM
and I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?
Some exits still have some.
Thank god, I like button copy myself

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 05, 2017, 06:01:55 AM
and I take it...NOW....all of the button copy is gone?
Some exits still have some.
Thank god, I like button copy myself

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.

The rust look has been their style for a long time.  Many of them are brand new - under 5 years of age or so.  They'll last just as long as any other highway sign structure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 05, 2017, 09:00:51 AM
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.

Also the Garden State Parkway had been using them even before the Turnpike except with more elaborate gantries though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 05, 2017, 09:35:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 05, 2017, 03:28:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2017, 06:45:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2017, 06:47:44 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 05, 2017, 09:24:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 06, 2017, 08:26:12 AM
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.

Update: as suspected & confirmed - the signage at Exits 8A-7A were not changed nor I-95 shields have been added yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 06, 2017, 09:23:44 PM
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.

I think it was actually Interstate Division, Baltimore City Department of Transportation that had the lead in designing and engineering I-95 in the city, save for the  Fort McHenry Tunnel, the toll plaza and sections of freeway approaching the tunnel portals, which under control of MDTA.  Later, after the Fort McHenry Tunnel opened to traffic, Baltimore City and MDTA reached an agreement to have MDTA take over maintenance, operations and law enforcement on all of I-95 in the city.

Some overhead sign structures using corten can still be found along I-83 in Baltimore City.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on July 07, 2017, 09:14:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 08, 2017, 09:50:33 AM
Yes I have seen those rust stains in the concrete in various places that use them.  It can look bad, but still overall the look is fantastic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2017, 10:57:27 AM
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.

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 can only see the NJTA using it for the look.  If there's any cost savings, that'll be minimal compared to the literal billions the Turnpike has spent to make sure every exit is a right lane exit (as the dual-dual design would be much cheaper if they utilized left lane exits to reduce the number of bridges and ramps necessary for its design).

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 08, 2017, 11:08:11 AM
Also the fact the NJTA uses more paint for lane striping as they go beyond the normal specs of the white lines too.   They were even proud of it as the old Trailblazer newsletter years ago stated that they know they do not need to use that much paint, but they want to for added safety.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 08, 2017, 09:15:07 PM
Yes, NJTA is a class-act among highway agencies; no doubt about that. I personally never liked the rusted look. I agree with those who say it looks crappy. I would prefer guide-rails and sign-gantries to be modern, bright looking steel or aluminum to maintain the look of a modern, well maintained highway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Jim on July 09, 2017, 10:09:57 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 09, 2017, 03:48:24 PM
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.

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.

There is room for a 95 shield on all the signs from 7A-8A, but the Turnpike Authority is going not going to put them up there until the 95/PA Turnpike ramps are completed and 95 is actually through-routed onto the Turnpike at 7A.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 09, 2017, 07:12:18 PM
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.

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.
https://goo.gl/maps/ys5uTm7WdjD2
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2017, 07:16:32 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 09, 2017, 07:58:51 PM
Vdeane, re: the New York State rusted guide-rails in the photo not lasting as long as elsewhere, I think the issue might be more with those small box-beam style rails not being as durable in the long-term as the standard W-beam type rail used on the NJ Turnpike. NYS DOT used box-beam rails a lot on Long Island and they did not seem to stand up well over time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 10, 2017, 09:52:55 AM
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:
I agree with you Northbound as NJDOT has frequent TO I-95 signs along 295 South and 195 East, but no follow-thru once you enter the Turnpike. Southbound it doesn't matter as much since most traffic is not going to that part of I-95, but rather joining I-95 in Delaware.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 12, 2017, 01:57:54 AM
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)

NJDOT. You can see one of their structure identification signs on the structure on the left in the picture. There's also a small Begin NJ Turnpike sign beyond there that marks the start of their jurisdiction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2017, 09:09:39 PM
That is from NJDOT maintained free 95 left over I believe. Plus US 46 is state maintained anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 02, 2017, 06:38:51 PM
That is from NJDOT maintained free 95 left over I believe. Plus US 46 is state maintained anyway.

I noticed the signs to the Turnpike & I-80 from US-46 WEST have been replaced, but these haven't.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 17, 2017, 05:14:17 PM
They missed one!

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4372/36240035480_1c812d6715_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XdpDXW)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on August 18, 2017, 04:44:10 PM
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).
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.).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on August 18, 2017, 04:49:31 PM
http://www.graveinfo.com/NJ/Secaucus/hcbg/news/JJ050703.html
Quote
"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
Blame whoever built the Alphabet Loop in Kansas City for this...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on August 18, 2017, 07:20:05 PM
In this video (in the first 15 seconds of it), the northbound pull-through sign at exit 14 has "George Washington Bridge" as the control city. Wouldn't be surprised if this is what NJTA goes with in the future for the northbound signs that don't have "New York" or "New York City" as the control city.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 18, 2017, 08:32:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2017, 11:20:24 PM
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.

New York City is tough, especially when it would apply to probably a half dozen exits from Exit 10 and North.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 19, 2017, 09:54:28 AM
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). :)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on August 19, 2017, 01:23:55 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 19, 2017, 02:02:13 PM
Shouldn't truck restrictions regarding access to New York City be included on signage from Exit 14 northward?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 19, 2017, 08:38:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 19, 2017, 09:26:56 PM
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.

All three lead to Manhattan, so that's kind of moot. To be fair, this is also how NJDOT approaches signing for the Hudson River crossings, so the Turnpike Authority is being consistent. It's the way that makes the most sense. And they're using the VMS's to put up time to messages, which look like this:

+--------------------------------------------+
|                 New York City Via                     |
+--------------------------------------------+
|     Holland     |       Lincoln      |       GWB   |
|     XX Min      |       XX Min      |      XX Min |
+--------------------------------------------+

I think that gets the point across. The fact is that there are 3 crossings, the Turnpike takes you to all 3 of them, and you may want to take one over the other depending on traffic conditions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 19, 2017, 10:26:35 PM
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.


The signs at US 46 on I-80 EB need to have APL's and most likely will. In addition one of three control cities will have to go per MUTCD requiring only two places.  Most likely Clifton will go and Wayne and Lincoln Tunnel will stay.

I-95 was never mentioned on too many places entering the Turnpike even I-280 another interstate.  I think they are adding them slowly as what I have seen on GSV and on here from postings.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 19, 2017, 10:35:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 19, 2017, 10:39:05 PM
It might be better to have Wayne and Clifton and to use a supplemental signs for Lincoln Tunnel and Midtown NY as another location.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 20, 2017, 12:43:17 AM
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.

Not to take this discussion too far off topic, but NJDOT has been changing their practices with newer signs, they tend to have fewer lines of legend on them. Sometimes, though, it makes sense to have several lines of legend on the signs, and to mix street name and destinations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 20, 2017, 09:48:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 20, 2017, 10:33:47 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 20, 2017, 04:42:14 PM
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.

If anything, the Turnpike Authority is being very vigilant about obeying the 2 line maximum thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on August 20, 2017, 04:54:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2017, 08:44:28 PM
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.

I remember those signs well - they persisted well into the 1980's.  And the Indiana Toll Road was good about posting the names of places on the Michigan side of the state line too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on August 23, 2017, 09:28:03 AM
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.

From the 2009 MUTCD

Quote
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.

Although the George Washington Bridge is not on AASHTO's control cities list, an argument could be made that it satisfies the requirements of the above section.  Especially given that the Turnpike splits at the northern end, and it's desirable to keep traffic bound for the bridge on the 'left' fork.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Brandon on August 23, 2017, 11:25:44 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 23, 2017, 08:46:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: amroad17 on August 23, 2017, 09:27:22 PM
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.

I could see supplemental signs like this on the NJTP from Edison up to Ft. Lee.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 24, 2017, 12:02:10 AM
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.

I could see supplemental signs like this on the NJTP from Edison up to Ft. Lee.

ISHTA is also mostly allergic to putting anything other than road names or shields up on their signage, except for interstate to interstate connections, so that's not surprising. The Turnpike Authority, on the other hand, is almost taking it to the other extreme, putting up a ton of supplemental signs with only one destination on them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 24, 2017, 09:18:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2017, 09:45:35 AM
Nether are the bridges and tunnels are really encouraged so using the boroughs is not much different. 


IMO opinion I have no issues using the bridges and tunnels.   I even miss the classic Turnpike arrows too, but life goes on.   I am not like some users on here who cry about silly things out of their control and even write road agencies to argue with certain rulings (yes one user  here specifically wrote a DOT about a route number he did not like).

I hate to see the classic signs go, but whatever they choose I must accept and will accept it.  I still though have my opinions and we all should be able to express them of course.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2017, 02:57:16 PM
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/09/once_in_a_generation_remake_of_16_service_areas_set_to_begin_on_parkway_turnpike.html#incart_river_home

The NJ Turnpike authorized the agreement to have HMS Host rebuild and/or renovate numerous Service Plazas along the Turnpike and Parkway.

The new design will be based on the rebuilt Glover Cleveland Service Area.   The entire concept is based on the rebuilt buildings in Delaware and Maryland, which definitely attracted the attention of NJ officials.

The I-78 NJ Turnpike Extension may also receive new Service Areas as well, between Exits 14A & 14B.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 12, 2017, 06:32:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 12, 2017, 07:30:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 12, 2017, 08:53:35 PM
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?


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"

Iselin is still used.  It replaced "Metropark", just like "Churchmans Crossing" replaced "Metroform" for the DE 1/7 North exit off of I-95 in DE.

 I'd like to see Central Philadelphia replaced by "Center City Philadelphia" in the Camden area for I-676 West (Center could be abbreviated as Ctr.),  and even "Center City" could be used within the Philadelphia city limits. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2017, 12:59:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 13, 2017, 01:19:45 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 13, 2017, 04:37:59 PM
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.

Iselin was moved to supplementary signs in both directions. Metropark is still used for 131B NB (since it was built to directly serve the station), but 131A (NB)/131SB are now Wood Ave South and there is a supplementary sign for Metropark going SB before 132.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 13, 2017, 06:59:31 PM
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.

For the two on the NBE, I'd just build a stereotype rest area  for cheap.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2017, 01:50:54 AM
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.

They were renovated about 15 years ago. I believe they left the structures of the buildings intact and just redid the interiors. Some of them probably need structural work too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2017, 01:56:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 14, 2017, 10:14:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 14, 2017, 10:28:21 AM
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.

They're a convenience more than anything.  By that nature, Delaware doesn't need a service area along their 11 mile highway, and Maryland doesn't need 2 along their 43 mile Turnpike.  The AC Expressway and GSP Service Areas do very well also.  All are money makers.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: hubcity on September 14, 2017, 02:10:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jp the roadgeek on September 14, 2017, 04:43:42 PM
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.

And we can use "Meatpacking District" for one of the Lower Manhattan exits off I-78
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2017, 08:19:07 PM
When did the Admiral Halsey service area close? I always thought it was when they built 13A in the early 80s, but looking at historical aerials, it looks like they had a whole setup with the 13A ramps to go either to the exit or the service area. It looks like it was there thru maybe the mid-90s?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 14, 2017, 09:01:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on September 14, 2017, 10:42:38 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on September 14, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2017, 11:37:26 PM
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.

It was actually the northernmost service area on the Turnpike for almost 20 years. The Vince Lombardi service area didn't open until 1974, so Hallsey and the Alexander Hamilton areas were the northenmost ones for many years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on September 14, 2017, 11:49:47 PM
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...

Did they sell butter pie there?

Oh, and give our best to the first Mrs. McCartney...

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 15, 2017, 06:10:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on September 15, 2017, 08:47:11 AM
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

Very interesting article, but I find it hard to believe that the ramps for 13A led to it's demise.   They used the original service area ramps and added a second choice for exit 13A, so it took exactly the same time and effort to get to the service area as previous.  As mentioned above it was too close to the area between 11 and 12, and when the Lombardi area opened to the north the demand totally dried up.

There is also a common misconception that it closed at the time 13A was built, but it is clearly documented here they co-existed from 1982 to 1994.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 15, 2017, 09:39:00 AM
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.

Their best bet would be to buy the land where the old movie theater was in Newark next to 15E. I'm just not sure how they would fit in ramps to it. It's where it needs to be (close to the city) and has access to not just the Turnpike but Truck 1-9, which is an important trucking route, plus it's in a mostly industrial area so there should be fewer concerns from local residents about noise and loitering and the like.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 07, 2017, 08:42:32 PM
Looks like the NJ Turnpike Authority has rolled out a new website with a dedicated domain

http://www.njta.com/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on October 07, 2017, 10:45:23 PM
Looks 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 07, 2017, 10:52:09 PM
Looks 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?
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 26, 2017, 04:25:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 27, 2017, 09:19:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 29, 2017, 12:32:34 AM
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.

They did indeed remove the 1 shields. Now it's just signed as 18 New Brunswick. Even East Brunswick got moved to supplementary signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 29, 2017, 08:11:46 PM
Interesting. Is there any new signage at all with anything like : To Route 1?
I actually will passing there this week. I'll take a look myself too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 29, 2017, 10:03:09 PM
US-1 is still signed at Exit 9.

https://goo.gl/maps/vZrsmCLfjtz

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 29, 2017, 10:11:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 29, 2017, 11:46:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 30, 2017, 02:48:14 AM
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.

Nope. I was wrong. Still shows 1 on both NB and SB signs. My mistake.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 30, 2017, 09:08:03 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 16, 2017, 04:56:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 16, 2017, 05:32:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 17, 2017, 03:14:00 PM
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?

This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5934969,-74.2369439,3a,49.5y,81.05h,93.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skOwMNWZbkq0cltWrlxfOKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is still in Carteret. Not even old. It was installed when they did the Exit 12 reconstruction, which also gave us this gorgeous green on white masterpiece (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5923575,-74.2314081,3a,49.5y,102.46h,108.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svrKwPYFYUjUyQa640QPSAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 17, 2017, 03:19:07 PM
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.

Here you go:

(https://i.imgur.com/llXpoh0.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/TiAaEym.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WGurWXC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WGurWXC.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 17, 2017, 03:24:00 PM
Yeah...they are so..."standard".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 17, 2017, 04:56:55 PM
Yeah...they are so..."standard".

If anything about their design other than the NJTP logo on the pull through says "New Jersey Turnpike", I can't detect it.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 17, 2017, 07:00:47 PM
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?
Yes, both directions. http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_32 (http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_32)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2017, 03:01:19 PM
Wow SB Exit 15E gets control cities (and US 1 & 9) despite it technically being US 1 & 9 Truck (or US 1 & 9 T)!   For years it was just Exit 15E on the SB Eastern Spur as only NB or SB on the Western Spur got regular signing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 18, 2017, 09:33:16 PM
Yeah I never understood why Exit 15E was signed so badly on the Eastern Leg. So unlike the NJ Turnpike..........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 19, 2017, 03:41:13 PM
Most likely the excuse was there was no room to mount a sign being the Passaic River Bridges are there.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 20, 2017, 10:17:13 AM
Most likely the excuse was there was no room to mount a sign being the Passaic River Bridges are there.

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_.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2017, 02:59:07 PM
Typo on that 16W lol!  Yes 15E is in Newark while 15W is in Kearney and of course Raymond Blvd. goes directly to Downtown while I-280 does not.  Also to remember I-280 was completed in 1980 and it might of been signed for Kearney then cause I-280 was not yet hooked up.  Then again The Oranges was always signed even back then which is beyond Newark.

The NJ Turnpike don't like the next x exits signing, but for Newark Airport they do sign if for use Exit 14 or 13A though.    The next x exits are good for both Camden and Philadelphia at Exit 4 SB and 3 NB as well as Trenton should be signed for 2 exits starting at 7A SB and 7 NB too.

Oh well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on November 20, 2017, 09:15:40 PM
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke:
(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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 21, 2017, 05:59:58 AM
I'd love to see the copy on those last 2 exit 11 signs' replacements.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on November 25, 2017, 03:06:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 25, 2017, 04:01:33 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2017, 09:41:54 PM
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)

Doesn't matter if the law is posted or not though.

Honestly...never understood why those signs are there. I seriously doubt they've been updated much anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on November 26, 2017, 07:55:11 AM
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.

I largely agree with your assessment.  NYC should be the northern control of the Turnpike until you reach exit 14.  Even though I generally prefer signing two controls (local and express), as you can see by my comments further down, NYC is such a destination that only one control is really necessary for this whole stretch.  Then, I would hope that they would sign both Holland Tunnel and Lower Manhattan at the appropriate exit.

Exit 14ABC: Jersey City Holland Tunnel Lower Manhattan
Lincoln Tunnel New York City
Geo Washington Bridge Upper Manhattan

I hope not to see a New Haven control along I-95 until you are well into NYC.  Along the trans-manhattan expy, the control should be Bronx, and you should only begin to see New Haven once you begin to see signs for I-87:  I-87 north Albany, I-87 south Queens, I-95 north New Haven.

Southbound controls along I-95 should be Newark (not Trenton) while still in the Bronx and Manhattan.   At I-80, the control should be "Paterson, San Francisco" (just the first sign at the interchange).  (The rest of the controls along I-80 west in NJ and PA should have one local control (Paterson, Del Water Gap, etc.) and one express control (Cleveland).)  The signs for I-95 should have both Newark and Trenton from this point until I-280.  Then, the cotrols should be Newark Airport, Trenton until you pass the exit for the airport.  Then the controls should be Trenton, Philadelphia until exit 7A.  Philadelphia, Baltimore until exit 6.  (Exit 6's control should be Philadelphia, Harrisburg.)  And then Wilmington, Baltimore* until the Del Mem Bridge.

* I know that the signs along the southern turnpike with the control of Wilmington (instead of the old control of Del Mem Bridge) are relatively new, so the expense of changing them all may not be warranted, but definitely should be a sign with a Baltimore control at the key Exit 6 decision point.  The controls along the parallel southbound I-295 should match.  The controls should say Wilmington instead of Del Mem Bridge for consistency purposes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2017, 08:00:29 AM
The NJ Turnpike should've matched NJDOT, which already had the signs posted and have many more pull-thru signs than 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2017, 08:31:32 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on November 26, 2017, 11:12:04 AM

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.

I think the point that he is making is that nobody would be driving from Central nj  go all the way to the del mem bridge and then backtrack to Wilmington.  I never even considered that as an option until I saw the signs on the turnpike.

With that in mind, I believe Baltimore is a better control to signify that long distance traffic should stay on the turnpike and not take 95 into Philly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2017, 04:56:14 PM

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.

Did I say Wilimington is no one's final destination? No, seriously...you even quoted what I said, and that wasnt what i said.

I'll tell you want...go down there and watch the traffic flow. The overwhelming traffic flow goes to I-95 South, with 13/40 South being the second most popular option. The weekday morning rush hour does send some traffic North towards Wilmington, but even then the majority of the traffic is going South.

I know the purpose of a control city. Wilmington hasn't been used ever on 295, and until recently, never on the NJ Turnpike. Wilmington doesn't meet the concept/purpose of a control city for the corridor. You seem to think that I'm thinking a control city is directly along the highway. I never said that, but then again, you already misquoted me so I'm not to surprised you aren't very good at reading my mind either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2017, 08:38:21 PM
Guys, there's plenty of room for difference of opinion here re: control cities. It's kind of subjective, not an exact science. I agree that Wilmington is a stretch since is is somewhat north of I-95, but you need a control city in the State of Delaware and the only other possibility as I see it would be Newark (Delaware) and some drivers would no doubt confuse that with Newark, NJ so not a good choice. Wilmington makes the best of an awkward situation.

I also like Baltimore as the express control city from Exit 6 south. It is a suitable large, well known city, next along the route.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 26, 2017, 08:44:03 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 26, 2017, 08:49:10 PM
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...

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/I-95_exit_52.jpg/800px-I-95_exit_52.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 26, 2017, 08:53:57 PM
Good point Vdeane. Like I said; it's not an exact science, even though it would be in a perfect world.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 26, 2017, 08:56:33 PM
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke
I 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.

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.
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2017, 10:33:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2017, 12:00:06 AM
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke
I 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.

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.
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.



You don't enter Wilmington once you cross the bridge.

Someone on 95/295 only goes thru zip coded areas belonging to New Castle and Newark.  Even by expanding Wilmington into its non-incorporated areas with Wilmington addresses, you still don't enter Wilmington at any point along the 295/95 corridor one normally drives from NJ southward.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 27, 2017, 07:52:13 AM
Again, you're using too much science.  The selection of a city is about customer/quality of service for the motorist.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2017, 09:14:52 AM
I'm just stating the facts as well, especially when stated that someone believes they enter Wilmington when crossing from NJ to DE.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on November 27, 2017, 09:24:36 AM
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.

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"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 27, 2017, 11:09:16 AM
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.

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 Delaware
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 27, 2017, 12:10:35 PM
I'm just stating the facts as well, especially when stated that someone believes they enter Wilmington when crossing from NJ to DE.

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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2017, 03:26:34 PM
My preference would be to sign the  southbound side of the N.J. Turnpike from a point approaching Exit 6 and on to the southern terminus as Delaware (Illinois-style - not Wilmington) or Wilmington, Delaware (yes, that is a lot of characters) and Baltimore.

I-295 southbound clearly takes the motorist to Delaware, and it's a small state (only three counties), and then I-95 takes them on to Baltimore. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 27, 2017, 04:19:29 PM
I'm just stating the facts as well, especially when stated that someone believes they enter Wilmington when crossing from NJ to DE.

They don't enter Wilmington, but DE bound, they get a good semi-aerial look at its business district from the DMB.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 27, 2017, 04:23:14 PM
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.

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 Delaware

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 27, 2017, 05:18:52 PM
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.

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 Delaware

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

That looks like a Delaware State Trooper. NJ State Troopers wear very distinctive caps...they have a name but I can't think of it at the moment.  This pic appears to have been taken around DE 9 or US 13 slightly North of present day 295.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 28, 2017, 12:09:10 AM
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.

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 Delaware

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

No. That's clearly in Delaware.

This (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1062298,-74.7208641,3a,63.9y,239.28h,97.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg5Go3Mv1tPY18DBMCX210Q!2e0!7i3328!8i1664) 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 28, 2017, 06:00:17 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2017, 09:12:14 PM
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
Also on US 22 in NJ many signs are worded Newark/ New York as there also is a Newark, New York as well. :)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2017, 02:58:49 PM
It appears the NJ Turnpike Exit 6 Mainline toll plaza will be reconfigured for two Express EZ Pass lanes per direction (currently there's 1 express lane per direction).

See page 10 in: http://www.njta.com/media/3461/bm_minutes_2017-10-24-with-veto-date.pdf

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 27, 2017, 01:14:27 PM
Ruh roh...

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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2017, 07:56:25 PM
Ruh roh...

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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 28, 2017, 10:51:57 AM
Hudson Extension Update (https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/946390263357956097)

Quote
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.

At least it sounds like they haven't found any other bits that need to be repaired... yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Stephane Dumas on December 28, 2017, 08:30:46 PM
Hudson Extension Update (https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/946390263357956097)

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2017, 09:03:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 28, 2017, 09:19:37 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 28, 2017, 10:29:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2017, 12:34:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2017, 12:35:28 AM

Quote
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.

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?
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 12:20:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 12:58:32 PM
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.)

Is that to replace the existing structure or to build something new and parallel to what is there now to add capacity to the exits 14A, 14B and 14C Turnpike spur?

I like the existing bridge and it would be sad to see it get demolished.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2017, 01:55:26 PM
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.


Honestly, in theory, there are numerous CDL regulations, weigh stations, and a host of other laws and rules designed to keep truckers from travelling illegally.  The industry has given a big middle finger to all of that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2017, 08:44:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 29, 2017, 10:45:06 PM
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.

Virtual truck weigh stations as an enforcement measure can work (Maryland has a fair number of them deployed around the state now). There  are  quartz weigh-in-motion sensors and loop detectors in the pavement, along with high-resolution video cameras nearby. 

If a law enforcement officer is nearby, the data can be accessed from a computer in the patrol vehicle (including the video), and if a suspected overweight/overlength/overheight is detected, the truck can  be stopped and compelled to submit to a weighing (weigh-in-motion data are not accurate enough to be admissible in court) or measuring.  If limits are exceeded, the driver gets one or several tickets. This is lots cheaper than a "real" weigh/inspection station, and truck drivers usually do not know that the virtual weigh station is being monitored before they are stopped. Overweight tickets can be in the four figures if a truck is egregiously overweight. This is a relatively cheap way to protect pavement and bridges and related infrastructure.

Details here (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OOTS/MD_VWS_Final_Report.pdf) (large file).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 29, 2017, 11:30:15 PM
Actually I think these are the last mainline button copy signs on the NJ Tpke:
(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)
What's the one that's no longer available?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 30, 2017, 10:51:08 PM
So, someone must have clipped the right-hand sign on this assembly (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5392423,-74.3058658,3a,75y,237.17h,108.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sblbuGhnmPY3CM_g_5vdLkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) recently and ripped off a part of it. The NJTA's solution? Clip off everything below the Perth Amboy and put in a right arrow via greenout. Looks ridicuolous. I hope they reinstall a full sized panel (along with the "All Trucks" white banner) soon.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 31, 2017, 12:57:49 AM
I hope they reinstall the original button copy sign soon.
FTFY
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 26, 2018, 07:30:56 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2018, 08:26:14 AM
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 ones I recall off the top of my head connected with the construction include a guy onsite that was killed when a new jerseybarrier-type wall fell off a truck and hit him, and a trucker carrying old material away from the turnpike hit a school bus that ran a stop sign at the intersection of two county roads, killing one of the students onboard the bus.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 29, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 29, 2018, 01:22:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2018, 10:26:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2018, 01:15:15 PM
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.

There is a fair amount of bridge work going  on along the northern parts of the  Turnpike.  Consider the big bridge that carries the I-78 (Exits 14A, 14B, 14C) part of the Turnpike over Newark Bay, which is getting love and attention these days.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2018, 02:51:55 PM
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.

I believe every exit lane does have some sort of signage now...which became more important when the cash lanes went bi.  I don't think all entry lanes have signage yet, but those in the know (most commuters) know they can fly thru any open entry lane with EZ Pass. The canopy sign replacement project appears to replace the older hand-crank version (ie: Exit 3: https://goo.gl/maps/kTeH7qHWpoB2 ) with the newer, electronic version...which are probably heavier as well (ie: Exit 7A: https://goo.gl/maps/9uudQNDNjy62 )

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.

Bicycle lanes?  Oh, please, let there be bicycle lanes.  OMG...I want me some bicycle lanes!  Jeff Tittle will be sooooooo happy! OMG OMG OMG!!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on January 30, 2018, 04:48:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on January 30, 2018, 05:28:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 05:37:42 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on January 30, 2018, 05:55:32 PM
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.

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-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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 30, 2018, 06:26:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on January 30, 2018, 06:29:10 PM
This also happens in Ohio and Illinois on I-80.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2018, 07:32:39 PM
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 drove that  recently (December 2018), 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).

If you are commenting about the points where the ramps carrying I-95 traffic merge onto the mainline turnpike to the north of Exit 6, there is the drop of one right lane (after a very generous merge). 

As for other places where this happens on I-95,  it happens here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0299336,-76.9474621,3a,75y,57.61h,78.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqtrkxZG03Qbyz7Rka-7fsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) for northbound traffic just north of the  I-495 interchange in Beltsville, Maryland. 

It also happens here (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2080669,-71.1397401,3a,75y,61.59h,85.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWBUbYWG0Z7XsdzD36pSokg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Canton, Massachusetts, where I-95 exits off of itself to detour around Boston.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 30, 2018, 08:12:26 PM
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 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.

The same should have been done at Exit 6, but the NJTA engineers wanted the Pearl Harbor Extension to be a two lane exit off of straight through 3 lane freeway.  It could have split the 3 into the through with the left and split off the center, while the right went for Exit 6 exclusively.  Then the two through lanes of the SB Turnpike could merger with their counterparts to become 3 again would have been a better drop in the end. 

That would make both I-95 and the Turnpike equal as to conform to new designs where interstates can no longer exit themselves (if I hear the owner Alex say it correctly that is) like they did for I-69 in KY where it goes from Parkway to Parkway making the straight through I-69 have a cut off roadway over the cloverleaf ramps.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 30, 2018, 09:25:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on January 31, 2018, 03:52:21 PM
I drove that  recently (December 2018)
So you're from the future?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 31, 2018, 04:41:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on January 31, 2018, 05:51:30 PM
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.
In what scenario does anyone envision extending the dual-dual south of exit 6? 

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 31, 2018, 08:42:14 PM
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.
In what scenario does anyone envision extending the dual-dual south of exit 6? 

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. 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on January 31, 2018, 10:26:44 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 31, 2018, 11:50:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2018, 06:15:01 AM
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).

It's Exit 4.  Don't confuse or get people all in a tizzy that they'll be changing the exit numbers anytime soon.

The 3 lane per direction part from Interchanges 4 to 6 generally runs pretty good right now, even during the busiest time periods.  The 2 lane roadway between 1 and 4 doesn't.  Many afternoon rush hours, between 3 and 4, experience congestion to the point where it's tough to reach the speed limit.  Many weekends, I've seen the stretch between 2 and 3 completely jammed up, and during otherwise fine times I've seen too many cases of a truck in the right lane going 65 and a (NY or PA) car in the left lane going 65.2, resulting in a clear roadway in front of them, and a line of cars behind them. 

I used to take the Turnpike frequently coming home from work to avoid congestion on 295.  With the congestion on the Turnpike, along with the congestion on Interchange 3 and Rt. 168, my time savings was either minimal or negative, making it pointless to use that as an alternative route in all except for extreme circumstances.

My personal desire: In each direction: 4 lanes from Interchanges 3 to 6; 3 lanes from 1 to 3.  My expectations: 3 lanes from 1 to 6.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on February 01, 2018, 08:29:46 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2018, 08:34:14 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2018, 04:46:37 PM
Speaking of four lanes from 1 to 4, how is the traffic counts from 16W to the merge of the two spurs where it is also 4 lanes within just miles of NYC proper?  I always though that was very odd to have only four lanes there while the eastern spur has 6 with much lower ADT counts.  However, the eastern spur, I will give into the fact that it was built long before the western spur was built and was indeed the only through lanes from the south to the GWB, but the fact that it was never left as the original 4 lane turnpike and had the lane added eventually shows that much traffic did come from the south to cross the Hudson at the GWB then, so when the western spur took over as through I-95 it should have followed suit.

However, I am curious to know if congestion builds up on that part as well as the southern parts.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 02, 2018, 03:37:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2018, 06:31:27 PM
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.
That's a little overstated. They have bigger fish to fry than that, is all.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on February 21, 2018, 08:53:02 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 22, 2018, 09:18:28 AM
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).
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 22, 2018, 09:29:53 AM
I've also seen more often than it should happen where people conveniently ignore the red X's and lane closed signals unless there's something physically in the lane (ie: cone, cop, etc).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on February 22, 2018, 02:20:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 22, 2018, 03:42:06 PM
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?

As you know, there's going to be 3 sides to the story...the toll taker's side, the customer's side, and the actual story.

That said, I can believe some of these stories, but not all. 

The ones that involve money being dropped on the ground - almost guaranteed true.  Hell, that happens at fast food drive-thru windows.

Some of them, such as #8, is probably exaggerated quite a bit. 

Take others, like #9:  The guy is in a booth for 8 hours.  At the Lincoln Tunnel, that means a constant flow of traffic his entire shift.  The likelihood the employee is doing that to the customers as they come thru is very slim, so I have my doubts about that one as well.

But yeah, I wouldn't doubt some of the stories.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 22, 2018, 08:36:42 PM
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.

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? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 22, 2018, 09:59:22 PM
#3 didn't happen. Toll takers universally tell you to drive on when you drop your money. That throws a lot of it in doubt.
"Blood all over the money" probably means a spot of blood somewhere or a dry streak.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2018, 11:46:14 AM
As a toll collector in FL I can testify that we go through more these days then we ever did before.   Now with GPS and debit cards, no one has money anymore on their person. Plus the state with its high tolls does not help.  Then the GPS user do not read overhead and ramp signs to tell them that they are entering a road where they most likely are going to shell out cash.

We try to be courteous as much as we can, but when it gets busy its hard to be friendly.  I mean many of us are cordial and professional but to take time to just give a few extra words is hard.

Plus we are all weary of people claiming that our sign is wrong and that it should say the $2.50 we charge on it, even though it does.  The problem is that some motorists read the exit ramp toll price at Exits 8 & 9 previously which do charge $1.25 and think its ours.   They get mad at us when we know they forgot their job and the use of common sense when driving a motor vehicle.  You can only grin it and bear it so long and even our most friendly collectors end up breaking down.

Maybe that is the case in NJ too!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 23, 2018, 12:43:09 PM
There are similar articles and stories in NJ thru the years of patron complaints.  They've always occurred...and will continue to occur.  The biggest difference today I would say is that people are much more likely to complain, being that they have a better ability to get ahold of the Turnpike via the web.  They can also take pictures, unlike in the past.

I mentioned elsewhere that in my 3.5 years of working part time (weekends), there was only 2 incidents where the patron requested my name (I would give them my first name and employee ID #).  One I can't recall (but nothing like anything mentioned in the story).  The other one: So...the lane next to me was closed.  The rest of the plaza was packed with at least 10 cars in each lane.  Some motorist comes speeding down the closed lane - red light above the booth and all - and enters the closed lane.  Obviously, no one is there.  Because I'm in the lane next to him, he wants me to take his money.  I can't do that...it's not my lane.  So then he wants me to exit my booth to help him back up and merge into my lane.  I'm not doing that.  Finally he backs up himself, squeezes in front of a car to enter my lane, then gives me shit for not helping him, the lane wasn't marked closed, etc.

In both cases, I was proactive - I documented my side of the story via paperwork and gave it to the supervisor at the end of my shift.  They honestly don't care themselves...all they do is forward up to the main Turnpike office.

I never heard anything else about either issue.  Either the patrons never filed a complaint, or that when they did file the complaint the Turnpike already had my side of the story, and I assume would've sided with me since, again, I never heard anything.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 24, 2018, 04:01:48 PM
I had one the other day where this skin head tattooed man who was pissed we don't take cards.  When I found disbelief he did not have the $2.25 in cash he raged in tone.  Called me a preacher and every time I said I was not being a preacher, he said "Shut the fuck up and call your supervisor."  I did that and when I gave the reason for her to come over to my lane, he was loud with "LIAR, LIAR" as I spoke on the intercom as he though I was prejudicing my supervisor.  Then I thought the guy was going to hit me and when I said go ahead, he turned it against me and tried to say I tried to start a fight and demanded my job!

Obviously he paid me and left in haste just a moment before my supervisor arrived.  I have not heard anything as no one said anything to me yet. 

I'm thinking the guy had Aspergers.  The way he talked and got raging mad, reminded me of those on here who have it who get into rage over the typical disagreement and constructive criticism plus we all know that is one of the many symptoms of that spectrum.  Anyway, to this day I kind of watch the tone I have because, as some of us here know, some with this disorder get really raged easily if the wrong frequency in the tone is used (or in writing as we can go to fictional highways and see some get boiling here lol).  I do not need another person who gets in my lane when I myself are not feeling well or in a bad mood myself, get into a serious rage again to deal with. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2018, 07:16:40 PM
At this very moment I have $0 in my wallet; probably less than $1 in change in the car.  So that part is believable (of course, he came up with the money, so that's just bullshit to give you the song and dance of not having it).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 24, 2018, 07:50:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on February 24, 2018, 11:58:13 PM
I only have cash on me for long road trips.  90% of the time I don't carry any.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2018, 12:24:51 AM
For the very few businesses that don't take credit cards, there's probably another store just down the road that does.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on February 25, 2018, 11:34:32 AM
Drug dealers dont take cards.  That's about the only business where acceptance of cards is not ubiquitous.. now there are the Square and other apps that let even festival food vendors, artists and Craftsmen take cards.

I bet there are even dope dealers who take cards.

Although no one will refuse cash, with rare exception.

I have Zelle app through my online banking app.. I am able.to send money to friends/family for splitting bills, send money to my 18 and 21 year old etc.. I rarely have more than 20 in cash on me.

I usually put my silver change in one of the storage drawers in my dashboard. I use it for cold drinks at convenience stores.. I have Sunpass for tolls.

I also keep an emergency $20 stashed in my car in case something like a lost wallet. I went to my friends brewpub and my credit card was shut down because of a merchant I used having a data breach.. thankfully they let me pay next time, instead of having to go out to my car.

Z981

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: CtrlAltDel on February 25, 2018, 03:33:12 PM
Being an old school driver, I still can't believe anyone, (especially a toll collector) actually drives around with no cash in their wallet.

I usually don't. Not out of any sense of futuristic currency "edginess" or anything like that. I just haven't had the need to over the past ten or so years, and now it's a habit.

There are some retail establishments that still only take cash.

I don't often patronize these establishments, and if I did, I would have to make a special trip to the grocery store for cash back. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 25, 2018, 06:41:27 PM
I usually carry cash because gas stations around here charge extra for credit. Of course I rarely have (coin) change since the attendants try to get it to the nearest dollar. But ALDI is an example of a major grocery chain that still doesn't accept credit cards (only debit) and still requires you to insert a quarter to use a shopping cart. The café in a building I used to work at didn't accept credit for small purchases, so if I wanted a snack or some milk or something, I needed cash.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 25, 2018, 09:18:16 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on February 25, 2018, 10:07:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 25, 2018, 10:29:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2018, 10:38:33 PM
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?

Customer service dealing with AET calls, violations, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on February 26, 2018, 12:45:03 PM
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.

^^^^ This.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 26, 2018, 02:17:35 PM
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.     With ORT you can use your credit card and the fact you can buy your own Sunpass without paying the rental car fee for use.    Being that most visit Florida frequently, they would want that device especially when they can cruise by the toll plaza and let their ego be pleased that they can ride by the suckers paying cash.

The fact is most people rely so much on the card which is why so much debt.  Even financial experts say to pay cash is the best way to budget your household allowances as you see the money in front of you to see how fast it goes.   With a visual aid like that you are more careful of what you buy especially when impulse buying occurs.  You know if you have 60 bucks in your pocket 3 days before your next payday, you won't buy that 10 dollar item in Target that you really do not need as supposed to not see the $60 even if you know your account has $60 in it per phone app.


Also many people are still new to tolls and you be a bit surprised how many motorists never even heard of the toll road concept especially semi drivers.  We get over 200 a day paying $7.50  instead of the $ 5.60 they would only pay if they use the Sunpass (and yes you do not have to live in FL to own one) and if you ask them why they do things the hard way, many of them will say they are a first time driver to the Orlando area.  Considering you multiply the 200 times 365 that is 72, 000.   Now really 72, 000 drivers are new to the industry or have driven off their normal route for the first time out of all the drivers in the trucking industry?  I think not.  I think typical ignorance plays into that.  Meanwhile you multiply that times the difference of the two prices and you could probably feed the homeless in the whole nation.

Cabbies are the worst, as the Haitian cab drivers love to pay the toll with cash over Sunpass as the companies Ace Metro and Diamond Cabe as well as a few others who let the drivers run the cab as their own business rather than operate a fleet facility like Mears does.   Some do not even fix their windows as they open the door to pay the tolls as you would figure the company must have a resident mechanic to do that.  Then receipts are only asked for if the customer wants it as the cab companies take the word of the driver for reimbursement instead of a receipt/ cash tradeoff as in the past.  Meanwhile one cabbie in particular honks his horn when a slowpoke is in front of him holding his passenger from getting to the airport on time and gets raged so much cause of it despite his Sunpass would eliminate it all.

Our world is most ignorant and yes you be a bit surprised how uniformed many individuals really are.  And most are far from being a doofus  and many have nice jobs and have their kids with them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 26, 2018, 03:05:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 26, 2018, 03:11:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeCL on February 26, 2018, 09:25:50 PM
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.

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 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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:24:08 AM
Regarding credit cards and debt:  I pay mine off every month.  Enjoy the benefits of the loyalty program, don't pay a penny of interest and have built up my credit history so I don't have to worry about whether or not I will be able to get a car loan or whatnot from a bank.

Just using a credit card does not mean you are racking up debt.  How many free hotel nights has spending cash got you? :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2018, 10:11:28 AM
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.

By default, wouldn't this thought process apply to everything?  Why rent a car since you can be driven around in a limo your entire trip. Since you have money to burn at Disney and you bought a cell phone, might as well feel like royalty!

Disney is a very expensive vacation, so not everyone has money to burn.  Nor are all vacationers in the area going to Disney.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 27, 2018, 04:26:30 PM
Money does not count when you have it spent on technology.    As far as credit cards go its iffy.  Many people handle their usage well, but some do not.  And even though we can handle things ourselves its been proven that when you see money itself you do manage it better.  Remember the human mind is very complex just like the color of you walls can actually effect the way you sleep or feel.  Blue causes a mind to feel more serene as the color does effect a part of your brain that releases some chemicals within you to make you feel peaceful while red creates a shocking situation which is why red is used on a stop sign.  Not because the MUTCD thinks its a good color because that color triggers a part of your brain to wake the rest of you up!

We do not realize it but it all does.  Financial experts proved it with research as well as trial.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 04:35:13 PM
Suit yourself.  I'll be over here racking up free hotel nights in the meantime for free. :D

Managing money is what Excel is for. :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwolfer on February 27, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
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.
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/gallon

Sunpass is cheaper than cash

Z981
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 27, 2018, 09:42:43 PM
Well don't use their sunpass.  Get your own its cheaper.  However, most people do not read the road signs and end up paying the awful fees cause they run a toll without even knowing it.  Many come to me wanting me to override the thing after they went through a coin only toll without coins which automatically kicks in that stupid daily usage fee. 

In the case, I tell them to just run every toll because you already paid for it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 28, 2018, 12:57:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 01, 2018, 01:22:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 01, 2018, 01:50:56 PM
People have found ways around it (E-ZPass-on-the-go, having it sent to a friend who lives in NY, etc.).  MA tags are completely free too, and those are easier to get.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-ZPass#Fees_and_discounts_by_state
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on March 10, 2018, 06:41:05 PM
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)?

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 10, 2018, 10:59:15 PM
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)?

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).
You're right about 295. Philadelphia makes sense here given the next two interchanges on 276.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on March 11, 2018, 12:27:10 PM
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.

e.g. Exit 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9304963,-74.9564835,3a,75y,230.91h,96.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQCHUDbGRnaNm7KecEM1_Ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Exit 5 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.026764,-74.8176357,3a,75y,70.7h,82.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRjtBJr-bEwKZJuCWxqdm_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Exit 7A (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1948116,-74.6093667,3a,75y,294.08h,97.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6gO-FtqiEgHfn4tYcAgS1A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2018, 04:52:15 PM
295 isn't signed permanently on the Turnpike mainline anywhere.  Interestingly though, they do refer to it on the VMS timed signs on the Southbound side.  Unless there's significant congestion on the Turnpike without corresponding significant congestion on 295, the time to take 295 will almost always be higher.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 11, 2018, 07:06:43 PM
Exit 2: https://goo.gl/maps/er5ZC4hmHoz
Exit 3: https://goo.gl/maps/MxJyMuy7JXK2
Exit 7: https://goo.gl/maps/UFxs7yoftav

They'll tell you where it is...after you pay that toll.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 12, 2018, 08:52:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2018, 09:21:38 AM
Well, at this point we have two arguments...the NJ Turnpike doesn't sign it anywhere along the mainline, but people also say/claim everyone uses GPSs. So if the 2nd is true, then the first isn't needed.

For what it's worth, and this is probably more significant - going Northbound motorists are more likely to use the NJ Turnpike anyway, even though coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge 295 is clearly signed and there are numerous, well signed options to switch over to the Turnpike on 295.  Even if the Turnpike had signage for 295 Southbound, it probably wouldn't convince many people to switch over anyway, based on driver's preferences and habits going Northbound.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 12, 2018, 09:23:53 AM
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:
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 12, 2018, 09:38:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2018, 09:57:59 AM
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:
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.

The signs are DRBA signage.  NJDOT didn't start doing blackground-less route numbers until very recently.  The signs here are several years old, replaced at the same time as the large signage on the Delaware side (which, btw, was just replaced again a few weeks ago).

As far as the sign structure...I believe it's a DRBA sign structure, based on the similarities to structures on the Delaware side of the bridge (ie: https://goo.gl/maps/HvX93iFGHqz)  However, it also has a NJDOT Structure Number sticker on it, and it's inventoried in the SLDs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 12, 2018, 12:32:20 PM
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 130 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 12, 2018, 01:27:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on April 15, 2018, 11:26:02 AM
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.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4291/35927142696_39abc04ffc_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WJKZQL)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 15, 2018, 01:28:23 PM
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.

The state attempted to map this: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/enlarged_view_26.pdf

Looks like the roadway is NJTA there, hence the striping.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 15, 2018, 06:21:32 PM
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.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4291/35927142696_39abc04ffc_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WJKZQL)
They're doing the Extension separately once the Skyway reopens, so it'll probably disappear then.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 16, 2018, 11:35:25 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 16, 2018, 12:36:16 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on April 16, 2018, 01:02:05 PM
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.

other unsigned highways by exit:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 16, 2018, 02:40:47 PM
What about Exit 5 and CR 541?  Is it still unsigned?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on April 16, 2018, 02:50:17 PM
What about Exit 5 and CR 541?  Is it still unsigned?
reread the quoted post.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 16, 2018, 02:57:42 PM
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.

Also to point out for years Exit 15E did not have US 1 or 9 assigned to NB and SB (Western Spur ) signs as well.  SB Exit 15E on the Eastern Spur had no control cities and exit number only which was a bigger oddity for even the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2018, 08:01:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 16, 2018, 08:33:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 16, 2018, 10:26:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 19, 2018, 11:11:44 AM
Thanks for the responses regarding county routes that have Turnpike interchanges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 19, 2018, 11:21:03 AM
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.

To be fair, NJDOT does not include 81 shields on their signage on 1-9 either. Although they did put the start and end shields on both ends, and put up milepost signs with 81 shields on them as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on April 19, 2018, 12:37:14 PM
Turnpike policy is to not include county routes. Parkway policy is to. That's it.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:33:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on April 19, 2018, 09:52:53 PM
There are a few on Route 42 (Route 681 Chews Landing Rd, Route 673 College Dr, Route 753 Creek Road) and on Route 55 (Route 621 Almonesson Rd and Route 641 Ellis Mill Road) as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2018, 09:59:51 PM
Maybe   its a Camden and Gloucester County thing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 19, 2018, 11:14:41 PM
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.

The CR-651 shield was an error. When they downgraded Spur CR-527 to CR-651, NJDOT took the old shields down, but for some reason, put up the new ones, even though it should not have. When signage replacements were done, it was kept. Interestingly, at Exit 26, it still shows Spur CR-523, even though that's been renumbered to CR-665 around the same time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 20, 2018, 11:45:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 20, 2018, 12:32:23 PM
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.

NJTA basically abandoned street names on BGS's with the MUTCD change, which is why 139 A-B no longer reference Chestnut Street (or, for whatever reason, NJ-82 WB, even though 139B was a better route to there than getting off at 140 and trying to weave over to the U-Turn to 22WB to get to the 82WB ramp). The only place that's not in play now is at 125 going SB, which doesn't list Sayreville for specific reasons which have already been discussed in this thread.

As for the 27 ramps on 18, I'm more of a fan of the classic Street Name on one line and destination town on the second for interchanges like that. Also, Franklin Park is a better control city for 27SB than Princeton. It will get you there eventually, but there are better ways to go (like 1 SB instead).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2018, 04:10:46 PM
This is the Turnpike thread, not the Parkway thread. Note that 82 isn't signed at 139B due to use of local streets. NJDOT and NJTA both want to use state highways for that movement.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on April 20, 2018, 07:13:22 PM
Mergingtraffic (I like that handle), is that beat up speed limit sign on the Newark Bay extension an original from 1956?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 21, 2018, 12:29:10 AM
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.

The signing at Exit 80 thru 82 haven't been replaced yet. Heck, there is still button copy advance signing northbound for Exit 81 and 82 that survived the widening project. Eventually its all getting replaced with Exit 82 getting converted to a proper A/B setup.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 21, 2018, 11:36:06 AM
82 needs to be converted to an SPUI or add flyovers to the outdated cloverleaf that is there now.  That tight turn at 82 going SB is a big safety issue.  Maybe not to us, but most folks do not like to slow down, and really we should have a better turn configuration anyhow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on April 24, 2018, 07:26:46 PM
So when is the NJTA going to sign I-95 along more of the Turnpike? Are they waiting until August?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2018, 09:29:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 25, 2018, 10:54:04 AM
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.

Glancing around the NJ Turnpike website, it seems silent on when they'll add or uncover 95 to existing signage or install new signage.  They weren't included on the overall timeframe that was part of the NJDOT, PennDOT & PTC Press Release earlier as well.

So...my guess will be summertime or later.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 25, 2018, 08:42:08 PM
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. LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 25, 2018, 09:00:26 PM
Well NJTA had some great ideas, but other road agencies never copied them.  Hence the longer and thicker lane striping (although Indiana for their toll road, I think, uses it), the large Exit Numbers within the sign, and even changeable speed limit signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on April 26, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
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. LOL
I'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.

Most of the other toll road agencies also had these grandfather rights to have the liberty of setting their some of own signage and marking standards. There were even state DOTs (besides caltrans) that were as old or older than the feds which would have some of their own unique standards. This group includes the sequential numbering states. However these two groups were usually closer to federal standards and less belligerent about it than the NJTA/Caltans

Two things happened in the 2000s to change that:
1) At some point in the 2000s leading up to the 2009 MUTCD, new blood came into the feds that decided they were tired of being bullied around by the state DOTs and toll road agencies. They embarked on a long-range program over the course of at least 10-15 years to try and bring all signage in the country into line with a federal design standard, with milage based exit numbers being universal. There is essentially a set of requirements that all state DOT's and toll road agencies must follow on their signage, which leaves the room to be different at an absolute minimum. Some states like Connecticut and many others have totally dropped their own designs and just adopted the federal standard.

This program has involved even Caltrans and the NJTA (both kicking and screaming all the way), but essentially the feds decided to assert their power for the first time. They basically gave a middle finger to the "holier than thou" attitude which generated the respect which had provided the NJTA and Caltrans with leverage for all those years.

and in the same time frame
2) Several of the toll road agencies began to be exposed as not being, in fact, as squeaky clean and self-sufficient as they had always claimed. The agencies were exposed as enormously corrupt and states began to realize they needed more state oversight and didnt need to be autonomous. As they began to be folded into state DOTs (who are largely more MUTCD compliant than toll roads), or at least be held more accountable to the state government, some of these unique standards have been dropped. The "holier than thou" bubble was burst and state and federal reps started asking themselves, "Why again are these guys allowed to just do whatever they want? Because theyre grandfathered in? At some point its just an excuse to avoid oversight"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 08, 2018, 10:00:30 AM
Is Mothers' Day still the busiest day of the year on the Turnpike??
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 08, 2018, 06:09:13 PM
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.
(Next two: June 20 and August 15. So no, no pattern other than relatively warm Thursdays.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on May 08, 2018, 06:10:16 PM
Always thought it was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.  At least, it was one year when the toll takers were telling my family years ago that it was a record-breaking day.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2018, 11:23:49 PM
It always seemed the Sunday after Thanksgiving was one of the busiest days on the highway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 08, 2018, 11:35:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 09, 2018, 07:51:25 AM
Thank you, Alps, for your research.

I guess that  here in South Jersey we think of "busiest" as being around holidays because of all the NYC-DC through traffic at those weekends.  But north of Exit 9 every day is certainly busy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2018, 08:33:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on May 11, 2018, 08:53:12 AM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on May 11, 2018, 11:05:48 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2018, 02:48:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2018, 07:14:47 AM
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.

How horrible?  What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2018, 07:42:12 AM
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.

How horrible?  What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?

70 mph.   :biggrin:

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2018, 08:15:59 AM
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.
How horrible?  What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?
70 mph.   :biggrin:

I meant from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, for the whole trip.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 12, 2018, 09:32:14 AM
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.

How horrible?  What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?
No one keeps a statistic like that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 12, 2018, 09:50:58 AM
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.

Even during a one stint trip to the Hudson Valley I calculate my average speed frequently.

But then I am an engineer.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 12, 2018, 10:10:28 AM
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.

Even during a one stint trip to the Hudson Valley I calculate my average speed frequently.

But then I am an engineer.
I more meant in terms of highway agencies and recoverable data. If you traveled it yourself, there's a nonzero chance.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2018, 03:09:29 PM
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.
How horrible?  What would be the average speed for someone who drove the speed limit when possible?
No one keeps a statistic like that.

I wasn't asking for a statistic, just something like, "On my trip that day it took about xxx minutes to go the 305 miles between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, so that would be an average speed of about xx mph."

Not scientific but still a worthwhile data point.  I was just curious because I had thought that while busy that the rural parts of the PA Turnpike didn't have any significant congestion issues to speak of even on holidays.  That may no longer be the case.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2018, 04:59:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2018, 05:58:30 PM
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 am not "deadset" against anything regarding the PA turnpike traffic, I was just trying to get some kind of more specific idea of what the holiday traffic is like.  He said he had a bad experience, but not with more specifics --

"I once drove–and only because I had to–the PA Turnpike from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia on the Sunday after Thanksgiving.  Never. Again. Ever."

I didn't ask just him, anyone on the forum can provide feedback as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on May 12, 2018, 09:02:02 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 12, 2018, 09:06:00 PM
I know some people who were driving from Chicago to South Jersey on the Sunday after Thanksgiving in 2016.  They made good time until they hit PA.  The traffic was so slow on the Turnpike that they gave up and stayed overnight in, of all places, Breezewood.  They finished their journey the next morning.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on May 12, 2018, 09:11:10 PM
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 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.

PA deserves credit for having the vision to build I-80 the way that they did, as in the beginning there was no assurance that any east-west Interstate would be built in upstate PA.  A shorter route in the NYC-Chicago corridor that handles a lot of traffic that would otherwise have to use the PA Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on May 12, 2018, 09:56:01 PM
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 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.

I checked later. No accident, just volume. There was no mention of an accident on the Turnpike radio system either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jemacedo9 on May 13, 2018, 02:42:32 PM
I did that drive from Pgh to Phila the Sunday after Thanksgiving, I think in 2010, and it was very slow along the I-70 concurrency.  I wouldn't say bumper-to-bumper, but going the Speed Limit (65 at the time) wasn't possible.  Traffic fluctuated between 30 and 55 that entire length...no accidents that I can recall.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NE2 on May 13, 2018, 06:56:09 PM
Shear volume.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: qguy on May 13, 2018, 08:43:21 PM
Shear volume.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg)

 :wave: +1
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 23, 2018, 12:56:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 01, 2018, 10:16:56 PM
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.

Florida is the same. We deal with sprawl over an outdated network constantly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on June 02, 2018, 08:06:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 02, 2018, 08:16:15 PM
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.

They have data in their annual reports, but it's in regards to toll transactions. I've never seen any data on any particular point along the highway, unlike NJDOT.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 13, 2018, 02:56:24 PM
In the minutes to their last monthly meeting, an item on page 6 was a bit interesting: http://www.njta.com/media/3886/bm_minutes_5-22-2018.pdf

The Turnpike Authority is looking to build a grade separated U-turn at around MP 29 for maintenance vehicles.   MP 29 is between Interchanges 3 & 4, and *just* south of where I-295's Exit 31 is located, which provides access to the nearby PATCO Woodcrest train station.  Looking underneath the NJ Turnpike overpass, it appears it's fairly tight, although possibly feasible, to squeeze a maintenance lane in between the Turnpike bridge's support wall and the existing ramp.  Likewise, building a bridge over the Turnpike is tight as well due to a UPS Depot that borders the Turnpike property.

What's a bit unusual is that grade separated maintenance crossings are usually found either adjacent to maintenance/State Police buildings or in the dual-dual section, usually about 1-2 miles in either direction from an interchange.  There are none strictly for u-turns south of Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TXtoNJ on June 13, 2018, 04:43:58 PM
Shear volume.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Flock_of_sheep.jpg)

This is an uncharacteristically sheepish response from you.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 14, 2018, 01:13:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 14, 2018, 01:51:48 PM
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?

1. Do you mean no trucks in the left lane, or trucks just using the outer roadway?  While no trucks should be in the left lane at any time (other than when it's the only lane available due to other lane closures), trucks may be on the inner roadway due to a closure of an outer roadway entrance ramp.

2. This is a nationwide issue, where SOVs tend to play the game that even if they're caught, the hundreds of times they've taken the HOV lane is worth the one time ticket.  It's probably minorly enforced.

3. It is, but again with limited police out there and everyone wanting everyone pulled over for everything under the sun, it's tough to have the police available to pull most of them over.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 14, 2018, 02:01:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 14, 2018, 02:17:28 PM
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.

Trucks are only supposed to use the 2 right lanes in that section.  As long as they're not in the HOV lane, I doubt there's much care that they're using the left-center lane, even though they really shouldn't be in that lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 17, 2018, 02:43:37 AM
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?

If the staties ever wanted to pad the treasury, they could just pull over every NY or PA driver who sits in the left lane doing 65 or less. It would put quite a dent into NJ's budgetary needs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 18, 2018, 03:08:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 15, 2018, 08:11:53 PM
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,

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 15, 2018, 11:23:01 PM
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,

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.


You're only going to see the Rules and Regulations type signs in button copy on the Turnpike. Anything overhead is dead.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 16, 2018, 09:38:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 16, 2018, 09:55:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 18, 2018, 11:19:48 PM
Just like the state's gas stations LOL!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 02, 2018, 12:37:48 AM
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.

Also at 15W.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2018, 06:28:36 PM
The sign in the photo is the Exit 10 plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 02, 2018, 07:11:25 PM
The sign in the photo is the Exit 10 plaza.

Correct. I took it. Just tagging on other plazas where this is showing up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on August 16, 2018, 10:26:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 16, 2018, 01:58:32 PM
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.

I honestly thought they were going to replace more of the barrel signs along the northern end of the Turnpike, but other than the ones at the northern end where the Express and Local roadways heading to the GWB are, it doesn't appear so. I thought they'd adapt the style of hybrid barrel/LCD signs for the entrance ramps to the inner and outer roadways for the dual dual but they only ended up replacing one, the approach sign on the Exit 10 onramp to the Turnpike southbound (and that one is just the standard color VMS used all over the roadway now).

It may be that they'll do those signs in a future capital plan when funds are more available. Right now it seems like they have a lot locked up in things like structurereplacements and the like.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2018, 02:05:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 16, 2018, 02:20:25 PM
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?

They replaced the ones north of 18E/W which were last replaced in 2000.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on August 16, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 16, 2018, 09:38:44 PM
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)

Except for the all-caps "N.J. TURNPIKE" line, the capitalization is straight outta Britain.

ixnay

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 16, 2018, 10:07:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 17, 2018, 12:21:54 AM
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.

5, 9, 11, 16W definitely have the original button copy ones. Same for the one you mentioned on the ramp to 46.
2, 4, 7, 7A, 8A, 13, 13A, 14, 15W have newer versions of the sign on reflective materials.
3, 4, 8, 10, and 17 don't appear to have one.
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.
15X opened in the mid-aughts so it only has had a reflective sign.
12 was rebuilt earlier in this decade, so it has new signs.
I could not easily tell about 15E
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on August 17, 2018, 01:01:36 AM
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?

Signs for the Eastern Spur/Western Spur splits, some of the NB signage for I-80/US 46, signage for the splits between the cars only roadway and the cars/trucks/buses roadway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8312645,-74.0227636,3a,75y,61.23h,96.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYCWaVqIP1fMsn7Ibg-eWAw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2018, 06:13:59 AM
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.

Exit 3's signage is leaning against a guardrail, at least in the GSV. It came down around the same time the phone booths were removed (which were located where the opening in the guardrail is located).
https://goo.gl/maps/wwAkc62yJAN2

I want to guess Exit 4's sign is missing, and these wooden signposts were holding the sign: https://goo.gl/maps/UqxD3PWkohp
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeCL on August 31, 2018, 07:48:49 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on August 31, 2018, 08:29:35 PM
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

Yes that was a terrible incident that should have been avoided. However it did not occur on the turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2018, 08:54:33 PM
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.

There was one on the southbound side of the Turnpike south of the (old) Exit 1 mainline toll barrier, which was located south of the one in use now with the lighthouse.  I think it went away when toll collection operations moved to the new barrier and the old one was demolished. 

There was also a sign for the Delaware Turnpike (I think it said to follow I-295 south), the only one  like it in New Jersey, but now also gone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2018, 06:31:50 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2018, 04:29:28 PM
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.

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.
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/scbbt.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 07, 2018, 02:19:54 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2018, 07:58:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 08, 2018, 09:59:53 PM
Turnpike Authority probably got some kind of complaint from vacationers saying they couldn't find how to get to VA Beach so they put up a trailblazer to say "Beach carz go dis wayyy."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 08, 2018, 11:49:55 PM
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.

Correct. I was trying to hint it wasn't plural, as roadman65 indicated.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 09, 2018, 08:54:41 PM
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.

Correct. I was trying to hint it wasn't plural, as roadman65 indicated.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 10, 2018, 10:47:16 AM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 10, 2018, 11:40:35 AM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
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).

Also, there is now a Wawa located right near the Turnpike/Parkway interchange.  If you know what you are doing with the ramps, you can hop off and get to and from the Wawa pretty quickly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on September 11, 2018, 08:07:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 11, 2018, 05:24:01 PM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on September 11, 2018, 09:13:57 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.

All of the service areas were renovated in the early 1990s, not re-built.  The buildings are still the originals from the 1950s, minus Grover Cleveland as you mention which was damaged and then rebuilt.

The new contract will replace most (but not all) of the service areas: Vince Lombardi, Thomas Edison, Joyce Kilmer, Walt Whitman, Clara Barton, and John Fenwick, with newly built-from-scratch buildings, similar to Grover Cleveland, due to a new contract that will not cost the taxpayers any money.  These include some of the oldest ones on the turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 17, 2018, 06:41:01 PM
Does the NJTA have any schedule for repainting lane markings on entrance and exit ramps?  Exits 7 and 7A are particularly bad.  The markings are almost nonexistent at some critical locations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2018, 10:47:07 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 18, 2018, 10:51:13 AM
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

It's not well advertised. If I was driving a hybrid, I'd want to get into this program. Being in it also allows you to travel in the HOV lane between 11 and 14 without meeting the occupancy requirements when it's in effect, although with how little the NJ State Police actually enforce the lane, it's almost moot.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MikeCL on September 19, 2018, 03:44:38 PM
I was on the turnpike today what are those signs talking about use the national highway? I caught it at the last second so I don’t know
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 19, 2018, 04:25:50 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Are these going to to be one of the few Sunoco convenince stores that won't be owned by 7-Eleven?


Also, I really hope they're not going to get rid of the garages like they did in Delaware and Maryland.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 19, 2018, 05:44:03 PM
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"?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 19, 2018, 09:56:17 PM
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"?

Exactly what it sounds like, a special green tag that they give to hybrids.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 23, 2018, 10:48:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 10:10:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 24, 2018, 10:25:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 24, 2018, 10:31:25 AM
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.

I certainly know the idea was brought up here, and may have been presented to or considered by NJTA at some point during their planning.  But I don't think it ever got serious consideration.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 24, 2018, 02:42:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 24, 2018, 08:47:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 24, 2018, 10:15:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 24, 2018, 10:23:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 24, 2018, 10:29:12 PM
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?

Won't happen so long as the ticket system exists, I think. Even if it did, it would start with the southern end of the Turnpike at the Delaware Memorial Bridge, not at Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 25, 2018, 12:31:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 25, 2018, 08:34:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 25, 2018, 12:25:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2018, 12:41:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 25, 2018, 12:54:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2018, 01:27:56 PM
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.

I'm referring to the Southbound direction, and the ramp was indeed included in many plans until it was removed.  Was it a waste?  Yeah.  But still that ramp was included in budgets and such until it was decided to be removed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 25, 2018, 06:03:34 PM
Just how are the toll rates established on the Turnpike?  I did an analysis of six potential journeys using the peak tolls.  They involved getting on at either Exit 4, 7, or 7A and getting off at either Exit 10 or 11.  The ∆ for exiting at Exit 11 vs. Exit 10 from Exit 4 is 35¢, from Exit 7 it is 45¢, and from Exit 7A it is 30¢.

Why is there a disparity like this for traveling the same 3 mile distance (i.e. between Exits 10 and 11) when one gets on at different entrances?

By the way, the toll between Exits 10 and 11 is 90¢.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 25, 2018, 08:49:57 PM
J&N, when I mentioned crossovers earlier, I just assumed they would be from the left lane of the outer-roadway, despite NJTA's wise policy of not allowing left-hand exits/entrances. Obviously crossovers involving overpasses to maintain the exit/entrances only on the right would be unreasonably expensive.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2018, 08:51:36 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 25, 2018, 11:42:56 PM
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.

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.
Add to that: There is a minimum rate you will pay for using the Turnpike. It may be up to 90 cents now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 25, 2018, 11:49:28 PM
It always had a minimum rate.  Even in the 1970's it was 15 cents to go from Exit 11 to Exit 9 with the same price to go to Exit 10 (the I-287 exit).

Yes, north of Exit 9 the rate was always higher and my dad told me it was that real estate north of the Raritan River was more expensive especially when built through Downtown Elizabeth where many homes were knocked down to pave way for first the original 4 lane turnpike and then when it went from 6 to 12 (now 14) lanes wide.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 26, 2018, 12:22:09 PM
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¢.

Here is my question.  Why is there this difference?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 26, 2018, 05:08:43 PM
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¢.

Here is my question.  Why is there this difference?
My best answer is cumulative rounding errors over time as tolls increased.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 27, 2018, 09:07:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 27, 2018, 01:12:03 PM
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.

See the current conversation going on here: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.1925
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 01, 2018, 10:32:38 AM
There is a dearth of I-95 signs. If the road is to abandon its Turnpike identy and assume its proper I-95 identity this has to change and quickly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2018, 12:55:25 PM
I lived in NJ from 1965 to 1990 and many living there already thought the whole length of the Turnpike was I-95 even south of Exit 10 (where I-95 used to end as the abandoned Somerset was supposed to tie into I-287 at Durham Ave. in S. Plainfield).

So identity is only an issue for signage.  However, from the Garden State Parkway, they have remedied that already. Exit 129 NB now features it and even local signs from CR 501 in Fords now has it and even US 9 NB has it despite the needed overhead sign where the ramp departs from the left near New Brunswick Avenue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2018, 08:45:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 03, 2018, 10:35:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on October 03, 2018, 12:23:31 PM
Has the NJTP ever had its shields used as reassurance markers before?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 03, 2018, 12:35:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 03, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kevinb1994 on October 03, 2018, 02:35:44 PM
In what year did Sunoco take over the Turnpike service areas? It should be noted that Cities Service, now known as Citgo, was the original operator from the Turnpike’s opening in November 1951, until the termination of its contract in March 1973, after which Exxon took over for five years until March 1978, when Arco (formerly owned by BP from 2000-2013 and Tesoro/Andeavor from 2013-2018, now owned by Marathon as of 10/1/18, making Marathon the largest petroleum refinery operator in the United States, with 16 refineries and over 3 million barrels per day of refining capacity, and this merger brings the SuperAmerica convenience stores back to Speedway), Amoco (a twenty-year subsidiary of BP since 1998), and Sunmark Industries took over operations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 03, 2018, 02:40:28 PM
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.
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.
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?)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 03, 2018, 02:54:42 PM
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.
At present & based on relatively recent GSVs; the only pull-through signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2707052,-74.5091852,3a,75y,198.79h,70.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sm47d0k01evpLfSlHvOq6wQ!2e0!5s20151101T000000!7i13312!8i6656) that still have THRU TRAFFIC on them (with at least an NJTP shield) are the ones from the recent widening project (from 8A to 6).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2018, 10:44:13 PM
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).
https://goo.gl/maps/g4a2krDnqzp
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 09:33:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 09:49:27 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 10:54:04 AM
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.
You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York.
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).

There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnels
Last 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2018, 11:11:15 AM
...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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on October 04, 2018, 12:27:07 PM
... 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).
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 04, 2018, 01:37:24 PM
... 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).
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.
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.

I do agree with you that MUTCD should allow some leeway regarding the usage of key points on major signage (for control destinations)... especially in major metropolitan areas/regions.  Not every part of the country is rural with the next major city some 50+ miles away.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 02:10:47 PM
...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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 04, 2018, 04:15:48 PM
Re: NYC destination signing, current practice by NYSDOT in and around NYC is to use borough names as destination either with or without a bridge/tunnel name. For instance on the LI Expwy heading into Queens, signs that used to read Whitestone or Throgs Neck Bridge now say Bronx. And pull-through signs that used to say Midtown Tun, now say Manhattan. So I agree that borough names are appropriate and compliant with the Manual. But ideally, where space permits, both the borough and bridge/tunnel names should be shown.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2018, 05:09:53 PM
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.
You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York.
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).

There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnels
Last 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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 04, 2018, 05:53:02 PM
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.
You can't really ignore the fact that I-95 goes through New York.
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).

There are really no alternatives for the various New York-bound routes than to use bridges and tunnels
Last 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.
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 05, 2018, 09:01:18 AM
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.

From points south, they're will exit off I-95/NJ Turnpike well before the Turnpike's northern terminus let alone the GWB.  Which is why one wouldn't expect to see New York or New York City listing on I-95/NJ Turnpike northbound signage beyond Exit 12.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2018, 10:02:21 PM
I would like to know why on I-80 in Wayne where US 46 has an exit to NJ 3 for the Lincoln Tunnel leading to the core of Mahattan, New York is not used here as a control point?  I-80 pull through (along with the GWB) uses New York to guide motorists to the big city from there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 05, 2018, 10:24:58 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2018, 11:04:11 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Duke87 on October 06, 2018, 11:02:40 AM
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.

The majority of people driving to New York are likely not heading to Midtown and are not better served by the Lincoln Tunnel than by the GWB.

It's frowned upon by the MUTCD but using the names of the crossings here really is the best way of differentiating.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 06, 2018, 10:02:23 PM
I am in total agreement of still using bridges as control points, but technically you are supposed to use a city's main  business district for a reference point in any city.  For NYC its either Midtown or Downtown.  And despite US 46 and NJ 3 not being a full freeway it still is one sort of as no stoplights occur on the entire route to the Lincoln Tunnel.

In MO using I-29 also faces a situation where a non freeway is the signed route into Downtown.  US 169 exit off of I-29 is used for that despite staying on I-29 to I-70 W Bound will put you on Broadway (the continuation of US 169 in KC).  Also from I-64 and I-55 in IL, the signed way into Downtown St. Louis is to use the MLK Bridge over staying on the freeway across the Mississippi River which also goes Downtown.

So its not a matter of non interstate that NJDOT signed it that way at I-80 Exit 53.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: artmalk on October 11, 2018, 11:16:43 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2018, 11:50:55 AM
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?

At one point many years ago, the NJ Turnpike website would list their anticipated construction schedule for the week on the website, and that could provide some clues as to what they may be doing.  They haven't provided that info for quite a while now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 11, 2018, 11:59:55 AM
They added I-95 to some of the entrances (where the split for the car/truck lanes is) during the widening project, but not the mainline.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 11, 2018, 04:01:09 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:42:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 12, 2018, 08:39:05 AM
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.

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).
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.

Update: While using that stretch of the NJ Turnpike this past weekend (Oct. 13-14); I did see one or two of those now-old I-95 reassurance shields with no direction banner on them.  Such were along the stretch between Exit 11 & 9.  The ones south of there were likely removed (& not replaced) several years ago during the widening extension.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 12, 2018, 11:07:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on October 12, 2018, 07:19:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2018, 05:41:16 PM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 16, 2018, 01:13:16 PM
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.
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.

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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2018, 09:53:39 PM
Probably also your assessment is correct. There are no other cities east of the Turnpike at 13. For Exit 10 you do have Perth Amboy or even Fords (but too small to use).  Although the NB Parkway uses Staten Island at  Exit 127 for Route 440 as at that point NJ 440 has reached Perth Amboy so signing that would not be feasible there where the Turnpike is way before that. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Buffaboy on October 29, 2018, 01:16:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2018, 05:02:21 PM
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.

Not express lanes, but rather inner/outer roadway, or car/truck lanes.  All exits can be reached from both roadways, so there's nothing 'express' about it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2018, 06:13:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Buffaboy on October 29, 2018, 11:03:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 30, 2018, 09:22:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 30, 2018, 10:14:45 AM
There are no tolls eastbound across the Delaware River save for that privately owned crossing up at Dingman's Ferry.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 30, 2018, 10:21:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Buffaboy on October 30, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
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.

We went from Philly to the Bear Mountain area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 30, 2018, 05:01:52 PM
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.

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. Or you could use the new PA Turnpike interchange and take I-95 all the way to the Garden State Parkway, which is what Google is actually recommending right now as the best route to take. That would probably be a bit faster than taking the Betsy Ross Bridge, and slightly cheaper too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 30, 2018, 07:42:25 PM
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.

There is no toll on the Thruway eastbound between exit 15 (I-287/NJ 17) and exit 13 (the PIP).  Westbound in that stretch there is no toll either except for commercial vehicles (at Spring Valley).  So by bzakharin's itinerary, you *would* avoid tolls.  But you would have to deal with 41 stoplights on U.S. 206 (by my count on Google Sat) between I-295 and I-287 north (the last stoplight is just before you reach Somerville Circle).

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 30, 2018, 08:44:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on November 01, 2018, 11:22:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 25, 2018, 06:36:43 PM
Delaware Memorial Bridge closed due to fumes being emitted beneath it.  Turnpike closed southbound at Exit 2.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 25, 2018, 08:04:33 PM
Well, what a fine time for this to happen on Sunday of Thanksgiving Weekend, though I agree there is never a good time for this type of occurrence.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 25, 2018, 08:34:57 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 08:36:14 PM
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.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 25, 2018, 09:59:33 PM
The fumes are of the chemical ethylene oxide.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 10:04:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 10:05:37 PM
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?


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 10:20:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 25, 2018, 10:22:31 PM
The Turnpike is now closed southbound at Exit 4.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 10:33:51 PM
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.
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.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 25, 2018, 11:19:57 PM
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.
Happens to be the day things went over 50. Wonder what caused the leak and when it happened.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 11:30:13 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 11:40:16 PM
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).
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.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
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.

This one?  https://tinyurl.com/y7a95kdr
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on November 25, 2018, 11:58:20 PM
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.

This one?  https://tinyurl.com/y7a95kdr
You’re link was broken for some reason belt, this one

  https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6825234,-75.5080243,15z/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-us (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6825234,-75.5080243,15z/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-us)

The water tower also says “Dupont”  on it.

** Unless the new one is the manufacturer of the chemical. That is the one on the Delaware side to the right of the NB Bridge, where the dirt movement is. That plant opened earlier this year.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 26, 2018, 12:15:57 AM
News sources say it's the Crado plant on the DE side.


EDIT: All reopened. Carry on.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 26, 2018, 06:03:49 AM
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

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on November 27, 2018, 01:58:07 PM
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
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/)



iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on December 19, 2018, 01:03:45 PM
So is the plan to eventually operate dual-carriageways the full length of the Turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 19, 2018, 01:25:59 PM
So is the plan to eventually operate dual-carriageways the full length of the Turnpike?

No.  It should just be an additional lane, making it 3 lanes from Interchange 1 to south of Interchange 6.

Dual carriageways are not needed south of Interchange 6 as traffic levels are significantly lower compared to north of Interchange 6.  I would like to see 4 lanes each direction between Interchange 4 and 6 or even 3 and 6, but doubt that's in the offering.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 19, 2018, 09:28:37 PM
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.



It makes sense. When they built the 133 overpass near Exit 8 in the early 90s, they built it to accommodate eventual expansion of the dual-dual roadway configuration, even though it didn't happen for well over a decade later. The most important thing is that, unlike the PA Turnpike Commission (at least in the days of yore), they do some modicum of future proofing for when the time is right.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2018, 12:36:34 AM
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.


I 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 02, 2019, 03:49:08 PM
One other thing I saw in that press release from NJDOT:

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 02, 2019, 07:56:52 PM
Maybe in the future they can just push their traffic alerts to our infotainment systems.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 02, 2019, 09:35:03 PM
One other thing I saw in that press release from NJDOT:

Quote
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.

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?

In reality they're about 3 or 4 miles - and actually a little further apart than where they used to be.

I think a few are set for the southern-most end of the Turnpike.  There's no signage for the first 2 miles going Northbound - not even a speed limit sign!  The last speed limit sign is actually on DRBA property for their 50 mph limit.  The final Southbound sign is just after the last service plaza.  Again, no VMS or speed limit signage after the toll plaza.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 05, 2019, 10:18:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 06, 2019, 01:10:47 AM
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.

I've never seen any speed limit posted down there. Historically it was 55 mph. The NJTA has never actually signed the limit, so it's normally been treated as a 65 zone. Its probably doubtful they done much speed-related enforcement on that stretch of highway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2019, 02:03:57 PM
Remember the Delaware Memorial Bridge Closure Thanksgiving Weekend?  The company responsible - Croda - paid the DRBA the invoice for the lost fares and additional manpower.

https://www.nj.com/south/2019/02/oops-that-massive-bridge-closure-was-our-fault-so-well-pick-up-the-giant-tab-company-says.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 64CatalinaVentura on February 10, 2019, 05:38:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 11, 2019, 12:33:52 AM
These shield assemblies have started appearing in the Port Reading/Carteret area leading to the interchange 12 entrance to the Turnpike:

(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2019, 12:39:19 AM
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.

While seemingly simple, I'm sure they had to make sure the electric was cut off first, and the utility worker had to get access to the scene. That all takes time. As for being stopped where you were, they stopped traffic at the first opportunity they could.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 11, 2019, 09:25:51 AM
These shield assemblies have started appearing in the Port Reading/Carteret area leading to the interchange 12 entrance to the Turnpike:

(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.
That blue round arrow sign reminds me a little bit of the EMERGENCY (or COASTAL) EVACUATION ROUTE signs that one sees.

Here's an NJ example using COASTAL en lieu of EMERGENCY:
(https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/images/evac_route.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ChezeHed81 on February 15, 2019, 07:17:04 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2019, 03:10:58 PM
I believe the signs could be lit to show 1/2, 1, 1 1/2, 2, 11 & 12.

I think as these signs aged, the 1 was actually a small interior portion of the 1.

I never saw any other number, including 4. If the distance didn't work within the 1s or 2s,  the sign would just say 'Ahead'.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 16, 2019, 11:18:24 PM
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.

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ChezeHed81 on February 17, 2019, 03:45:00 PM
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)

Thanks, RobbieL2415.  I "swung by" there on Feb. 9, after attending a concert in Albany, NY, on my way to south Philadelphia.  The guardrail along the remains of the former PATP toll plaza provided a relatively safe place to walk behind along the roadway. I had my point-and-shoot camera on the trip, but the auto-focus apparently fixated on the foreground objects which were constructed/growing in front of the sign, so the detail photos were somewhat disappointing. See below:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7840/40161981133_7c6e938f33_c.jpg)

Detail photos of the sign above:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7890/40161980453_d346a13878_t.jpg) Click to download from Flickr: NJTP RSA in PA : I95 NB MM041.1 (left) (1600px X 1200px)) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7890/40161980453_17b7950b97_h_d.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7871/33251583048_0285da9e52_t.jpg) Click to download from Flickr: NJTP RSA in PA : I95 NB MM041.1 (center) (1600px X 1200px)) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7871/33251583048_e3198d088d_h_d.jpg)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7809/32184837957_b5988f2ebf_t.jpg) Click to download from Flickr: NJTP RSA in PA : I95 NB MM041.1 (right) (1600px X 1200px)) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7809/32184837957_c993995996_h_d.jpg)
__________

The sign has been significantly damaged over time, especially in the lower left area, with what may have been debris from snow plows or other highway-sourced flying objects. 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".

Thanks, again, for your contribution.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 18, 2019, 09:16:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2019, 10:15:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 18, 2019, 11:15:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 18, 2019, 10:11:28 PM
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?

Did you not see the pic? There's nothing usable on that sign!!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2019, 11:55:06 PM
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?

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 the NJTA comes to take it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 19, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Jim on February 19, 2019, 04:42:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 19, 2019, 05:06:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on February 23, 2019, 03:06:58 AM
That sign should go into the Smithsonian.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 23, 2019, 07:00:40 PM
That sign should go into the Smithsonian.
It should get its name on a service area. Replace Clara Barton with Neon Variable Message Sign.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 24, 2019, 08:27:18 AM
That sign should go into the Smithsonian.
It should get its name on a service area. Replace Clara Barton with Neon Variable Message Sign.

It’s as real a person as Molly Pitcher
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 28, 2019, 08:07:14 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 28, 2019, 08:15:56 PM
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

It was in July when I snapped this picture of it, but no idea if its still there today.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/2018-07-08_09_18_19_View_west_along_Interstate_280_just_west_of_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike_Western_Spur%29_in_Kearny%2C_Hudson_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-07-08_09_18_19_View_west_along_Interstate_280_just_west_of_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike_Western_Spur%29_in_Kearny%2C_Hudson_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 28, 2019, 11:38:33 PM
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?
Tis. Exit 4 might have been replaced though. Can't confirm.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 29, 2019, 08:55:02 PM
The Exit 4 signs were there last week..... so still hanging on.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 30, 2019, 12:17:51 AM
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

Exit 4 onramp sign perseveres for now. It survived the last round of signage replacements on the southern end of the Turnpike, so methinks it will be around for a while yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 16, 2019, 12:29:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 16, 2019, 12:32:15 AM
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.

We drove by it on our family trip last month and yes, it was almost ready to open.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on July 11, 2019, 01:59:37 PM
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:


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

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 12, 2019, 12:22:55 PM
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:


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)


No plans I've ever heard of. Those sound more like aberrations to me, but since they're new, maybe we'll see more...?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 12, 2019, 05:45:58 PM
The GSP has mileage signs as well. Only a handful though, north of Exit 44, South of Exit 123, and north of Exit 168.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on July 12, 2019, 08:09:08 PM
Overhead southbound south of Interchange 80.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 13, 2019, 12:53:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2019, 10:45:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 23, 2019, 11:44:52 PM
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.

Those were replaced over a year ago.  You can probably nail down a more definitive date with GSV.  But certainly, not "brand" new.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 24, 2019, 09:03:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 24, 2019, 09:12:03 PM
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's a matter of perspective.  All the ramps actually curve rightward during and immediately after the split, so technically you can use whatever arrow set-up is preferable.  I like the current arrangement, which has the I-95 ramps heading straight down and the I-80 ramps exiting left and right on the two roadways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2019, 10:37:46 PM
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?

Geometry isn't necessarily taken into consideration. The slanted arrows usually indicate an exit; down arrows usually indicate the thru movement.

Also, if you look closely, you are moving left at the gore point, so the sign is still correct.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 02:21:35 AM
I enjoy driving on the NJ Turnpike. It's fun to drive on and I miss doing it. It's been a while since I've been to New Jersey, I used to live there and i don't anymore.

Question - who thinks the turnpike needs widening from the Del bridge to exit 4. In my opinion it's fine but it can take another lane as well!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 25, 2019, 03:50:33 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on July 25, 2019, 05:06:14 PM
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.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 05:16:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 25, 2019, 06:22:18 PM
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.

Hmmm! I want to say 4/4, especially with traffic in the summer and at holiday periods. Are the bridges wide enough though? I'm not on the Turnpike south of Exit 4 that often.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 25, 2019, 07:07:55 PM
Nope, as I think they don't have any plans to widen the road at all.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2019, 08:26:38 PM
Nope, as I think they don't have any plans to widen the road at all.

When they have replaced overpasses between interchanges 1 and 4, they have been built to accommodate a 3rd lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2019, 12:23:44 AM
Having seen the traffic volumes, the most likely widening is going to be from Interchanges 3-4 - that's the one area that's close to capacity right now. 1-3 isn't so bad, and is constrained by the Del Mem Br anyway. Anything north of 4 will need new volumes because of the I-95 interchange completion, so I can't comment there.
(Note: this is my opinion, not a statement of engineering judgment.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 26, 2019, 09:38:12 PM
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4.  Drove in it today on my way to Philly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2019, 11:30:09 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 01:00:34 AM
Can confirm there's still traffic backing up before the merge at Exit 4.  Drove in it today on my way to Philly.

Based on luck and time of the day and year also. If there's an event or accident then yeah it will back up. Widening would come in handy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 27, 2019, 07:30:59 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 27, 2019, 07:32:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2019, 10:23:44 AM
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.

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.

The problem is there's still too much traffic on the NJ Turnpike at Exit 4.  Some of this traffic exits at Exit 3. Between 3 & 1, there's a bit of left lane hogging that goes on that also causes congestion.  While this area is fine most days, there's certainly a congestion issue during holiday and vacation drive times.  I think the Delaware Memorial Bridge's width is fine, because any problems are usually caused downstream closer to US 13/40 (reduced as 295 now has 3 lanes thru there) and the approach to I-95, which only has 2 thru lanes for a short stretch and is the finite cause of much of the congestion going back towards the bridge and the NJ Turnpike.  This area has been made a bit better due to reconfiguration of the lanes, but ultimately there's still only 2 lanes to get to 95 South.

So while some congestion can be eliminated on the NJ Turnpike, you're right in that once they approach 95, they're going to be hitting it anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 27, 2019, 10:42:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 27, 2019, 01:58:53 PM
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.

I meant thru NJ to Delaware. Missed that he was going to Philly. No reason to use the Turnpike below Exit 6 to get to Philly unless there's an unusually serious situation on 95. Even the NJ Turnpike removed all references to Philly at Interchanges 3 & 4.

Usually these questions/statements are in reference to thru traffic between North Jersey and Delaware.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 06:15:23 PM
Never been on the new I-95 interchange but looking at it from Google Maps looks pretty cool. It's a business route while the southside of the turnpike is a bypass.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 28, 2019, 07:13:29 AM
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?
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 issue
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 10:24:58 AM
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?
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 issue

Must have been a backup on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. But that rarely happens
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2019, 05:58:19 PM
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?
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 issue

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 06:23:43 PM
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?
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 issue

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2019, 07:29:41 PM
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?
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 issue

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 07:33:42 PM
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?
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 issue

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 28, 2019, 09:04:35 PM
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?
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 issue

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tolbs17 on July 28, 2019, 09:20:20 PM
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?
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 issue

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 28, 2019, 09:26:33 PM
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?
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 issue

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!

The post being discussed is on this page and was made two days ago. And is quoted in your post.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 29, 2019, 09:03:28 AM
^^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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 29, 2019, 10:56:39 AM
^^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?

Maybe, but when he said he'll like to take 95 thru Philly to see what it's like, I discounted that idea.

For what it's worth, 95 *thru* Philly isn't a bad ride whatsoever.  It's just getting to Philly from both the north and the south that's a PITA.  And for what it's worth, when you're not distracted by the drive, the view is very nice from the north.  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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 29, 2019, 11:09:47 AM
^^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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 29, 2019, 11:59:01 AM
^^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"?
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 29, 2019, 12:33:22 PM
^^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"?
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.

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.

I had thought of the same thing as Jeff, but your explanation does make some sense.  Still would be nice though...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on July 29, 2019, 07:00:15 PM
^^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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 30, 2019, 12:21:37 AM
so from exit 11 northward to 14, the njta has erected portable vsls as well as portable vms to display speed limits and times to exit 14a. a part of the latest round of newark bay extension construction, i'm sure, but interesting that they're using these instead of, you know, the actual custom designed and built overhead vms's and vsls's that were installed a few years ago. in fact, most of the vsls in that stretch are not even displaying speed limits anymore. other than the ones just north of 13 where that massive truck fire was earlier this year, i would think the rest would be working fine.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on July 30, 2019, 01:22:23 AM
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.

More change in elevation as well, climbing from near ground level near Enterprise Avenue, to the top level of the bridge, and then down to the elevated viaduct near Broad Street.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2019, 04:35:03 PM
How do we end up talking Philly when this is the NJ Turnpike?   :bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 30, 2019, 08:43:02 PM
^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 30, 2019, 09:21:47 PM
^^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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2019, 11:09:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2019, 05:47:32 AM
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.

The lingo is usually along the lines of the New Jersey/Pennsylvania Turnpike Connector Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 31, 2019, 08:54:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 31, 2019, 01:10:48 PM
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.

No, he said that he might’ve been detoured through Philly due to backups on the bridge, but he wasn’t familiar with that area or the other bridges Jeff mentioned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 31, 2019, 06:18:03 PM
I also noticed, last Friday, that the last standing OG VMS on the Turnpike Extension is gone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2019, 08:13:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 01:01:28 PM
^^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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 18, 2019, 02:50:54 PM
New topic; How many people have had their cars fixed at the service areas on the New Jersey Turnpike?

 :wave:

In November 2017, I drove up and down the coast with bad tires on my car, and when I was going down, I filled one of them up with air at the Walt Whitman Service Area, only to have to fill it up again at the Clara Barton Service Area. I didn't replace any of them until I got down to a Wal-Mart in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and that was the next day. I probably should've got them done on the Turnpike.


In October 2018, I had my oil changed at the John Fenwick Service Area, because I was getting close to the point where it was going to be time to get it changed. What I didn't realize was that I could've just as easily waited until I got to the James Fenimore Cooper Service Area. The mechanic was surprised that I requested such a repair, especially in the fall. I didn't find out until I got home that the guy forgot to put a seal back in my oil pan.


In April 2019, I had my windshield wipers replaced at the Vince Lombardi Service Area early in the morning on the way back down to Florida. The ones I had were doing a crappy job of keeping my windshield clean (in fact I think they made it dirtier), and when I brought it in, he could see they were finished. I got them replaced, paid the guy, and I was off. For some reason though, I kind of wished this had happened in the fall or winter.



Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 03:57:19 PM
^^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.

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.

I don't thinks there's much confusion...mainly because he was thinking of a bridge that never once has been referred to the name he was thinking.

The Route 1, 78, 80, and other bridges North of Trenton aren't named after historical people either.

Besides...it seems like everyone from the past has a few skeletons in their closet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on August 19, 2019, 10:40:21 AM
Besides...it seems like everyone from the past has a few skeletons in their closet.
Exit 6 for Hookers and Blow Bridge?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on August 22, 2019, 08:03:32 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on August 26, 2019, 10:45:38 AM
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.

-- 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 11:05:17 AM
-- 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). 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2019, 08:51:44 PM
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.
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 drove that way Thursday evening, and realized when I was on the bridge I never saw the sign either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 26, 2019, 11:13:34 PM
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.

-- 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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 02, 2019, 01:00:19 PM
Driving north on the Turnpike from 12 to 15W this morning and saw some new signs showing a travel time to 14A. There is one on the Tremley Point Rd overpass and another one just past 13A. They are BGS's with a VMS element to show the actual travel time. I'm not sure if they're permanent or just here for the duration of the latest round of NHBE construction. Just another element of signage that isn't using the actual VMS and VSLS they spent thousands on a few years ago which could show the same data without more signs.

Will try to grab a picture of one of these tomrorow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 03, 2019, 09:14:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 04, 2019, 09:38:35 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 05, 2019, 06:25:18 AM
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!

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 05, 2019, 11:29:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on September 05, 2019, 01:22:27 PM
Also, couldn't it vary for outer vs inner roadways?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 05, 2019, 02:30:06 PM
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!

Interesting that the sign lists only one exit.

Quote
I also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.

Most states (such as Massachusetts) avoid mounting signs to bridge structures unless there is no practical alternative.  In this case, NJTA may have decided it wasn't practical to post mount the sign in the median between the inner and outer roadways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 05, 2019, 02:34:19 PM
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 05, 2019, 02:46:45 PM
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(

Not to mention that the sign 'cage' is attached to the concrete deck and facia in an apparently dubious manner.  Normal practice for bridge mounting of signs is to weld or bolt the support members to the outside beam, and not to the deck or facia.  The whole installation cries out to me "Let's put this sign in in the quickest and least expensive way possible."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 05, 2019, 03:58:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 05, 2019, 04:47:12 PM
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.

The issue with bridge-mounted BGSes is the torsional effects from having a large sign panel protrude above the bridge structure.  Over time, this results in failure of the sign attachment points to the concrete deck and facia, as well as fatigue cracking where the sign support 'cage'  attaches (either by welds or bolts) to the outside beam.  I have seen evidence of both types of damage personally when requested to review bridge-mounted BGS installations within Massachusetts.

In the past, FHWA had supported (pardon the pun) the provision of bridge-mounted signs as part of their overall efforts to minimize roadside hazards such as sign supports.  The change in recommended practice actually came about as a result of the I-35W bridge collapse in 2007.  After that collapse, FHWA directed states to accelerate inspections of all bridges.  Although the priority was for those structures that were non-redundant in design, this direction included simple overpasses as well.  It was in doing these overpass inspections that many states discovered the aforementioned issues with some of their bridge-mounted BGS installations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2019, 10:07:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 05, 2019, 10:14:50 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2019, 08:07:35 AM
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.
That would make a lot of sense and would be why a new pole wasn't installed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 06, 2019, 06:40:41 PM
Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized. :(

That's a solar panel for power.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 06, 2019, 09:26:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on September 08, 2019, 02:10:01 PM
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.

I was on the Turnpike this weekend, and there are several pull-through signs that have yet to be replaced (or overlaid):  Exit 7, both directions, both barrels; Exit 8A, southbound, both barrels and northbound inner.  I did not go north of Exit 9, so not sure if horizontal pull-through signs are replacing the verticals further north.  The design depicted on NJTA's standard drawings is the horizontal panel design.

I know why, but it seems odd to see I-95 South and Camden on the same pull-through panel . . .

No new signs on the entrances to Exit 7, Exit 7A or Exit 6A.  The rest in this area (Exits 8 and 8A) already have I-95 shields but are of the older designs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on September 09, 2019, 10:27:20 AM
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.

Solar power is now standard in most states (such as Massachusetts and Maine) that provide these 'hybrid' travel time signs, even at those locations where commercial power is readily available.  In addition to easier constructability and lower cost, going solar avoids the need for the DOT to set up agreements with the utility providers for power, and also avoids the complexities of billing, etc. for multiple locations where different utility companies might be involved.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on September 14, 2019, 01:09:25 PM
So within the last week or so, one more pull through sign was replaced on the SB outer roadway at Exit 7. Youtuber "Future Travel Drone" was driving on the Turnpike between NYC and Philly.

(SB signs of note start at 9:02)

NB, the signs were changed at Exit 7, so all the pull through signs on the NB outer roadway now have I-95 shields. At Exit 10 and north of there, the pull through signs were not changed. Also, an extra "TO North I-95" standalone sign has been placed on the side of the inner roadway NB, in the middle of the Exit 6 interchange.

(NB signs of note start at 25:38)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 15, 2019, 08:43:09 PM
SB there are new pullthru signs for Exits 8, 7A, and 7. Still not new pullthru's at 8A yet. NB there are at 7 on the outer roadway, and new signs at 7A, 8, 8A, and 9. So they're moving along with the newer pullthrus with actual 95 shields on them. Will be curious if they replace any other ones north of 9 to include New York City instead of no control city.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 16, 2019, 09:22:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 16, 2019, 11:01:01 AM
I always wondered why on the NJTP south there is hardly a mention of Philly.
The likely reasons for such are:
1.  The mainline NJ Turnpike doesn't enter into PA let alone Philadelphia.

2.  As most here know, the pre-1982 plan for I-95 called for it to leave the Turnpike at Exit 10 and utilize the current I-287 corridor to where the proposed Somerset Freeway would've connected.  Had such been built; there probably would've been either signage listing Philadelphia or at least Pennsylvania be it on the Exit 10 signage itself or supplemental signage for said-exit.  Original/early-generation signs along the former-I-95 around Trenton used to list either Pennsylvania or just Penna. on its signs.

3.  Prior to I-95 coming into existence, US 1 was likely the preferred route to Philadelphia but was signed for Trenton because one coming from the north encounters it first & such being NJ's capital.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 16, 2019, 11:52:38 AM
Now its time to fix it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2019, 12:54:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 16, 2019, 03:54:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 16, 2019, 07:22:37 PM
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.
Philly should be listed on secondary signage saying "Philadelphia follow I-95 S." Control cities should be Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Wilmington.

The Turnpike goes to Wilmington and that's where a majority of traffic is headed past the split.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 16, 2019, 07:45:22 PM
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.
[/quote]

Why bother? Philadelphia is inconsequential.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 16, 2019, 08:33:17 PM
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.
Philly should be listed on secondary signage saying "Philadelphia follow I-95 S." Control cities should be Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Wilmington.

The Turnpike goes to Wilmington and that's where a majority of traffic is headed past the split.
Elizabeth??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 16, 2019, 08:36:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 16, 2019, 09:36:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 16, 2019, 10:19:02 PM
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.
It no longer goes particularly close to Trenton, so it’s seat should be removed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jaip on September 16, 2019, 11:24:53 PM
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.
Philly should be listed on secondary signage saying "Philadelphia follow I-95 S." Control cities should be Newark, Elizabeth, Trenton, Wilmington.

The Turnpike goes to Wilmington and that's where a majority of traffic is headed past the split.
Elizabeth??? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Elizabeth! At least it is a suggestion, but 95 South Camden is already reality per NJTA. 😂
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 17, 2019, 12:07:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 17, 2019, 02:16:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2019, 05:25:08 AM
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.

Yep, in these arguments people tend to focus on one direction, not both.  And in the region between Baltimore and New York, there's a fair number of inconsistencies with the control cities travelling North vs. South.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 17, 2019, 08:48:43 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on September 17, 2019, 12:27:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 17, 2019, 12:59:36 PM
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.

Prior to the 1993-94 shift of the I-95/295 handoff from the proposed Somerset Freeway interchange to the US 1 interchange (Exit 67); the ramps signs for US 1 northbound read:

      EXIT 67 B
NORTH    TO
    1        95
    New York


And the sign panel for those US 1 north exits were wide enough to accommodate then-future New Brunswick lettering.  Long story short, the intent to sign I-95 northbound for New York via the Somerset Freeway was indeed there.  Back then, such may have been pared with Princeton.

I have to wonder if those sign plans you saw may have been for a more easterly-alignment of the Somerset Freeway further north because, from what I'm aware of, the latest version of the alignment that was killed off didn't even go through New Brunswick.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on September 17, 2019, 02:02:07 PM
^  I recall those messages.  My office was off of Route 31 in Pennington for several of those years before that change.  I agree that the use of New Brunswick was strange.

The plan I saw was not a design plan, but more like an inventory plan that the State kept.  I saw this in the early '90s, but don't know how dated the information shown on it was.  I had not gone down the path of roadgeekery yet, so I did not keep a copy of the plan.  The project I was working on also included photos of the prevailing guide signs in the area (before the 1993 change).  If I knew then what I would be doing now . . .

Bottom line is that your theory is plausible.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 17, 2019, 05:11:30 PM
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?
http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/Interstate_95_Gap.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: artmalk on September 17, 2019, 05:41:23 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 05:43:49 PM
The 2019 PennDOT map has the new interchange shown and the new routings, I-295 replacing the segment of I-95, and the NJ Turnpike PA Extension shown as an Interstate route for the first time, that being I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 17, 2019, 06:07:03 PM
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?
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.

I haven’t changed any content since I moved out of NJ 16 years ago. I might look into donating whatever content I can to wikimedia and then shut that section down.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 17, 2019, 06:54:03 PM
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?

To be honest, it should be like this:
-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.
-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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 18, 2019, 09:18:35 AM
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. 

The only reason New Haven is used for the northbound signage was because the prior New England listing, though still technically accurate, wasn't MUTCD-kosher. 

-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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2019, 01:12:39 PM
I'm surprised the I-95 North signs in New York City don't mention Stamford or Bridgeport, which you'd pass through long before New Haven. My guess is that New Haven is used since it's a much larger transportation connection point (MTA-Metro North, Amtrak, CT Rail, Shoreline East, Greyhound and Peter Pan).

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 18, 2019, 02:10:49 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 18, 2019, 03:21:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2019, 03:45:55 PM
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, although the Turnpike never really says Exit 1.  They use Interchange 1.  They do have 'Entry' and 'Exit' on their toll calculator page, although that's referring to the toll plazas you're going thru.  Interchanges 1, 6, 14, 14C, 16/18E and 18W aren't really exits per se.

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.

Same here.  Most of the people exiting at that exit are using the businesses located on NJ 140.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 18, 2019, 04:24:38 PM
Connecticut seems to do similar to the Turnpike. The first signed Exit on I-95 in Greenwich is Exit 2 for Delavan Avenue, nearly a mile from the NY line. The rationale was you leaving the old Connecticut Turnpike was "Exit 1". Funny...Exit 1 is present on I-84 in Danbury, right by the NY line (the eastbound off ramp from I-84 actually starts in NY by a few feet). Hopefully, mileage based numbering would take care of that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 18, 2019, 09:21:37 PM
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.

CR 540 is signed as well, so its mainly local Salem County, and lodging for straight through travelers that use it mostly.   Also Woodstown on US 40 is also accessible from NJ 45 at Mullica Hill and Pole Tavern via NJ 77.   Malaga and Elmer from Route 55 from Exit 3 and some turns.

Pretty much all points along Route 40 are available from previous exits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 12:36:46 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qaPkw5iqVcZPgC2s5
I am impressed!  New York is the control city on I-78 W Bound for I-95 NB.  I guess miracles do happen!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 09:25:33 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/qaPkw5iqVcZPgC2s5
I am impressed!  New York is the control city on I-78 W Bound for I-95 NB.  I guess miracles do happen!
At 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).

This is one case where blindly following MUTCD without applying/consdiering basic logic & common sense can create some confusion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 10:41:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 10:51:35 AM
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD change
Are those particular signs that use such in New York or New Jersey?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 01, 2019, 01:25:35 PM
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD change
Are 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 01:35:53 PM
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD change
Are 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.
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2019, 01:58:05 PM
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.

No one has seemed to know what to sign 78's thru cities as for years. NJDOT is all over the place, depending on when the signs went up. Some say Clinton, some P'Burg, some Easton. I kind of wish that they'd get on the ball about that.

As for the Turnpike, my gut would be to use New York (or New York City if we need to be pedantic) as the CC up thru 14, and from there go back to which Hudson River Crossing it is, with a few BGS's showing "New York City via" and show the Holland via 14C, Lincoln via 16E and GWB via 18E/W" and call it a day. As for the ramp to the mainline Turnpike from the NBHCE, New York is fine with me, because there are still 2 other crossings you can get to from the NB direction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 03:58:18 PM
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD change
Are 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 04:02:42 PM
Well The Bronx is used within the city as well as Manhattan post MUTCD change
Are 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.
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 06:11:10 PM
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)

As far as the Bronx being signed along I-95 northbound is concerned: based on the latest GSVs, there are no signs in NJ that list such and the current signs along the NY side of the G.W. Bridge use Cross Bronx Expressway for a listing as opposed to simply The Bronx.  New Haven, CT is the first listed control city for I-95 northbound in NY & is first used on pull-through signage at I-87.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 07:51:15 PM
I know Queens is for I-87 since the Triborough is been removed from that particular interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 01, 2019, 08:08:39 PM
I know Queens is for I-87 since the Triborough is been removed from that particular interchange.

Here's a sign for Manhattan along I-678 NB at I-95/I-295 in da Bronx
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.826213,-73.8361668,3a,75y,349.81h,90.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spkJFn6DPNX1DdvAWZ1hluA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 01, 2019, 08:10:57 PM
And here's from I-95 SB
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8304448,-73.8327071,3a,75y,229.09h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0g6B4q_mGQH131spK5A2MQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 08:13:37 PM
Yup being the GWB is with it I would have to agree. Again NJ is being ignored as it has cities along I-95.  Well I am glad no Geo Washington Br as that was NYs way of shortening the name.  The “G”  is shorter though and is much better choice.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 01, 2019, 08:15:03 PM
Brooklyn and Staten Island signed on I-278 WB
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7685998,-73.9073054,3a,75y,97.96h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVFrrfgSHiug32s-T1qZQYg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 01, 2019, 08:15:13 PM
And here's from I-95 SB
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8304448,-73.8327071,3a,75y,229.09h,84.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0g6B4q_mGQH131spK5A2MQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Oh and here the new name for the Triboro and they also remembered that Newark is a city of interest.

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 01, 2019, 08:17:13 PM
Here's a Bronx sign on I-278 EB
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7545355,-73.8987727,3a,75y,336.18h,82.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAmzYXWLi_WX0z6ll7PLsOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jaip on October 19, 2019, 06:56:43 AM
More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.

Why bother? Philadelphia is inconsequential.
[/quote]

Lol! Says a guy from Cherry Hill, NJ!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jaip on October 19, 2019, 07:04:34 AM
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.

Yes, I saw the sign earlier this week. It is between exit 9 and 8A. I hope they install a few more of the sign beginning GWB. The sign is huge, you will not miss it. It read
Trenton 21 miles
Philadelphia 51 miles
Camden __miles (I missed miles to Camden because I was cruising at 70 mph)

Also, it looks weird to see 95 South and Camden on same pull-thru sign.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 19, 2019, 11:35:30 AM
Then I wonder if that Trenton 30 Miles signs is still up at Exit 9 in the outer roadway?   That was copied over for when NJ 33 was the route into Trenton before I-195 and Exit 7A was constructed and never got updated. 

It appears that the one described is updated.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jaip on October 19, 2019, 02:44:25 PM
I did not see Trenton 30 miles sign and I was looking for it. Looks like it’s gone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 19, 2019, 10:15:48 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 19, 2019, 10:42:50 PM
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jaip on October 20, 2019, 08:16:52 PM
I was in trucks-cars lane. My bad.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2019, 11:14:51 PM
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9
I'm pretty sure it's gone as of last time I was in the inners.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 21, 2019, 07:45:13 PM
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9
I'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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 21, 2019, 08:47:22 PM
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9
I'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).

https://goo.gl/maps/eqQSMYAJ7od6CYwY8

No guarantees this link will appear the way I see it, but if you look carefully just inside of the guardrail, you'll see the old concrete block one of the posts of the former sign was attached to.  For a better reference, take the GSV back to a previous driveby, which I think 2013 will show up.  You'll also notice the reflector is now missing from the L bracket on the overpass...but no one cares about that!  :-P
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 21, 2019, 11:16:52 PM
The sign in question was on the inner roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/wZgxfMakQnzyp8tS9
I'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.

Yes, that sign is gone, just as the old neo classical gantry at Exit 6 now.  Well it was out of date and with I-195 now its somewhat shorter in distance to the capital.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2019, 02:04:27 PM
Tolls on the NJ Turnpike & Parkway will remain the same thru 2020 (piss on that, PTC).

https://www.nj.com/traffic/2019/10/no-toll-hike-on-the-parkway-or-turnpike-in-2020-you-can-thank-extra-traffic-for-that.html

Higher than forecasted traffic and lower than expected construction costs over the past 10 years are the main contributors to keeping tolls steady.  The downside is that when a hike is necessary, it'll probably be a relatively massive hike. 

Of the upcoming projects mentioned, one includes replacing the old "drum" signs seen from Interchanges 9 and North with the Hybrid VMS signage seen on the mainline and ramps from Interchange 5 - 8A.

For other enjoyable reading material, the NJTA published a 2020-2029 Strategic Plan on their website:  https://www.njta.com/media/4824/njta-stratplan_public-v28b.pdf .

While nothing very specific is mentioned, it refers to various improvements, increases and decreases in terms of traffic, incidents and maintenance and other measurable criteria and qualities.  And, unlike other cities and agencies with their unrealistic "Zero Fatalities" missions, the NJTA keeps it real, hoping for a 5% reduction in facilities by 2029.

There's also many interesting aerial pictures throughout the report.  One of the first pictures is so very New Jerseyistic - a beautiful picture of the Turnpike near Interchange 9 with what appears to be a forest of trees surrounding the roadway, with countless high tension power poles and lines along the horizon!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 22, 2019, 03:32:51 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1900/29165231467_d5f8186dcc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Lrerdp)

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2019, 08:49:52 PM
I believe at least one of the I-78 speed limit signs is still there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on October 22, 2019, 10:09:02 PM
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.

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.
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!

But many years later, I also remember a different series of "New York nn Miles" signs starting at 110.  Unlike the originals, which were smaller and low to the ground like that Trenton sign, these were higher up and somewhat larger.  They also had an unusual font.  I think they disappeared around the year 2000, give or take.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 23, 2019, 07:32:40 AM
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 like the e.e. cummings style disclaimer on the bottom.  Was that sign there when the extension opened in c. 1956?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2019, 10:06:07 AM
The NJ Turnpike always had a variety of signs that caused me to take attention.   South of Exit 4 along the four lane part had all ground signs until 1980 circa when the current overheads were added to Exits 3 and 2 as well as the reflective 2 and 1 mile advance guides. 

In the days of old there were no route numbers and control destinations on the 2 mile out signs, but instead it would say the Exit number 2 MI and then the distance to the following.  Going NB there was an unusual sign for Exit 2 that gave information to the Cape May County Resorts which I found odd because if anyone from DE was going there it would be in their best interest to use either Route 49 or Route 40 already.

The Exit 6 going NB always struck me odd that no overheads were used there considering all the other exits north of Exit 4 had them.  All ground mounts were used (probably up to the 6-9 widening I would guess) for Exit 6 that even had the exit number on the bottom with the sign edge rounded around the number.

Then Exit 15E on the Eastern Spur for the longest time never had a normal guide  going SB until the recent MUTCD push to have their signs over the classic turnpike signs throughout the system.  Even Route 495 finally is acknowledged after many years not being signed at all for 16E, which is a welcome change.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 23, 2019, 09:40:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 23, 2019, 10:04:03 PM
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?

Was supposed to be Interstate 495, go thru the Lincoln Tunnel, across the Mid Manhattan Expressway and thru the Queens Midtown Tunnel onto the LIE where it is today. Once the MidMex was cancelled and NY truncated I-495 to Queens, NJ's I-495 downgraded to NJ-495 instead.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 23, 2019, 10:11:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2019, 11:26:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2019, 11:27:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 24, 2019, 10:19:45 AM
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.

The split at NJ 3 and I-95 is pretty much equal (in fact I think 3 lanes exit NJ 495 there and two lanes are through) so it would cause many to look at the signs.  Plus I think NJDOT added GSP shields too to help folks from the tunnel find the Parkway as well.

Also the latest GSV shows that NJDOT added NJ 495 to the Pulaski Skyway ramp for Tonnele Avenue as well to help use that designation for shunpikers into the city.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 24, 2019, 04:41:29 PM
You guys are right as far as the area being well signed and the history of the routes. I just figure that less route numbers is simpler for drivers to read easily than more route numbers. Keeping the sign messages brief with fewer route shields would be a plus.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 25, 2019, 09:41:01 AM
I agree one number plus an overlap with US 46 to I-80 in Wayne would make travel to the Lincoln Tunnel from points west on I-80 better as you do have to exit at Exit 53, then east on US 46, to NJ 3 East, to finally NJ 495 east.   

However, its done and to change it would cause a lot of trouble to do.  Yes, that cancelled Manhattan expressway project caused this, but I am sure PennDOT is saying the same when NJDOT cancelled the Somerset Freeway Project as well as now they had to renumber their part of I-95 from the PA Turnpike into NJ as I-295.  If we built the road as planned there would be no need for a change there of course.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on October 26, 2019, 11:34:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2019, 12:02:42 PM
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?

I haven't seen much of a difference. The Turnpike southbound approaching Exit 4 still congests on busy days and weekends, and I've seen heavy congestion between 1 and 4 also.  95 in Delaware still congests Northbound heading onto 295 North as well. Traffic volumes are up all over, so it's probably a matter of it could be worse.

If you're asking if NJ 73 (Exit 4) has seen less traffic, not at all from my observations.

Quote
2) How come I-295 was never connected to I-95 (formerly I-276) in NJ mid state?

My guess: Lack of a need or desire with NJDOT, NJTA or both. And insufficient room between 295 and the mainline Turnpike.  There would have been less than 1 mile between interchanges, making it the most closely spaced interchanges on the entire system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 26, 2019, 08:38:48 PM
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)?

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 26, 2019, 11:08:30 PM
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)?

ixnay
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 making it a bit more ambiguous (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1155729,-74.7110256,3a,75y,218.9h,95.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sulMvT7S52OcjBHSmCNP0Yw!2e0!5s20080101T000000!7i3328!8i1664). As for why not, I'm not sure, it seems like the NJTA didn't (and still doesn't) really care about having Interstate designations on their roadways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on October 26, 2019, 11:18:42 PM
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."

They really can't call the part in N.J. as the "Penn Turnpike."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2019, 11:43:37 PM
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."

They really can't call the part in N.J. as the "Penn Turnpike."

Well, that was a modified sign due to PTC not completing their project on time. Guess they could've shown the TO on that sign to make it technically correct, but I doubt anyone was actually confused by it.

It's shown as intended now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 28, 2019, 07:08:14 AM
There are a lot of cases a road leads to another that is signed as.  I-276 from the NJ Turnpike is not the only as Exits 105 and 117 on The Parkway were both signed for NJ 35 and NJ 36 without TO signs and it never confused anyone especially being the connector from 117 and the Eatontown Spur are both really elongated exit ramps.

However, now they did modify both exit signs as technically NJ 36 at 105 ends now at the Parkway.  In fact  going NB the NJ 35 shield was removed in favor of NJ 18, when 105 was changed to connect directly to the freeway going NB.  In addition cardinal directions have since been added to them as both interchanges are terminuses for Route 36 now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on October 28, 2019, 09:17:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on November 22, 2019, 08:48:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 22, 2019, 09:14:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on November 23, 2019, 12:16:06 AM
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.

I knew you would have the answer. Thanks for chiming in. Yeah one article had like a 2024 or something timeline.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 23, 2019, 12:26:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J3ebrules on November 23, 2019, 12:32:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 23, 2019, 12:36:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 23, 2019, 01:16:23 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 23, 2019, 12:10:01 PM
Don't know any specifically offhand, but the road was built by NJDOT using Interstate Highway federal funding and is eligible for maintenance funding. It would not be unusual for a toll authority to take federal grants in NJ. The GSP received federal funding for the Cape May traffic light elimination project since it was on a "free" section built by NJDOT.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
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.

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.

There are countless roads that don't receive federal funding, but still have to abide by normal rules.  Most developments and township roads are funded thru local taxes, but yet put up a sign that doesn't fit the MUTCD guidelines and there's some people in these road groups that nearly have heart attacks and practically pronounce that those signs are illegal and you're free to drive as stupidly as you want.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2019, 09:15:02 PM
Wasn't the reason the NJTA started converting to MUTCD spec BGS's because of some sort of threat re: holding back Federal highway funds?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J3ebrules on November 24, 2019, 01:27:19 AM
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” . Now, it may be an incorrect interpretation that this means it was to become a free road, but I cannot think of any other way to interpret it given the context. Also, I feel like I read about it becoming free somewhere else as well, but this came to mind immediately.

(https://i.postimg.cc/prqjWPSd/FF7-F3-AB0-973-B-497-E-86-DD-92-C0367-AE1-BB.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/1RHwcKzZ/0100-A3-A0-44-D2-4505-89-EC-C8-BB06-B3-E298.jpg)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J3ebrules on November 24, 2019, 01:31:52 AM
Also, here’s a link to the front of this brochure, apropos of nothing, for whoever is interested in the original map and toll schedule.

 https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/NJTurnpike_ca1950.jpg (https://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/NJTurnpike_ca1950.jpg)

Fun fact! Driving the full length of the N.J. Turnpike today is CHEAPER, given inflation, than it was when it opened in 1951. which was $1.75. USinflationcalculator.com and westegg.com peg that as between $17.11 and $17.32 today.

The current rate to drive the length of the Turnpike (in a passenger car) is $13.85.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 24, 2019, 08:01:41 AM
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.

Seems like if the need was so near in the future, they should have built it with 6 lanes initially.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 24, 2019, 11:27:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J3ebrules on November 24, 2019, 01:46:13 PM
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.

Ooh! Do you happen to have a public link to that booklet? I LOVE reading that stuff.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 24, 2019, 02:06:57 PM
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"
They could have worded that better.

The brochure made it clear that NJTA is a state agency itself.

What they meant to say was that after the bonds were paid off, that the NJTA and the Turnpike could be absorbed into NJDOT (or NJ Highway Department or whatever it was called in 1951).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 09:26:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 25, 2019, 09:32:16 AM
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.

I'm guessing $$$$$
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 25, 2019, 09:33:43 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2019, 09:48:09 AM
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

You literally responded to the answer to your questions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on November 25, 2019, 10:03:51 AM
Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 10:28:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 25, 2019, 11:27:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2019, 11:36:06 AM
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.

Really?  Changing exit numbers to comply with an undesignated, unsigned route should've been the priority?  And they're off, what, 3 or 4 miles from the new reality? 

Until the NJTA actually changes the exit numbers on the Turnpike (if they ever do), there's no real reason to change the exit numbers in question here.  Because playing with everyone's "Assuming What If" scenarios, ultimately we don't know if the NJ Turnpike will revise their exit numbering system to be mileage based from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to I-80, or from the NJ/PA Turnpike Bridge to I-80.  (We don't need to recap everyone's opinion of what should be done)

Being that mileage based exits are most useful to figure out how the distance between 2 points, the fact that they're in line with themselves now is good enough.  Trying to figure out the distance from NJ Turnpike Exit 13 to I-95 Exit 72 doesn't calculate properly, nor would it work if just exit numbers 69 - 73 were changed +/- 4.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 25, 2019, 12:02:32 PM
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.

Honestly, the only change that I think the NJTA would make would be to make those exits a mile based continuation of the Turnpike mainline as this is how that stretch of road is mileposted anyway. And even that's not a guarantee since they would have to get the 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2019, 01:10:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 01:22:05 PM
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.
Really?  Changing exit numbers to comply with an undesignated, unsigned route should've been the priority?
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(?).

While the overall I-95 routing may not have been fully signed & designated out in the field at the time; there was not a snowball's chance in Hades of the Somerset Freeway ever being revived... then & now.  One could debate the validity of keeping the current/old numbering alive for so long.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 25, 2019, 01:25:59 PM
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.

At that time it was decided to continue Maryland’s I-495 mileposting from Maryland’s Milepost 42 at the Virginia shoreline at the Legion Bridge near Cabin John, to a new Milepost 57 at the I-95/I-395/I-495 Springfield Interchange; and to continue I-95’s mileposting (170 through 177) along the I-95/I-495 section of the Beltway from I-95/I-395/I-495 Springfield Interchange to the state border at the Wilson Bridge at Alexandria.
http://www.capital-beltway.com/Capital-Beltway-History.html#Exit-Numbering

There were several schemes used over the years and this was the best and final.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2019, 02:09:20 PM
Hmm, let's see here...

Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, page 296
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.

Should, not shall.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 25, 2019, 02:46:42 PM
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...
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD, page 296
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.
Should, not shall.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2019, 03:17:23 PM
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.

This was for a mass wholesale change in signage where revising exit numbers was done to differentiate interchanges, not a floating set of exit numbers where changing them a few numbers doesn't result in any differences to the motoring public.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 25, 2019, 05:18:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 25, 2019, 08:53:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on November 25, 2019, 09:14:41 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2019, 09:21:32 AM
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?
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?

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.

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.

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.

In the case of the NJ Turnpike, its southernmost point has no externally-signed route number (it's internally known as NJ 700) let alone an Interstate number.  The scenario with the NJ Turnpike & I-95 is opposite of the I-80/90/OH Turnpike & I-76/276/PA Turnpike scenarios; the Interstate route meets & utilizes the toll road further along.

Note: even if the Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 had been built as originally planned; one would still have a similar scenario between the NJ Turnpike & I-95 that exists today, except such would've occurred further north at Exit 10 not Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 26, 2019, 10:48:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2019, 11:02:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on November 26, 2019, 11:11:51 AM
The same MUTCD section also says that "(i)nterchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method."  Some interpretation of this standard suggests that the exit number be consistent with the prevailing milepost.  Unfortunately, the various "shall" provisions of this section would require a wholesale change to the Turnpike's mileposting (and, by extension, record keeping).

If applying this section strictly . . . Four separate sets of mileposting would have to be established -- one for the NJ 700 section, one for I-95 (covering Pa Extension, mainline, one of the spurs and the northern free section), one for I-78 (continuing NJDOT mileposts), and one for the spur that is not considered mainline I-95.  The NJ 700 section would not change from what is there now, but the rest would.  New Jersey is a small enough state that the milepost numbers do not get large -- for the four milepost scenarios I illustrated, the highest number would be about 77.  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.  For instance, both 14A and 15E may be Exit 62, while both 14C and 15X may both be Exit 65.  Mainline Turnpike mileage is between 105 and 112 in those areas.  Exits 6 and 12 on the mainline may both be Exit 51 to northbound drivers, 45 miles apart.  Pennsylvania does use separate mileposting for I-76/276 and I-476, but similar numbers are hundreds of miles apart.

The ultimate goal is clear guidance for the motorist to get where he/she needs to go with tools to estimate when he/she would get there.  The above scenario does not necessarily do that.  There is, alas, no perfect solution for this type of situation.  Add in I-295 at the south end, with its Exit 1, and it gets more interesting.

The current mainline toll road exit numbering in other states seems to tacitly acknowledge the toll road as an Interstate-like facility with other Interstates concurrent with it.  As noted, New Jersey's is among the only toll roads (that I am aware of) whose 0-point is as a non-Interstate and picks up Interstates along the way, but I don't see a practical reason why the same mileposting/exit numbering convention cannot be used here.  The spurs can be fudged as needed to avoid duplication of exit numbers.

My ten cents (long post  . . . ), for what it is worth.  I am sure others know better.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2019, 11:46:28 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 01:25:08 PM
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?
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?

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 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.

Quote
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-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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2019, 02:05:22 PM
Quote
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-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.
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.

The OH Turnpike converted to mile-marker-based interchange numbering circa 1994-1995.  I know that because I drove out to Toledo in early 1995 and saw some dual-numbering for the Turnpike's interchanges.  Needless to say that its conversion not only predated MUTCD 2009; it also predated the adoption of E-ZPass, so not switching the mile markers/interchange numbers to I-76's mileage at North Jackson when such was converted was justified/made sense during its exit (for toll ticket reasons). 

Had the OH Turnpike been fully AET when it numbers were converted; maybe the I-76 leg would've been based on I-76's mileage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 26, 2019, 03:11:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on November 26, 2019, 05:27:30 PM
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.

If one uses the NJ Turnpike mileage all the way to current Exit 74; I-95's northernmost exit prior to the bridge would probably be Exit 124.  If one uses I-95's current mileage, such would probably be Exit 77 or 78.

Another question would be how would the western spur's mile-marker-based interchange numbering be handled?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 26, 2019, 09:33:01 PM
The western spur/eastern spur situation is indeed a big issue with respect to exit numbers.  It's hard to see how it would translate to mile-based exit numbers.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 26, 2019, 10:00:08 PM
So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2019, 10:38:05 PM
So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?

The opposite of whatever is chosen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on November 26, 2019, 11:26:14 PM
So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?
The opposite of whatever is chosen.
Start the mileposting at I-80 and go southward!

That way the common mileposting would spilt at the PA Turnpike and follow each road, to the Delaware River for the PA TPK and to I-295 at Deepwater NJ for the NJTP.

I suppose that would violate MUTCD.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2019, 12:43:50 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on November 27, 2019, 03:45:54 PM
Could the mileage run this way?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2019, 08:38:16 PM
Could the mileage run this way?

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on November 28, 2019, 12:38:04 PM
The Kansas Turnpike section of I-70 uses its own mile markers and exit numbers. I-80 uses the mile markers and exit numbers of I-294/Tri State Tollway in Illinois. So if the NJ Turnpike used new exit numbers based on its current mileage, they wouldn't be alone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 29, 2019, 07:01:52 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 29, 2019, 07:04:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2019, 01:59:59 AM
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.
The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on November 30, 2019, 08:33:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2019, 11:21:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on November 30, 2019, 11:41:37 AM
The Eastern Spur is part of the original Turnpike, so I could see the Western Spur having numbers fudged to avoid duplicate numbers from the Eastern Spur if/when there was a renumbering of exits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 02, 2019, 08:54:10 AM
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.
Correct, whenever a new exit/interchange was added/built; such would simply be assigned a suffixed exit number.  Examples: 7A, 8A & 15X.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 05, 2019, 03:12:32 PM
Could the mileage run this way?

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.
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 05, 2019, 03:14:24 PM
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)?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 05, 2019, 03:27:46 PM
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)?

The sign can clearly be seen from 295 at Interchange 31 too! 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 05, 2019, 04:20:53 PM
Bluecountry, I believe (if anyone knows different please correct me) that I-80 begins and ends at the I-95 interchange in Teaneck. I don't think they run concurrent to the Bridge. And if I remember right, the signs west/southbound coming off the Bridge read something like I-95 to I-80.

Also it's been said in earlier posts that those exit numbers in the 70's between the Teaneck Interchange and the Bridge are actually I-95 numbers based on (I believe) the original Somerset Fwy. mileage, not the more recent PA/NJ Turnpike/I-95 routing.

All of this is a little confusing as I myself originally believed in the concurrent route theory and that those exit numbers were a continuation of I-80 exit numbering, but knowledgable folks on this board have said that is not the case, though such numbering would be similar.

Again if I don't have this right, please correct me. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 05, 2019, 04:23:31 PM
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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 05, 2019, 04:26:25 PM
PHLBOS, thanks for confirming what I understood from you NJ/PA guys on this board. Guess we were thinking more or less the same. LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 05, 2019, 04:30:59 PM
Could the mileage run this way?

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.
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.

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?

There is no co-signing going towards the bridge.  In fact, it specifically says this on I-80 approaching the end:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/2018-07-21_16_07_33_View_east_along_Interstate_80_%28Bergen-Passaic_Expressway%29_just_west_of_Interstate_95_in_Teaneck_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-2018-07-21_16_07_33_View_east_along_Interstate_80_%28Bergen-Passaic_Expressway%29_just_west_of_Interstate_95_in_Teaneck_Township%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg)

While on I-95 northbound itself, there is no mention of I-80:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/2018-07-21_18_22_20_View_north_along_the_local_lanes_of_Interstate_95_%28Bergen-Passaic_Expressway%29_at_Exit_71_%28Englewood%29_on_the_border_of_Englewood_and_Leonia_in_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)

Now, southbound, there is some co-signing, which is unfortunate, but incorrect:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/2018-07-21_17_35_40_View_south_along_Interstate_95%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_U.S._Route_9_and_U.S._Route_46_%28Bergen-Passaic_Expressway%29_at_Exit_72_%28New_Jersey_State_Route_4%2C_U.S._Route_1%2C_U.S._Route_9%2C_U.S._Route_46%29_in_Fort_Lee%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)

However, the NJDOT has the last word, and it says thus right here:
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000080__-.pdf
"END I-80 MP=68.54"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 05, 2019, 04:43:15 PM
Guess they forgot the word "TO" between the 95 and 80 shields. What's interesting is that back in the late 1960's before the "missing mile" was built connecting the NJT to I-95/80, the signs coming off the bridge said: "To 80, 17 and Garden State Pkwy" as that road only led to I-80 at the time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jaip on December 05, 2019, 06:52:50 PM
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)?

Perhaps setting an example on how to sign I95 corridor. This is a great lesson for Maryland (MdTA).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sturmde on December 06, 2019, 12:44:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2019, 12:49:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sturmde on December 06, 2019, 01:30:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 06, 2019, 04:12:42 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 06, 2019, 09:09:18 AM
^^IMHO, the only chance that southern portion of the NJTP would become designated as a 3DI (likely I-695) would be if the Turnpike tolls are completely eliminated.  I don't see that happening anytime soon even though such was the original plan once the initial bonds to build the road were paid off.

Additionally, I believe (not 100% certain) that much of said-southern portion, particularly the 4-lane portion, is still the original pre-Interstate standard.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 09:17:52 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on December 06, 2019, 09:41:06 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on December 06, 2019, 09:43:08 AM
Yeah, I don't see the point.  No need to give the Turnpike a designation between I-95 and I-295.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:55:14 AM
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?
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 06, 2019, 11:58:37 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 06, 2019, 02:37:10 PM
Two interesting striping changes I've seen of late, both on the outer roadway. First, at 11, the entrance lane from the ramp still condenses from two lanes to one, but it becomes the right lane of the expanded four lane section for the HOV lane. Likewise, the left lane from the roadway just becomes the HOV lane, it no longer opens up on the left. This layout kind of makes sense, but it surprised me the other day when I was in the left lane going up to that point and suddenly realized I was in the HOV lane without actually actively trying to get into it.

Secondly, it looks like they did a little paving and restriping to make the offramp at 14 be two lanes. One going to 78WB and the other onto the NBHCE. I'm guessing to try and alleviate the traffic backups there, especially with the shoulder not being able to be used as a lane on the NBHCE. I really hope they put that shoulder lane option back after they finish the deck replacements in that stretch, because it certainly has caused traffic to get appreciably worse going NB in the mornings up to that point.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on December 06, 2019, 03:58:19 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 06, 2019, 04:06:13 PM
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.

If you never noticed an issue, how was it confusing?

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.

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


Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, it could be signed "NJ Turnpike".  All you're doing is changing one label to another.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 06, 2019, 05:39:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on December 07, 2019, 11:29:15 AM
The only confusion I've ever had on the Turnpike was over how to figure out which side of it I wanted to end up on where it splits in the Secaucus/Meadowlands area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2019, 05:40:54 PM
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.

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.

I would sign the New Jersey Turnpike from Exit 1 to Exit 6 as I-895.   No change to I-295 that way, and it lets drivers know that they can stay on the Turnpike secure in the knowledge that they will return to I-95 at either end.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 07, 2019, 08:19:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 08, 2019, 12:33:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 08, 2019, 01:03:04 AM
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.

While you are right of course, the fact remains that NJ is an enigma in this regard, with no less than 4 major highways without signed route numbers... The turnpike, GS Parkway, AC Expressway and Palisades Parkway (though calling that last one major is a bit of a stretch, I know).  That said, NY also has plenty of parkways without signed numbers...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 08, 2019, 08:18:54 AM
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.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on December 08, 2019, 01:24:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 08, 2019, 01:39:45 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on December 08, 2019, 01:51:49 PM
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 have said in the past how in some respects the "NJTP logo" carries even more authority than the Interstate shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 08, 2019, 07:47:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on December 08, 2019, 09:07:56 PM
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?

Was anyone actually suggesting removing NJTP shields? The ideal way to designate an Interstate along the southern section would be to sign it with NJTP shields and I-695/895 shields, just like the section carrying I-95. (I'd prefer 695, since 895 is for the Burlington-Bristol Bridge replacement, darnit!)

Honestly, I wish the PTC did the same with PA Turnpike shields on the mainline and Northeast Extension, signing them alongside the I-76/276/476 shields. They did once on a single sign eastbound at the Willow Grove interchange put up in late 2018, but this was probably by accident since the diagrammatics before it lack the Turnpike shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on December 08, 2019, 09:49:42 PM
Seem to be getting into fictional territory here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 08, 2019, 10:49:41 PM
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. Assuming that we'll soon see these beyond every entrance in the not too distant future.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 08, 2019, 11:07:49 PM
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?
(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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 09, 2019, 09:34:43 AM
You mean like this one just north of 6?
(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)
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:17:29 PM
No, keep the NJTP shield, but simply do this:

1) From the I-95 junction in DE, make I-95 north local from there until it meets the NJTP at exit 6.

2) Make I-295 from the I-95 junction in DE to the junction with the NJTP I-95 express until exit 6 when it becomes I-95/NJTP

3) I-295 then begins at the junction of the NJTP

4) Re-label the I-95/NJTP exits from exit 18 to the GWB as:
-Exit 19/20/21/22 and so fourth

OR
-Have them correspond to the mileage on I-95, following the mileage from I-95 express in the south.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 09, 2019, 04:19:17 PM
Also, how come they are NOW adding signs indicatin miles to Philly (mile 81) and Wil/Bal/DC (mile 29)?

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.
Then at exit 6 I want to see the NJTP south having Wilmington/Bal/DC as the directional.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2019, 11:15:52 PM
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.

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.
Concur. NJTP is shielded like a normal route, referred to like a normal route, and therefore can be followed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 09:02:53 AM
Also, how come they are NOW adding signs indicatin miles to Philly (mile 81) and Wil/Bal/DC (mile 29)?

What brought this on and is there more to go?
To comply with current MUTCD standards regarding signing distant cities/points perhaps.

Personally I'd like to see the directional city changed for I-95 from 'Trenton' to Philadelphia.
Then at exit 6 I want to see the NJTP south having Wilmington/Bal/DC as the directional.
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 10, 2019, 09:48:13 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 10:02:40 AM
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?

My guess for why people would ask how far the Maryland Rest Stop is and not the Chesapeake Rest Stop or even the Delaware Rest Stop for that matter is because such is further along & the last rest stop prior to reaching the immediate Baltimore area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 10, 2019, 10:48:51 AM
Also, how come they are NOW adding signs indicatin miles to Philly (mile 81) and Wil/Bal/DC (mile 29)?

What brought this on and is there more to go?
To comply with current MUTCD standards regarding signing distant cities/points perhaps.

Personally I'd like to see the directional city changed for I-95 from 'Trenton' to Philadelphia.
Then at exit 6 I want to see the NJTP south having Wilmington/Bal/DC as the directional.
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.
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.
I'll disagree in regards to 'Trenton' on I-95/NJTP south.
Trenton isn't much of a destination, it isn't even on I-95.
Philadelphia is a major city, yet it gets signed less than Trenton.
This particularly is irksome when on I-95 north from the GWB, 'New Haven' 75 miles away is the direction city (not Stamford or Bridgeport).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 10, 2019, 10:55:32 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 11:27:04 AM
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.

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 NJ 42.
FTFY.  The Turnpike's crossing of the North-South Freeway (NJ 42 at this location) is well south of I-76/295/676.

Yes, using NJ 73 to NJ 38 is a direct route from the Turnpike to Camden; however, it's not always the quickest in terms of travel time.  While both of those roads are divided arterial highways; both stretches have traffic signals along them.  Additionally, that NJ 38/41/73 interchange (actually three interchanges clustered in very close proximity) can be a traffic choke point at times.

In contrast, using Exit 3 for NJ 168 to I-295 to I-76 to I-676; although longer in distance can be quicker timewise outside of rush hours.

The above's a case of picking one's traffic poison so to speak.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 10, 2019, 12:03:13 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 10, 2019, 01:21:02 PM
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.

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.
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.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 10, 2019, 02:30:46 PM
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.

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.
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.

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).

The earlier signage was also more of a hodgepodge of destinations, based on pre-interstate (and pre-MUTCD) standards.  Most of that was all corrected during the past decade.  An interesting exception is "Atlantic City Expressway", rather than Atlantic City, although consistent with other notable exceptions on the 'pike in North Jersey.  Properly done, the signage would contain something like:

       TO   TO   TO
168  76   42  ACX

        Camden
     Atlantic City

to guide traffic to all these important roads and locations in the area, although I would still replace Camden with Philadelphia here.  Philly is no longer at any point anywhere south of Interchange 6.  Wanna take out one of the TO's?  Probably the ACX would go, as most people should have directions putting them on 42 first.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 10, 2019, 02:59:22 PM
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.

I'm curious as to whether they asked about a general "Maryland rest area" or specifically "Maryland House"?  To the average person, they might not think about the difference, they are both in Maryland.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 11, 2019, 08:09:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 12, 2019, 03:25:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2019, 06:32:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 12, 2019, 07:49:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2019, 08:49:50 AM
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.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 12, 2019, 09:14:07 AM
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.
While checking the northbound GSVs just prior to this interchange; I couldn't find anything older than 2011, which shows the current signs.

The sign replacements at this interchange must've been made between 2008 and 2010.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on December 12, 2019, 10:22:08 AM
Granted most do not recognize the ACE logo

Which isn't much helped by the fact that the ACE shield is rarely used on other expressways, including on the GSP's brand new signs (https://goo.gl/maps/iEaNEXfPDbnKpxBv6).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 12, 2019, 10:50:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 12, 2019, 02:26:21 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2019, 02:51:53 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on December 12, 2019, 02:54:53 PM
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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 12, 2019, 03:34:26 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 18, 2019, 02:48:18 PM
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2019, 10:30:33 PM
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.

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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 20, 2019, 08:57:13 AM
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.

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.

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?

I apparently forgot how to type in that reply lol. Should be 287 and Mahwah.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 20, 2019, 09:44:38 AM
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.

"The green stamp" has been standard CB lingo for any toll road since the early 1970s, and is not unique to the NJ Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: artmalk on December 22, 2019, 11:28:21 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 22, 2019, 07:09:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 22, 2019, 07:52:05 PM
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.

They all look basically the same and are popping up all along looking identical. dunno if they're contractor jobs or what, but the Turnpike shields are not well rendered.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 23, 2019, 09:02:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 23, 2019, 10:37:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 23, 2019, 03:24:58 PM
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.
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on December 23, 2019, 04:11:35 PM
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26H_Green_Stamps

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2019, 11:00:01 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JfdJ1LYyPio4R5zM6  What is up with double lights at the Exit 8A toll plaza?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2019, 12:59:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 27, 2019, 10:38:23 AM
Yeah it probably is that even though odd. But the new white lights soon will remedy that when the NJTA has that interchange lighting updated soon.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on December 27, 2019, 12:45:15 PM
I am also a fan of some of the signing changes over the years. I have seen in the past that NJTA had some signing plans that included a "North NJTP to I-95" pull through sign. Wonder if that would actually be in the field in the future (south of Exit 6).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on December 31, 2019, 03:24:42 PM
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

The term "Green Stamp" is CB lingo for money.  "Green Stamp Road" was the original CB term for a toll road, but it was usually shortened to "Green Stamp" or "The Green Stamp".  However, IMO it's unlikely that either term was inspired by or related to the New Jersey Turnpike logo.

And I recall S&H Green Stamps very well, as my parents religiously collected them in my childhood years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on January 01, 2020, 06:04:22 PM
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.’

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: interstate73 on January 02, 2020, 01:58:39 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 02, 2020, 09:47:09 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 02, 2020, 11:28:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 02, 2020, 01:42:47 PM
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)
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 03, 2020, 12:44:33 AM
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.’

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?
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2020, 08:29:54 AM
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.’

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?
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).
Maybe a better option for that location would be to display 3 mileage options to NYC via key routes.

Example:

             New York City
-----------------------------------------
VIA 440 Outerbridge Crossing      XX
VIA 78 Holland Tunnel                 YY
VIA 95 GW Bridge                       ZZ
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 03, 2020, 11:54:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 03, 2020, 01:13:27 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 03, 2020, 02:08:10 PM
The bracing was still there on Dec. 22nd.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on January 03, 2020, 04:16:57 PM
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.’

What’s up with all these new signs, I think they’re great.
I recall there used to
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).

The sign is for the continuity of the Interstate.  95 takes one over the GW Bridge.  Its an AASHTO thing. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on January 11, 2020, 12:53:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 13, 2020, 10:43:41 AM
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.

At least the next two major cities are mentioned for once and the NJTA is finally installing these signs as none have been added since the 10 at 10 mileage signs were removed over long periods of time in the past few decades.     Even the GSP is getting them slow but surely as well. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 13, 2020, 12:34:28 PM
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

Sorry, but that's just stupid. Wilmington is more appropriate than Trenton is. By Google Maps, the shortest drive from the NJ Turnpike to Wilmington city limits is 5 miles. Trenton's shortest is 7 miles.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 16, 2020, 08:19:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2020, 09:50:02 AM
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?

Because it's nearly impossible to convey that to drivers effectively, especially those that don't know what exit number they need.  Many won't even pay attention to the signage. Forcing everyone off at Exit 10 will only lead to motorists making illegal u-turns at the toll plaza, or struggling to find their way back to the NJ Turnpike after they go thru the toll plaza at Exit 10.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2020, 09:57:12 AM
Of course, the upside in NJ on the Turnpike is there's basically a parallel highway, if you think of the inner and outer roadways as being two separate highways, to keep people on the same route.  Even in South Jersey where the Turnpike is a single roadway, the parallel 295 offers a very convenient relief route. But when closures are necessary, the majority will stay on the Turnpike until they're forced to exit (and then yell at the toll collector that there were no signs, even though numerous VMSs encouraged such detours to 295).

If this happened in PA, or on nearly any other highway for that matter, people are forced onto local roadways. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 16, 2020, 11:14:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 16, 2020, 12:07:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2020, 12:15:51 PM
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.

They have been used in emergency situations to get cars off a roadway that just closed due to an accident, but doing so causes the initial congestion - the right lane of the inner drive needs to be closed via State Police or Turnpike vehicle to allow traffic from the outer roadway to merge over (and vice versa if the inner drive was closed; a vehicle would need to block the left lane of the outer roadway).  And I would suspect that was done here as well until the outer roadway was cleared of traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 16, 2020, 12:51:57 PM
At least with the U-turn movement at exit 10, you go past the tollbooth and just stay to the left to get back on. They'd have to post some trailblazers just past the booth but there's definitely precedent to that like at exit 8 where the signs direct you to go for 33 west and keep left at the SPUI. That movement is definitely trickier than the exit 10 U-turn movement but I frequently see cars and trucks doing the "Exit 8 U-Turn" during my daily commute through that intersection.

Plus with the newer electronic signs from the 2013 expansion, you can display the lane split signs to say "EXITS 6-10 ONLY" and "ALL OTHER TRAFFIC." (maybe an Alps comment on feasibility?)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 16, 2020, 01:55:39 PM
When the outer roadway is closed are there actual barriers or just the sign that says ROADWAY CLOSED DO NOT ENTER?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beeper1 on January 16, 2020, 10:05:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2020, 11:15:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2020, 12:12:39 AM
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.

That will happen when they do close one of the roadways during overnight hours for construction, but the barrel signs didn't pick up the command to go back to their normal configuration (cars only and cars-trucks-buses). You can see a radio antenna attached to each sign, they transmit the commands to change those signs via some sort of radio signal. I believe, though, that the new hybrid barrel/LCD signs in the 6-9 dualization are hooked up via fiber optics, and if they do get around to replacing the barrels north of exit 9, it would be the same.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2020, 12:14:08 AM
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.

When they close one of the roadways off for construction, they'll usually position several pieces of heavy highway equipment (dump trucks usually) in those lanes to really show it's blocked off. Seen it done with some trooper's cruisers as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 17, 2020, 01:09:02 AM
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?
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 20, 2020, 02:15:16 PM
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?
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.)

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2020, 08:10:14 PM
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?
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.)

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 20, 2020, 09:35:43 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2020, 10:00:24 PM
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.

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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2020, 10:19:53 PM
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 was a temporary crossover in that area during the widening project, however it wasn't between two live roadways. The inner roadway was closed from 6 to 8A. Around 8A traffic could diverge to the inner roadway or remain on the outer roadway.  That was the purpose of those overheads.

There were never plans to permanently install a crossover between the two roadways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 20, 2020, 10:49:08 PM
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.

The Parkway express-to-local crossovers are flyovers avoiding left-hand merges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on January 20, 2020, 11:23:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2020, 11:45:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 21, 2020, 12:37:59 AM
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.

Closures of either inner or outer roadways happen frequently at night for construction. Depends on the need. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 21, 2020, 07:03:07 AM
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.

Not on a regular basis. Just as needed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 21, 2020, 10:23:33 AM
Just a quick update on the reassurance markers that have been popping up. Most of them now have had the temporary supports for the sign posts removed and are freestanding. South of 13A in the outer roadway, they mounted the reassurance markers to one of the VMS install bridges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on February 08, 2020, 10:42:47 AM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 08, 2020, 12:49:50 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on February 09, 2020, 02:54:58 PM
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)

there's an error in the drawing. dimension W on the turnpike shield is incorrect; the values listed are too small. the correct value W' would be W' = W + L.

i discovered this empirically while testing out my Inkscape knowledge yesterday.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 12, 2020, 10:55:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 12, 2020, 02:59:00 PM
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.

Are you talking about the arrows on their trailblazer shields, like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7501632,-74.131281,3a,44.8y,108.68h,100.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syrVzbM4cNN9fNCZ1DRETug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)? If so, how did they look in the past. They've been using the circular arrow for as long as I can can think of. Even some of the newer assemblies with the 95 shields on them still are using the circular arrow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 17, 2020, 11:48:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 18, 2020, 01:28:23 PM
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.

Ah. They've been using the arrows in circles since the late 80s if I'm not mistaken. Haven't seen it done otherwise in many moons. Also, they're not the only ones who do it. The AC Expressway (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7065417,-74.979774,3a,44.3y,53.25h,93.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT7kSM6J7XmV9om9u0KzLWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is known to use circle arrows and put them above their shields, not below. Also, they didn't always used to use cardinal directions either, favoring either Camden or Atlantic City/Shore Points as its directional wayfinding instead.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on February 19, 2020, 11:35:06 AM
Found this YouTube video by accident while searching for something else:

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 19, 2020, 12:41:59 PM
Nice find.
@3:01; I don't believe I ever saw or heard the term MILK BAR as it pertains to road/service area signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on February 21, 2020, 05:04:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 22, 2020, 11:31:17 PM
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.

Yes, they seem to have replaced the Turnpike shields with ones that are done correctly to spec. Has to have happened in the past week. They look much better than the ones that were there before.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2020, 03:17:51 PM
https://www.nj.com/traffic/2020/02/toll-hike-proposed-for-turnpike-garden-state-parkway-but-they-wont-tell-us-how-much.html

Appears the NJ Turnpike and GS Parkway will be seeing a toll hike in the future.  The writer is a little aggravating though...other than the 'last minute addition' comment to the agenda (I've never seen an agenda posted more than a few days in advance of the meeting anyway, so I don't know if this is true or not), he writes the article in a manner where we should see the proposed projects NOW, at the same time as the announcement rather than at the public meetings, then goes on to seemingly say the PANYNJ's method of proposing a toll increase was better, even though I can't for the life of me figure out how it was.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 25, 2020, 04:04:55 PM
From your linked-article, towards the end:
Quote from: NJ.com
If approved, toll hikes would also help finance a proposal by State Senate President Steve Sweeney to provide dedicated funds for NJ Transit.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2020, 04:30:27 PM
From your linked-article, towards the end:
Quote from: NJ.com
If approved, toll hikes would also help finance a proposal by State Senate President Steve Sweeney to provide dedicated funds for NJ Transit.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 25, 2020, 07:02:33 PM
From your linked-article, towards the end:
Quote from: NJ.com
If approved, toll hikes would also help finance a proposal by State Senate President Steve Sweeney to provide dedicated funds for NJ Transit.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2020, 01:54:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 26, 2020, 02:31:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 27, 2020, 12:11:54 AM
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 (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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2020, 06:23:34 AM
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 (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 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.

It's the little details I miss! 😛
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on February 27, 2020, 09:32:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 27, 2020, 10:46:45 AM
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.

HAR is long gone.

NJDOT tried it on 295 in the Camden County area many years ago too. I don't think it ever worked!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on February 27, 2020, 10:49:39 AM
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.

https://www.virginiadot.org/travel/highway_advisory_radio.asp
Transmitters are strategically located along interstate highways or near major construction projects.

I have seen a few in the last few years but off the top of my head I don't remember specifically where.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 27, 2020, 12:39:41 PM
It's still used on the Thruway (and I think a few other places in NY too) as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jp the roadgeek on February 28, 2020, 01:08:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on February 28, 2020, 11:56:44 AM
HAR/TIS (travelers information station) broadcasts are widely used by the National Park Service to provide information about their parks and sites.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on February 28, 2020, 06:11:40 PM
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.
You can get real-time traffic stats on ConnDOTs website.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 01, 2020, 10:00:40 PM
Someone listened. The control city for the NJTP at GSP Exit 129 south has been changed from Camden to Philadelphia.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 01, 2020, 10:48:47 PM
Did they change the post 11 plaza guide to match?  According to GSV it has Trenton for the NB guide follow up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 01, 2020, 11:23:12 PM
Nope, still says Trenton there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 02, 2020, 09:04:57 AM
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.
_____________________________

In the past, I would post the below sign observations/updates in the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange thread but since such involves strictly the NJ Turnpike; I'll post it here:

As of yesterday (March 7); the southbound pull-through signs at Exit 8A still haven't yet been either modified with nor replaced with ones having I-95 shields.

The first of the dual I-95/NJTP shield reassurance markers north of Exit 6 (northbound outer lanes) is still missing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 09, 2020, 11:25:11 AM
Turnpike Authority has published a Public Notice (https://www.njta.com/media/5158/hearing-notice.pdf) for toll adjustments on both the Turnpike and Parkway. Includes a list of capital projects for 2020.

Highlights are:
- Upgrading the rest of the barrel signs, I am assuming to the newer hybrid barrel/VMS signs developed for the 6-9 widening.
- Widening projects at Exit 13 (the lane drops there always cause issues), at 16W, and on the western spur in general
- Widening the southern stretch from 1-4, I assume to 3 lanes each way.
- Some kind of mainline high speed crossover (I assume to allow you to go from the outer to inner roadways and vice versa at some point around 8A or so?)
- AET conversions, although I've heard that they plan to keep the ticket system and cash payments on the Turnpike.
- 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2020, 12:58:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 09, 2020, 01:05:56 PM
- 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 09, 2020, 01:17:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 09, 2020, 01:18:00 PM
- 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2020, 01:26:08 PM
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.

Kinda the chicken-egg thing there.  It's a long-haul route because there's not a satisfactory number of interchanges to serve the area!  Add in an interchange or 2, and suddenly it becomes more usable for the area.  But any other area where the Turnpike crosses local roads, there's generally just enough development in the area that'll create issues for those living nearby, and I can pretty much bet there's not a single town in the Gloucester County area that would be anxious in being on the receiving end of a new interchange.

The "2A" is often talked about, but as you point out, there's a lot of issues in building it.  But when you look at the list of projects to be funded, especially large-scale bridge projects, the impact of wetlands is more significant than many realize for those projects as well.

That all said, a lot of people want an interchange with 42.  Of course, if one were to be proposed, we will only hear from those opposed to it!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 09, 2020, 03:58:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2020, 04:35:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 09, 2020, 04:49:14 PM
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.

First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on March 09, 2020, 05:09:39 PM
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.
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2020, 09:25:20 PM
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.

First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.


No.

Full interchange only.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 09, 2020, 09:30:40 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:36:05 PM
Although there is no direct freeway connection from the southbound NJT to 295, you can switch over at Exit-4 with reasonable utility. I've done it several times.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2020, 09:37:46 PM
There's always alternatives. But that doesn't dictate how a real toll agency (sorry PTC) builds an interchange between 2 major highways.

Besides...part of the toll increase will go to fund completing full interchanges on the Parkway. They wouldn't go back and do a partial interchange on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 09, 2020, 10:10:15 PM
I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.
First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
No.  Full interchange only.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 10, 2020, 12:01:50 AM
I wasn't necessarily recommending a full interchange, at least to start.
First priority -- connect southerly Turnpike to southerly NJ-42.
Second priority -- connect northerly Turnpike to northerly NJ-42.
No.  Full interchange only.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 10, 2020, 12:27:15 AM
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.

Now if they ever complete the interchange at I-295 and NJ-42, that could handle these movements.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2020, 06:01:55 AM
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.

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 10, 2020, 10:19:25 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2020, 12:50:04 PM
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.
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.

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.  While people on here (meaning, those with knowledge of roads and best options) often have recommendations, it's amazing what motorists, and even GPS mapping systems, utilize instead.  When I use the NJ Turnpike to Exit 3 during rush hours, to my eye there's nearly an equal number of motorists coming from or going to NJ 168 North and South, and if I were to give it the edge one way or another, I would say more people take the NJ Turnpike South to NJ 168 North during the rush hour.  After they're on 168, some head over to Benigno Blvd but the majority stay on 168 North.  After that, it's tough to determine how most motorists travel, but it appears quite a number will take 168 North to 295 South.  But all options are in play, even the NJ Turnpike South to 295 North is fairly normal.

On the Turnpike side of the toll plaza, most motorists are heading to or coming from the North in my observations, as well as my history of working this plaza, and that all makes sense.  There's still a sizable number of vehicles going to or coming from the NJ Turnpike south of Interchange 3 though!

During rush hour, there's quite a number of motorists that take Interchange 3 to 4 and 4 to 3, especially in the afternoon rush, but any issues on 295 will cause a significant number of motorists to use the Turnpike between those two interchanges in the morning as well.  While using 73 to get to the Turnpike is (relatively speaking) painless, motorists are stuck with 168 to get to and from Exit 3.  If the issue is on Rt. 42, that's a long ride to get from 42 North to 168 North to the Turnpike, which motorists do just to get up to Exit 4 and hope to reclaim some of the time lost.

So, this is just a small taste of how motorists will utilize the entire existing road network as it is currently built, and of course I wouldn't have any data to further detail movements to/from these interchanges.  But in my daily commuting in this area, a motorist observing from outside the area and utilizing it on rare occasion will definitely have a different opinion of the functionality of it, compared to a daily driver!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 10, 2020, 03:01:41 PM
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. 
[I've read all of what is snipped]

I wouldn't say "exactly," I was responding to what you estimated to be "a $500mm to $1 bn interchange."

In that case I suggested prioritizing one or two quadrants, to provide a lower cost initial project.  Perhaps like you said in overall volume there might not be major differences between the 4 quadrants.

Given where I live (well south of N.J.), I was thinking first of the long-distance movements.
-- Philadelphia and SE PA is now fully accessed north-south by I-95.
-- From/to northern N.J. and north, the GSP provides direct access to the coastal parts of N.J.
-- 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.

In any event, a EIS/location study could analyze the alternatives and compile hard data to document the advantages and disadvantages of each.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2020, 07:07:58 AM

-- 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 11, 2020, 08:06:17 AM
-- 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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2020, 01:10:04 PM
-- 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?

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.

Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekends

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)

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.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 11, 2020, 04:31:14 PM
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 weekends
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.
That 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.

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.
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!
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2020, 06:56:04 PM
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.

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.

For what it's worth - I'll tell you the largest concern for traffic volumes in the area - down between Interchanges 10 (Center Square Road) and 11B (US 322) of I-295.  NJDOT is currently working on improving some of that with a new fixed-span overpass on US 130.  There's also a project that will widen US 322 between 295 & 130. 

Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekends
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.
That 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.

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.

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.
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!
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.  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 . 

So I'm not sure what you believe a Turnpike Interchange EIS may cover, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's much less than what you're imagining.  Clearly, *if* they were to engage such a project, they would look at the area right around the intersection of 42 and the Turnpike, and how such a project could tie into 55 and 295 in the immediate area.  And they'll review potential trips via a possible interchange, and may even look to see if it will add or take away trips from other interchanges.  But the level of info you're believing an EIS will cover in this area isn't gonna be close to what you believe they'll look at.  Otherwise, we would be able to pull that up for the NJ Turnpike's 6 - 9 Expansion.  I'll love to see it if you know where it exists though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 11, 2020, 09:01:03 PM
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.
No, it is only a sharing of ideas with whoever might want to contribute something.

I do like EIS/location studies, to flesh out hard data on what the impacts and benefits are for a proposal, but I am not saying that it is "needed," just that I can see some benefits from such a study.

If there is -not- going to be continued suburban growth, then that is a factor as well.

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.

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. 
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.

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.

Now if the I-95/I-295 interchange in Henrico County had missing moves, that would be a topic of concern for people who even live in a different state or even several states away.

The fact that I-295 and NJTP -still- don't connect to southerly NJ-42 and ACE, is a topic of issue for motorists from other states.

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.

A Tier I EIS/location study 2003-2006 covered the entire 325 miles of I-81 in Virginia, for example.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 13, 2020, 04:23:45 PM
NJ.com has an article about the proposed rates for the toll increases (https://www.nj.com/traffic/2020/03/we-now-know-how-much-proposed-toll-hikes-at-the-turnpike-parkway-are.html) by the Turnpike Authority. Turnpike increase is going to be around 36%, for both cash and EZ-Pass transactions, both peak and off peak. Bus discounts are changing as well and will be a flat 40% discount. Toll increases are expected to raise 500MM revenue for the next capital plan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 13, 2020, 10:49:21 PM
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.  See the map several pages down.

The connector near where the two freeways cross, would be an interchange complex tying into the NJ-42/NJ-55 interchange, and connecting to the turnpike about 1/2 west of where the two highways cross.  It looks like it has provisions for a ticketed toll plaza.  The cost is estimated at $170 million.

Given today's economic conditions, that cost would at least triple.  Given the trend toward All-Electronic Tolling (AET), perhaps they should not build a ticketed toll plaza design, but wait until the AET conversion date is known, and if they want to study an interchange consider a conventional free-flowing design.

One of the other alternates connects to the turnpike about 2 miles west of there and to NJ-42 about 4 miles south of there, and crosses NJ-55 about 2 miles south of there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2020, 07:12:21 AM
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....

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.

The backlash against the cross-county expressway options was swift and strong. A lot of people were going to lose their properties. The project didn't happen not because of the cost, but there was almost no community support and no political support.

Looking at the proposals I didn't realize how close one of them would have been to my parents house, where I grew up. It wouldn't have affected it directly, but would have gone thru a house on the historical registry just outside that development.

With more development in the area, there would even be less of a chance of getting this pushed thru.

In NJ, most projects need town and county support.  Without it,  they generally don't happen. After the Turnpike proposal for this went south real quick, they completely abandoned it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 14, 2020, 10:06:11 AM
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....
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.
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.

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)


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 14, 2020, 04:10:48 PM
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....
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.
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.

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)



50 is probably a no go in today climate.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2020, 04:12:12 PM
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.

Also it's not very apparent due to the trees, but there's some wetland issues there as well.

You'll have to do a lot more within the immediate intersection of the Turnpike and 42.  The ballfields, if they could be replaced in the general area, may be able to be scarified a bit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on March 14, 2020, 07:34:39 PM
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.  In South Jersey, the turnpike is the thru-route and 295 is the local route. While traffic may be heavier along 295, the frequency of interchanges make it more practical for most travel. If you are heading further north, it's reasonable enough to get on the Turnpike either from the Black Horse Pike or by jumping over at Route 73 or wherever else you prefer. While some of the local delays at the Turnpike interchanges during rush hour has been noted, it probably doesn't amount to heavy local traffic and more a reflection of toll collection. 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 14, 2020, 07:45:52 PM
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.

Still, NJ-42 is part of the freeway between central Philadelphia and the mid-coast area of New Jersey.  A pretty important crossing with the NJTP.

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.

Ditto for the ramp just north of the turnpike, those houses could be avoided.

Let's see what happens in 2024 when the missing moves are completed.  Maybe with good advance signing most everyone will be satisfied with using I-295 to connect to NJ-42 and the ACE.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2020, 09:29:55 AM
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2020, 11:53:38 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on March 15, 2020, 12:25:28 PM
Exit 2A Exit 24

FTFY :bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2020, 12:41:03 PM
Exit 2A Exit 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on March 15, 2020, 01:00:50 PM
Exit 2A Exit 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.

I haven't heard of any plans to go mileage-based, but since it's probably more likely to happen than an interchange with NJ 42, then we might as well go all the way with it. :P
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2020, 01:41:02 PM
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?

Agree on most points.

A full interchange I believe is the only way to go.  NJTA is resolving, as part of this toll hike, to complete nearly every partial interchange on the GSP.  Nearly every interchange on the NJ Turnpike is a complete interchange, including duplicate interchanges for every exit from 6 - 14.  There are two exceptions: Exit 17 and Exit 19W, both of which have their own nuances.  I wouldn't foresee them just doing a partial interchange here, especially as the partial 295/42 interchange has long been a sore point for the region.

I don't know if the residents of Bellmawr (and Runnemede) are used to it; maybe they simply put up with it.  Before the 295/76/42 project commenced they had a separate phase to redesign the traffic light system on NJ 168 & US 130 to accommodate traffic volumes better.  IMO it's not a completely great system - if there's a sensor failure it usually gives the minor street way too much time, and NJDOT takes way too long to resolve the issue.

A perfect interchange would need to involve the Turnpike, 42, 55 AND I-295, especially in relation to the new 295-42 missing move ramps coming.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 15, 2020, 03:12:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 15, 2020, 04:34:39 PM
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.

In most cases, I think that the switch to exit numbers based on mileposts is a good idea.  Not so much with the New Jersey Turnpike (and I realize that many state toll roads, including the Penn Pike, have made the switch). 

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).

If the NJTA were to go to milepost-based exits, do they start the numbering on the Penn Pike connector and count  up to present-day Exit 6? 

What happens with the exit numbers on the NJ-700 part of the Turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 15, 2020, 05:26:17 PM
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.

The New Jersey Turnpike is certainly one of them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2020, 09:05:35 PM
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?

Congestion south of 42 is minor. Congestion north of 42/76 can be that length routinely.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 15, 2020, 10:50:52 PM
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?
Congestion south of 42 is minor. Congestion north of 42/76 can be that length routinely.
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.

How much of the I-295 traffic on that segment would shift to the NJTP, would be the issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2020, 11:16:00 PM
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?

I'll try to explain all of this in full...

In that previous conversation, we were talking about the need for ramps from the NB Turnpike to SB NJ 42.  So I was referencing Exits 1 - 26 of I-295, from the Del. Mem. Bridge to 76/42.  I was quite clear on that.  I never said all of 295 has minor congestion.

Moving along to where traffic is heaviest is on 295 South.  On a daily basis, it is almost always congested during the afternoon rush hour from Exits 36 (NJ 73) to Exit 26 (I-76/NJ 42).  Some days, the congestion begins at Exit 40 (NJ 38).  On rainy days, it's been congested as far north as Exit 43 (Creek Road), all the way to Exit 26, a distance of 17 miles.

This may seem a little backwards especially for the afternoon rush, because this is generally the direction heading *to* Philadelphia.  There's an awful lot of county-to-county commuting in NJ which contributes to this backup, not to mention the whole 295/76/42 interchange which simply doesn't allow for the throughput and speeds necessary for the traffic is receives.  The stretches between Exits 36 to 34 (NJ 73 to NJ 70) and Exits 29 to 26 (US 30 to 76/42) are the worst and will back up first, and the rest fills in as rush hour continues on.

In the morning, there's congestion as well both directions between Exits 36 and 26, although generally not the entire length.  Due to my commuting schedule, I can usually beat much of that congestion, but will still slow down for a bit in that stretch.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2020, 11:28:59 PM
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?
Congestion south of 42 is minor. Congestion north of 42/76 can be that length routinely.
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.

How much of the I-295 traffic on that segment would shift to the NJTP, would be the issue.


On a normal basis, I feel very little traffic congestion will be relieved. 

During the morning rush, traffic flows at probably an A or B level on the NJ Turnpike between Exits 1 to 6.  Unless there's a major incident on 295 that shuts at least a lane down, there's no real time savings by fighting to get to and from the Turnpike, especially if you're already on 295.

During the afternoon rush, usually traffic flows fine on the Turnpike, although there can be some slowdowns below the speed limit, especially if a slower trucker or LLD is on the Turnpike.  However, especially getting off at Exit 3 (NJ 168), there's often some serious congestion trying to get onto 168 in both directions.  The decal lane will be backed up...the ramp lane and shoulder lane on the ramp are congested, and it's due to getting thru the toll plaza and waiting to get onto 168.  Based on my experiences, I could be free-flowing on the Turnpike but trying to deal with 168 costs me so much time, I'd just as well stay on 295.

On holidays and summer weekends, there will probably be a significant difference though.  Traffic slows down on the Turnpike Southbound upwards of several miles approaching Exit 4 (NJ 73).  Some of that traffic shifts over to 295, creating additional congestion on 295.  A widened Turnpike will relieve that congestion, so it'll definitely assist with keeping traffic on the Turnpike, and reducing the 295 congestion caused by the overflow onto 295 at NJ 73.

So, on a regular basis, while the Turnpike will probably experience faster traffic flow with a widening, there's still gonna be significant congestion exiting at Exit 3 onto 168, so it's probably not going to be any faster overall than it is now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 16, 2020, 11:54:27 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on March 16, 2020, 01:01:09 PM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 16, 2020, 01:34:12 PM
There is always the option of widening N Black Horse Pike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 16, 2020, 02:12:22 PM
There is always the option of widening N Black Horse Pike.

Not without a lot of landtaking and business buy out. That stretch of roadway is loaded with businesses and homes on both sides of the road, so that's probably not feasible at all.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 16, 2020, 03:55:06 PM
Will this Murphy Curfew affect Turnpike operations?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on March 16, 2020, 05:12:06 PM
Will this Murphy Curfew affect Turnpike operations?

I assume you mean https://twitter.com/KristenhCNN/status/1239562089821241345 .

However in midafternoon today came this...

https://kywnewsradio.radio.com/articles/news/murphy-closes-schools-nonessential-business-for-coronavirus

Quote
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.

[entire article at link]

ixnay

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 16, 2020, 06:28:29 PM
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

The completion of that construction will help, but not curtail, the congestion.  I have often noticed the area around 73 and 70 can be congested, but after 70 traffic gets back up to at and above the speed limit.  This shows that even if the 295/76/42 interchange project is ultra-successful, there will continue to be struggles in the area.

Also, going Northbound will probably get worse.  There will be a lot more room to get from 76 and 42 to 295 North, along with the dedicated thru routing of 295 itself.  That will simply further congest 295 Northbound.

There is absolutely no references to widening 295 north of 42 for the foreseeable next few decades.  While we have discussed the Turnpike/42 interchange in detail, there are no new interchange projects planned on the Turnpike as well in this region for the long-term future.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 16, 2020, 06:32:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 17, 2020, 12:26:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 17, 2020, 12:31:09 PM
Yes regardless of I-95 the Turnpike is still a road itself as much as I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 17, 2020, 12:33:01 PM
Just because the two routes are one north of Exit 6 does not mean it has to use the numbered road's destinations.  Camden is one for the NJ Turnpike and always was and no reason why it should not be.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 17, 2020, 01:04:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 17, 2020, 02:05:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 17, 2020, 05:55:42 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 18, 2020, 09:42:00 AM
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.
Camden is more fitting for I-295, not I-95/NJTP.
It should be Wilmington/Bal/WAS.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 18, 2020, 09:48:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 18, 2020, 12:53:59 PM
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!
16 cents per mile for cars. :-(

Is it still apportioned by segment?  Back in the 1970s the toll for the southern 60 miles was 1 cent per mile average, 2 cents per mile for the next 30 miles, and about 2.7 cents per mile for the northern 30 miles.  These are close estimates based on my memory.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2020, 12:56:03 PM
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.
There is a legal way.
Get off, then back on at a service plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 18, 2020, 01:38:07 PM
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.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.

Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2020, 01:58:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2020, 01:58:44 PM
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.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.

Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
Still legal though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 18, 2020, 02:39:10 PM
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.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.  Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
Still legal though.
It wouldn't take much volume before it congested and became problematic and got made illegal.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 18, 2020, 03:45:58 PM
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.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.  Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.
Still legal though.
It wouldn't take much volume before it congested and became problematic and got made illegal.
Which there would be no way to enforce unless you built two more rest areas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 18, 2020, 05:21:45 PM
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.
There is a legal way.
Get off, then back on at a service plaza.

I meant use the 'Police' exits between median breaks.


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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2020, 12:51:09 AM
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.
My friend... they are not proposing projects that are not needed. (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2020, 06:53:21 AM
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.

What's your definition of you "drive it a lot"?  Does that mean a few times a year, every month, every week?  Unless you mean every day, then you're missing out.  While it may not jam every day, peak period travel is definitely increasing and even hitting the speed limit can become a challenge, especially between Interchanges 4 and 3.  And when it congests around Interchange 4 Southbound, that means it starts backing up between Interchanges 5 and 4.  And as I referenced earlier, that means traffic will exit at Int. 4 and head over to 295 South, further congesting that highway.  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.

Hell, I can make an argument that the LA area barely sees any congestion...if I drive thru there at 2am every day.  So timing makes a huge difference between if you don't think there's a problem, and if you specifically avoid it because of the problem!

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.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 19, 2020, 07:16:33 AM
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

MAINLINE WIDENING BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 1 - 2
TOTAL PROJECT COST $400 Million
SCHEDULE Planning & Design: 60 months Construction: 24 months

MAINLINE WIDENING BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 2 - 3
TOTAL PROJECT COST $400 Million
SCHEDULE Planning & Design: 60 months Construction: 24 months

MAINLINE WIDENING BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 3 - 4
TOTAL PROJECT COST $300 Million
SCHEDULE Planning & Design: 60 months Construction: 24 months

None yet have a programmed construction date.

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.
That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 19, 2020, 12:52:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 19, 2020, 03:28:06 PM
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.

Not suitable for handling more than a miniscule amount of traffic that wants to connect from one mainline roadway to the other mainline roadway.

Whether freeway-grade ramps should be built to accomplish such movements, is a separate matter that should be evaluated in a traffic engineering study if in fact it is to be considered in the first place, and I have no other opinion about whether they should build them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 19, 2020, 05:31:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2020, 08:27:40 PM
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).

You have the Z turns and then you have the DeLorean turns (ɔ c 1000). I love those signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on March 19, 2020, 08:46:07 PM
Heh.  I like the term, "DeLorean turns."

Figuring out what those signs meant was a highlight of my childhood.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2020, 09:47:12 PM
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.

Currently, if theres a reason to shut down an entire roadway which is rare, they shut it down at the beginning. Gates and signage at the on ramps do the rest. If you're to shut it down midstream, you'll need multiple trucks to shut it down,  causing congestion,  slowly merge then to the other roadway, then create congestion on that roadway as they merge in

The  current method they use has worked for them for several decades. This isn't even a concern from what I can tell because no one ever brings it up.  The Turnpike would rather you not switch roadways midstream,  so there's nothing that details how to do it.

Has anyone here actually switch roadways because there is an actual reason to do so?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 19, 2020, 09:53:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2020, 09:56:47 PM
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.

What the hell? Did you actually read the proposals?

There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.

There IS a proposed widening on the western spur, which is noted as projects 27, 28 & 29.

High speed interchanges are generally unsafe unless they're connecting two limited access highways. That means Interchanges 6, 7A, 8A, 10, 11, 14 and 16E. 14 and 16E are about as smooth as you're gonna get, they've already widened 11 thru the years, they're working on 10, and they just rebuilt 6, 7A and 8A.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2020, 11:23:40 PM
There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.
He never said there was...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2020, 11:45:05 PM
There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.
He never said there was...

You're right...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 20, 2020, 10:01:31 AM
Yeh, and if not high speed than high volume.
The NJTP has a lot of very bad exits with a lot of weaving and short distances to the toll booth.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2020, 10:56:36 AM
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.

The lack of needed capacity on the mainline during peak travel times, causing bumper to bumper, 45 - 65 mph traffic, random stop-go congestion, is the issue, and this needs to be properly addressed by widening to 6-lanes. The turnpike north of Exit 4 opens up to 6-lanes, and all of these problems seem to disappear.

The interchanges would likely be improved with a widening, fixing whatever issues they may have.

The widening is needed, and will be completed in the decade.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 20, 2020, 05:05:19 PM
I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.
Spot treatment would be better.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2020, 05:07:17 PM
I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.
Spot treatment would be better.
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.

Interchange improvements will likely be included in such projects.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 20, 2020, 05:42:17 PM
This is unrelated to most of the topic, but does anybody know where I can get a nice aerial picture of the NJTP?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on March 22, 2020, 06:15:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 22, 2020, 07:23:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 22, 2020, 09:05:08 PM
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.

I think that applies nationally.

A railroad company that wants to abandon a line generally has to get approval from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB, the defunct Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is the predecessor agency to the STB).  Approval by the STB is not automatically granted either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 23, 2020, 03:23:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 24, 2020, 06:48:06 PM
I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.
Spot treatment would be better.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2020, 07:29:59 PM
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.
Spot treatment would be better.
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.

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? 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 24, 2020, 08:37:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 10:02:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 10:05:35 AM
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 NJTP needs a minimum of 6-lanes, and will receive such treatment in the next decade where any 4-lane segments remain, south of Exit 3.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 10:06:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 10:11:31 AM
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.

It is mostly rural.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 10:16:32 AM
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.

It is mostly rural.
The entire New Jersey Turnpike south of New Brunswick serves mainly long-distance traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 25, 2020, 10:20:43 AM
NJTA has suspended cash toll collections on the Turnpike and Parkway. They'll be doing video toll by mail for any drivers without EZ-Pass.

Guess this is a good dry run to see how the eventual move to full ETC will go.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2020, 03:47:43 PM
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.
Spot treatment would be better.
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.

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?
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.

I used to always get fucked up in Central Jersey between exit 6-9, until they made it 3+3.  Now?  I LOVE the NJTP, it's perfect.

Yeh I can't hit cruise control on the southern portion but I still get at least 65 if not 70.
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.

The WB NJTP absolutely needs expanding BEFORE exit 1-3.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2020, 03:50:59 PM
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.

It is mostly rural.

Very different.
First, that area has the suburbs of North and Central Jersey.
Second, that carries besides local traffic, regional, and long distance.
South of NB, the NJTP pretty much is the only big road, everybody gets funneled on there....including NJTP traffic, PATP traffic, and south Jersey I-295 traffic.

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.
Not to mention, its much more rural or less built up there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2020, 03:51:39 PM
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.
Seems most google results just have GIS maps, I just want the data.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on March 25, 2020, 04:21:16 PM
FYI the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway have temporarily gone cashless during the COVID outbreak.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 04:24:06 PM
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.
Not to mention, its much more rural or less built up there.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2020, 05:07:03 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2020, 05:13:33 PM
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.
Not to mention, its much more rural or less built up there.
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.

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.
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.

Second, I'd disagree.  This is apples and oranges for many reasons.

1)  NJTP south of the PATP handles long distance only traffic. 
-Local and regional Philly traffic is on I-95/I-295.
-I like to think of the NJTP in South Jersey as basically being the equivalent of the express lanes on I-95, with I-295 being the local lanes.

2) To that end, I-95 in MD between Baltimore and Wilmington is mainly 6 lanes north of exit 77.
-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?
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

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2020, 05:18:00 PM
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.
That stretch of the NJTP is the BEST part of the interstate system IMO from Richmond to Maine.  Just super smooth.

Look I disagree on the southern segment needing widened all the way.
I have driven it enough to have known if it was a problem.
IMO, going 65-70, that's still 'green' on google maps, that should be a very low priority.

I can tell you everyday (well every normal day) the WB NJTP spur where it's 4 lanes is jammed, jammed, jammed.
That needs addressed 1st.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 05:32:54 PM
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:

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.

I-95 between Richmond and Fredericksburg is 6-lanes. -> "exclusively long distance" traffic"
I-95 between Wilmington and Delaware is 6-lanes. -> "exclusively long distance" traffic
I-95 between Savannah and Miami is 6-lanes. -> ""exclusively long distance" traffic (with the exception of the urban areas)
I-80 / I-90 Ohio Turnpike between Cleveland and Toledo is 6-lanes -> "exclusively long distance" traffic
I-84 / I-90 between Hartford and Boston is 6-lanes -> "exclusively long distance" traffic

2) To that end, I-95 in MD between Baltimore and Wilmington is mainly 6 lanes north of exit 77.
-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
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.

What?  Why?
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
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.

    -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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2020, 05:39:19 PM
NJTP has I-295 and I-95 running //.

In MD and VA, there is no other road.
Thats why.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 05:50:20 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 06:07:56 PM
All those are on single routing.

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.
Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.

What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 06:39:28 PM
All those are on single routing.
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.
Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.
OK, but comparing the 4-lane NJTP to 6-lane rural Interstates on single routing is inappropriate.

What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?
I found ArcGIS maps with NJDOT volumes, but nothing for NJTP.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on March 25, 2020, 07:27:38 PM
All those are on single routing.
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.
Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.
OK, but comparing the 4-lane NJTP to 6-lane rural Interstates on single routing is inappropriate.

What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?
I found ArcGIS maps with NJDOT volumes, but nothing for NJTP.

I've never been able to find NJTP traffic counts either, even after asking here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 25, 2020, 07:29:46 PM
All those are on single routing.

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.
Still doesn't eliminate the need for 6-lane widening.

What'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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 07:30:44 PM
What's the AADT on I-295 vs. NJTP?
I found ArcGIS maps with NJDOT volumes, but nothing for NJTP.
I've never been able to find NJTP traffic counts either, even after asking here.
Strange!

NJDOT could do a service if they would post them on their AcrGIS map.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 07:35:06 PM
What'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 warrants
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.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 07:40:58 PM
46,000 to 49,000 AADT between Exits 1 and 3  -- close to 6-lane warrants
Considering 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 07:52:20 PM
46,000 to 49,000 AADT between Exits 1 and 3  -- close to 6-lane warrants
Considering 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.

Needs 6 lanes.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 08:15:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
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% 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.
Given the proximity to major metros, I would suggest a 2% average growth per year.

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.

Those are very high truck volumes, ranging from about 15,000 to 24,000.  That is enough to well-fill a 4-lane truck-only freeway.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 09:48:43 PM
Given the proximity to major metros, I would suggest a 2% average growth per year.

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.
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)...

Exits 6 to 7 - 99,600 / 119,000 (6.3% growth per year)
Exits 7 to 7A - 109,300 / 132,300 (7% growth per year)
Exits 7A to 8 - 120,700 / 150,200 (8.1% growth per year)
Exits 8 to 8A - 123,500 / 155,600 (8.6% growth per year)
Exits 8A to 9 - 145,200 / 175,700 (7% growth per year)

Over a 3 year period, this segment of the NJTP saw an increase of 6.3% to 8.6% growth per year. Not to mention, both the 2013 and 2017 volumes come before the I-95 / Pennsylvania Turnpike interchange / connector was completed in 2018, which would have likely brought additional volumes onto the Turnpike north of Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 09:49:59 PM
The widening may have enabled a spike between 2013 and 2017.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 25, 2020, 09:51:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 25, 2020, 09:56:12 PM
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.

Yeah, normally that would seem to be very high per year growth rates.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 25, 2020, 10:20:32 PM
Any word on if the inner carriageways will be closed?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 25, 2020, 10:22:36 PM
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.

Supposedly the Turnpike did consider a 10 lane, 5×5 widening of Turnpike between Exits 6 and 8A, but ultimately didn't pursue it.

Any word on if the inner carriageways will be closed?

Why? There's no reason to close then except for overnight work purposes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 25, 2020, 11:24:17 PM
Just a side note: AADT is only used in an annual context. You would want AMDT when talking about July. Other useful measures include AAWDT (weekdays) or AADTT (trucks).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 26, 2020, 12:05:14 PM
What'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 warrants
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 12:11:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2020, 12:38:02 PM
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 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


was stated above. Other things that will help you:
* What is the directionality of traffic - typically 51% to 55% in the peak direction
* What is the truck factor - HCM would say 1.5%, but could be higher depending on actual truck dynamics
* What percent of AADT is peak hour - typical range 8% rural to 12% urban traffic
* What growth per year and what is your construction horizon - we've been saying 1% but it could be under 1% in the county and over 1% on the Turnpike, or vice versa

I don't have an HCM in front of me, but Google says at a free-flow speed of 70 mph, 1,770 passenger cars/hour/lane is the LOS C/D threshold (3,540 for a 2-lane highway), and you're supposed to keep freeways at LOS C or better.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on March 26, 2020, 03:40:51 PM

[/quote]
1.  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.
[/quote]


How often is traffic an issue between 4 and 6?  It seems notably absent from the 10 year capital plan.

Concerning the proposed crossovers between 8a and 9, I assume that will involve multiple ramps since the budget is around $270 million, but I'm trying to picture how that would work.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 04:02:44 PM
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.

Exit 4 to 6 is less of a priority than Exit 1 to 4. After the latter is completed, then the former would be the next step.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2020, 05:24:33 PM
Quote
1.  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.

Generally it's ok.  The biggest issue appears to be the narrowing from 3 lanes to 2 at Interchange 4 on the Southbound side.  You'll find 3+ mile backups approaching Exit 4 during busier travel periods.  There's 3 real good spots for the Troopers to hide out in that stretch, which probably reflects that speeds are often quite high in this area of the Turnpike: NB in front of the service area.  SB just after Interchange 5 and the maintenance/State Police overpass approaching Interchange 4.

Otherwise, traffic moves pretty good.  I'll say I'm impressed at how well traffic merges down from 6 lanes to 3 below Interchange 6, although I still feel they should've gone another mile or so south where there's a good 1 mile plus of straightaway on a slight hill where there would've been wonderful sightlines and views of the merge would've been very photogenic.

And regarding traffic counts, I would be more interested about travel speeds than volumes on the Turnpike.  NJDOT releases them for specific areas on their road and highway system, and isn't shy about revealing measured speeds.  A few locations have 85th percentile speeds slightly over 80 mph (piss on that, VA!).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 06:23:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 26, 2020, 07:10:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 07:13:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 26, 2020, 07:18:41 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
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?
It seems rare, but some are posted at 55 mph.

NJ-72 - https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8485306,-74.4936581,3a,38.5y,304.49h,86.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH6U8yCQpIYkA2-Hj7oEyKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
NJ-70 - https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8997913,-74.5934135,3a,37.5y,76.26h,87.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sshGAsX76ktspGnQgc7s42g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Quote
What is the speed limit in NJ?
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).
https://nj.gov/faqs/drive/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 26, 2020, 09:15:38 PM
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. 

Nearly all have a maximum of 50 mph except for a couple that are 55 mph.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 09:19:04 PM
Like Maryland and Delaware. 

Nearly all have a maximum of 50 mph except for a couple that are 55 mph.
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.

The highest posted speed limit on two-lane roads on the Eastern Seaboard IIRC is in Florida with 60 mph.

Texas has the highest posted in the country, with hundreds of two-lane mileage posted at 70 - 75 mph. Very little to no incentive to exceed the speed limit, and people rarely exceed 5 over. My experience debunks the theory that the higher you post a limit people will just speed more. If you set an appropriate limit that matches the design of the road, most people will comply, certainly within a 5 mph range.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2020, 09:33:16 PM
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 26, 2020, 09:36:09 PM
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.   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.

What is the maximum for at-grade divided highways with 4 or more lanes?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 26, 2020, 09:36:31 PM
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.   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.

What is the maximum for at-grade divided highways with 4 or more lanes?
For New Jersey, 55 mph is the maximum allowed, though I believe the statutory maximum is also 50 mph.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2020, 10:49:55 PM
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.

Many confuse 50 mph as being the highest limit on a 2 lane road. The law never mentions that, and the speed limits written into law are referring to roadways that don't have a signed limit. Along with 70 and 72, CR 539 is a 55 mph roadway. Where 72 and 539 intersect, it's the only intersection in the state where all 4 legs are 55 mph roadways. And the intersection is very basic...doesn't even have left turn lanes!

The 2 lane roadway going from the Parkway into Sea Isle City was 55 mph as well, but was reduced to 50 due to construction.

There's a small piece of a 2 lane section of US 130 that could technically be considered a 55 mph road. Going south on 130 below the Commodore Barry Bridge, the 55 mph 2 lane-each-direction roadway eventually narrows to one lane per direction, where it should drop to 50 mph. The 50 mph sign got hit or otherwise went missing and was never replaced. There is a 50 mph sign about another half-mile south, but until then the single lane portion of 130 would need to be considered a 55 mph zone.

And when it comes to full access roadways with 4 lanes or greater,  NJ actually has a fair number of roads with 55 mph limits. More than most people realize.

Btw, here is the actual state statute. Again, note...there's nothing about 55 mph in it.

Quote
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.).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 27, 2020, 01:28:09 AM
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.

Just wish that the New Jersey legislature would get with reality and allow 70 or 75 on roads under NJTA jurisdiction.  Note that I am not saying that the entire Turnpike and Parkway should be posted for 70 or 75, but IMO much of both could be.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 09:12:07 AM
New Jersey never had more than 60 mph, pre-NMSL of 1973.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 27, 2020, 10:44:04 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 11:15:39 AM
Reminds me of articles in Car and Driver that I read around 1970 when I first saw that, they wanted to "set all the speed limits to the 85th percentile."

Even with high school math background I could see the gimmick at play here, they wanted to try to normalize group behavior that is well over to one side of the normal distribution ("bell curve").

80 mph speed limits in New Jersey?  Suuuuurrree.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 11:48:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2020, 12:46:59 PM
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.

You won't see 80 mph east of the Mississippi, and only 2 states have ever had anything over 70, that being 75.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2020, 01:00:43 PM
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.

70 mph or 75 mph would be reasonable on the Turnpike, if not 80. 65 mph is too low.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2020, 08:10:02 PM
Speed limit discussion snipped. Back to other discussion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 29, 2020, 11:38:00 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 12:52:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 29, 2020, 12:57:07 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 29, 2020, 11:15:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 31, 2020, 11:48:44 AM
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?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2020, 10:03:54 PM
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?



I believe that's correct.

It was rarely used, if at all. If they don't want people entering the Turnpike, they'll block the ramp with a vehicle or construction signage and cones.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on April 04, 2020, 07:35:42 AM
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.


It makes logical sense to rebuild 1-4 to 6 total lanes. Makes construction safer if you have to move traffic away from the workers when a median repair is required, or the shoulder needs to be repaired after a vehicle fire. It also makes sense to rebuild all the bridges down there, since a 6 lane turnpike would require new over and underpasses.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 06, 2020, 10:08:26 AM
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.
NO, I am saying a slow taper.

Exit 6 to 4, goes from 12 to 8 lanes, exit 4 to 3, goes 8 to 6 lanes, then exit 3 to 2, 4 lanes.

I think that is better than making it 6 lanes from the start.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 06, 2020, 10:12:36 AM
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?
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.
That should be expanded.
They MUST expand all sections in the north to 6 lanes well before they do so at exit 1.

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.
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.
It reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2020, 10:34:21 AM
I drive it all the time, I never get stuck in delays.
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.
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.

It needs 6 lanes, and will be getting such treatment in the next decade.

You argue it may not need 6 lanes now due to your experiences, how about 15 or 20 years from now? The situation is already an issue (not in your eyes) and will only get worse.

Quote
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 reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
There’s not much difference in design between the 4 and 6 lane segments.

Retaining a parkway design isn’t a reason to push off widening, which is an essential issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 06, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
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 reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
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.

Same cross-section and looks basically the same as the 6-lane sections, just 6 lanes instead of 4.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 06, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
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 reminds me of the Merrit Parkway in CT and I would hate for it to lose that over some rather non essential issue.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2020, 11:12:22 AM
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.

4 lane - https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8557317,-75.0954429,3a,75y,77.08h,85.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9wOxgyhUmYtRnDC0akPDaw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
6 lane - https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9469403,-74.9326141,3a,75y,50.81h,87.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL9tjYX_1CvGPYnBJtU2J1g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

6 lane widening would involve adding one lane to the outside in each direction, along with replacing / widening overpasses as needed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 06, 2020, 01:06:17 PM
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.
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.
I see that there is a lot of "mature" tree growth within 20 to 25 feet of the roadway.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on April 06, 2020, 01:11:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2020, 03:01:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 06, 2020, 04:40:50 PM
Also, the Turnpike was built pre-interstate, so while it was one of the leaders in the nation with standards that exist today, median width wasn't one of them.

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.

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.

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.
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.
I see that there is a lot of "mature" tree growth within 20 to 25 feet of the roadway.

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.

The Turnpike has occasionally cut back some of these trees to increase the safety zone off the highway.  They kinda randomly do it though, and some areas the trees remain much closer to the highway than other areas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 06, 2020, 04:47:00 PM
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.
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on April 06, 2020, 06:44:27 PM
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.
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2020, 06:49:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 06, 2020, 09:23:26 PM
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.

VA I-64 near Skipwith Road in Henrico County -- https://tinyurl.com/udv5h4q
Median treatment built in 1980s inside-widening project.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 06, 2020, 11:27:00 PM
I remember that narrow median came up in the 90s when a state trooper was killed running radar while parked in one of the breaks in the median barrier in South Jersey.  If I recall correctly a driver went out of control after seeing the trooper, drove into the median barrier and then hit the trooper's car which was straddling the barrier in the break. I believe that resulted in a change in policy prohibiting troopers from running radar in the median.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 07, 2020, 12:15:32 AM
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.

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)
Median on I-64 near Clifton Forge that is 20 foot grassy with two sets of cable guardrail. (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) 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, with at least one 60 mph curve, no median protection. I wonder how many median crossover crashes occurred here, seems inviting. It now is posted at 70 mph and with at least two sets of cable guardrail.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 12:34:30 AM
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)
That does have 5-foot paved left shoulders, and a W-beam guardrail median barrier.

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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 07, 2020, 01:12:02 AM
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.

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
Certain highway segments in Hampton Roads have gotten such cable guardrail treatment as well in the past 5 years.

This includes...
- A 1.4 mile segment of I-264 in Virginia Beach between the First Colonial Rd overpass and the Birdneck Rd overpass where that segment is 6 lanes and is divided by a 40 foot grassy median.
- A 7.5 mile segmnet of I-664 in Chesapeake, Portsmouth, and Suffolk between the Jolliff Rd overpass and the MMMBT where that segment is 4 lanes and is divided by a 52 - 64 foot grassy median.
- A 3.5 mile segment of VA-168 in Chesapeake between the VA-165 overpass and the Hillcrest Pkwy overpass where that segment is 4 lanes and is divided by a 30 - 42 foot grassy median. This project was completed locally by the city who maintains the roadway back in September 2019, not currently visible in Google imagery.

Other notable areas do lack treatment, such as a 2.3 mile segment of I-464 between the Freeman Rd overpass and north of the VA-337 overpass where that segment is 6 lanes and is divided by a 40 foot grassy median; a 4 mile segment of I-64 between the Patrol Rd overpass and the HRBT where that segment is 4 lanes and is divided by a 42 foot grassy median, granted this will be replaced fairly soon by a jersey barrier apart of the upcoming HRBT expansion; a 6 mile segment of VA-168 between the Hillcrest Pkwy overpass and Gallbush Rd where that segment is 4 lanes and is divided by only a 30 foot grassy median, another project that would be completed by the city of Chesapeake; a 3 mile segment of US-17 between Great Bridge Blvd overpass and Grassfield Pkwy 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 (https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/chesapeake/police-investigating-two-vehicle-accident-at-veterans-memorial-bridge-in-chesapeake/291-a903eb3e-53b7-43f5-919b-3513905cb34e) 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.

Outside Hampton Roads, there are a decent amount of freeway segments that would benefit from cable guardrail installation throughout Virginia for safety purposes. In North Carolina, cable guardrail is included on a significant amount of freeway segments, ranging from 30 foot to 80 foot medians, since before 2007 on many. The likelihood of a median crossover crash would be low to none on segments like this. I don't know the total cost of the program and when specifically they were installed, but is certainly a worthwhile investment for safety purposes, and is now a default feature on any new segment, regardless of median width.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 07:03:00 AM
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.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2020, 08:09:26 AM
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.
 

Admittedly straying off topic here.

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.

DE is installed guardrail along I-95 north of Wilmington, but I question their location.  Often times 95 South is raised a bit higher than 95 North.  They are installed the guardrail down near the bottom of the slope.  To me, it would appear a car leaving the roadway on 95 South could easily fly over or land on top of the guardrail, conditions which the rail isn't designed for.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 09:43:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 07, 2020, 10:33:43 AM
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.

A 46 foot median warrants a cable guardrail. Even VDOT recently installed cable guardrail along I-664 which is divided by a 52 to 64 foot median.

Eliminating any potential for a median crossover crash should be the goal for any freeway, regardless of median size. Just because it’s over a certain width (40 ft as you say) and the potential is lower, it still does exist. The recent segment installed on VA-168, which has an offset design (shifting from one side to the other) every few thousand feet, with a median of 40 to 42 foot, I recall a couple of different head-on crashes as a result of median crossover over the past decade or so, which now would be preventable. Why -not- install a guardrail, just to fully eliminate that risk, on all projects?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J3ebrules on April 07, 2020, 10:36:21 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 07, 2020, 10:37:29 AM
What is the point of a 35 mph speed limit?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 07, 2020, 10:54:35 AM
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.
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.

The only area I have issues with now is the western spur north of exit 16 where it goes to 4 lanes.
Before 2014, I always got fucked it seemed in central Jersey between 6 and 9, often having to take (ugh) route 1.
I just do not see the urgent need to make it 6 lanes.

I think a far far higher priority is fixing the Newark Bay extension and Western Spur to be 6 lanes, improving exit ramps and toll entrances throughout to minimize weaving, and some tapering between exit 6 and exit 3.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 07, 2020, 10:59:57 AM
Look I just haven't experience traffic slowdowns on the southern end.
Sure, I wish I could cruise at 80 mph, but really that is a luxury and hardly worth using the limited resources.
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.

Quote
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.

You’ve failed to consider this once again, how about 20 or 25 years from now? How will the traffic be then?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 11:32:29 AM
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.
I don't agree with that, for the aforementioned reasons.

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.

Even with the safety of a freeway, there are still risks.  Should they build automatic crash barriers on every ramp to stop a possible wrong-way vehicle?  Wrong way driving is far more catastrophic.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J3ebrules on April 07, 2020, 11:42:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on April 07, 2020, 11:55:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 12:20:33 PM
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.
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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on April 07, 2020, 01:25:02 PM
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)

To interrupt yet another Beltway/sprjus4 fight, I passed over the Turnpike on a lunchtime bike ride (south of exit 8) but it looks like the northbound outer roadway is open to general traffic again. Still a lot of trucks in the car lanes but a slight trickle of passenger vehicles and trucks in the outer lanes too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on April 07, 2020, 03:23:05 PM
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.

I was on the turnpike last week, from Exit 6/PA Turnpike up to the north end, and all lanes/roadways were open.  In fact, it was my first time since the 90s on the turnpike south of Exit 10.... what a difference!  Still gonna take a minute to get used to the MUTCD signage north of Exit 9.

Photos here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/albums/72157713731030436
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2020, 03:24:38 PM
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?

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.

There's probably also the 'innocent driver' risk, where someone driving one way gets hit by an errant driver going the other way.  However, compare it to a driver going down the road, leaving to the right, and hitting a tree.  It's assumed the driver that left the roadway only harmed themselves, not an innocent driver going the opposing direction.  It may not be completely true, especially if there's innocent victims in that car, but that's how public perception goes.

You know the standards and rules well no doubt, and you will design the roadway as the standards exist.  As long as you do your job, it's out of your hands - and your responsibility - if another engineer or supervisor modifies the plans to add guardrail where it's not totally necessary.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2020, 03:31:20 PM
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)

As indicated by others, less traffic on the Turnpike allows them to do daytime closures vs. nighttime closures, but that's the only reason why the roadway is closed.  Earlier this week the inner roadway was closed one day in a similar fashion. 

But otherwise, I think people are thinking way too much into the closure of a roadway. I haven't seen this same thought process regarding express vs. local roadway setups, for example. 

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.

Yeah, it's some sort of default, and the signs flash very slowly...like a slow, mocking clap.   As you saw, the work vehicles on the roadway are generally moving quite fast when they're not actively working.  For that matter, the work vehicles on the Turnpike move quite fast anyway.  It's a bit surprising to be driving 80 mph, and still get passed by an orange NJTA pickup truck! lol

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2020, 04:19:54 PM
https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf

Whomever shared that document, thank you!

Just a few random notes:

Page 19: GSP Interchange 17 Improvements
Quote
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.

Heh...I liked how they tried to term it as eliminating the need to travel to Exit 13.  They know all too well everyone makes the U-turn just north of this interchange thru the travel plaza.  The old NJHA used to be a lot more permissive about this move in writing; the NJTA seems to shy away from talking about this movement. Although it's completely legal, they don't like the need to get from the right onramp to the left service plaza ramp NB, and vice-versa SB, in about a 1/2 mile span of travel.

Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29

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.

Page 28 - NJ Tpk - Extending the 4th Lane around Exit 13. 

I remember when they did the 4th lane widening for the HOV lane and decided the cost was too high in this area to add the 4th lane.  Never cared for that decision in the first place.

Page 29-30 - Conversion to AET

High price tag of $900 million, probably due to the need to remove every toll plaza, and there's an incredible number of utilities, tunnels and other hidden items to consider.  Of course, they're getting a practice run at it right now without toll collection, and may get some sort of idea what the payment response rate will be.

Various projects - Wozzers of price tags

The cost of widenings is just insane.  And I'm usually defending the price tags due to, well, it being NJ. But just incredible estimates. Who knows...maybe the new normal after Covid-19 will change traffic patterns significantly enough to reduce the need on some of those widenings.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 06:26:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 07, 2020, 07:23:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 07, 2020, 07:57:11 PM
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.
It's cost-benefit. Lives have costs. Guiderail has a cost. Do the math and decide.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 07, 2020, 08:18:28 PM
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.
Again, the "if it saves one life" fallacy.

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. 
 
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2020, 12:48:25 AM
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.
Again, the "if it saves one life" fallacy.

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. 
 
 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 02:14:46 AM
SAFETY BENEFITS OF MEDIAN
BARRIER AND ROADSIDE GUARDRAIL (https://www.atssa.com/Portals/0/Blog%20News/SafetyBenefitsGuardrail_2017Book_Final.pdf?ver=2019-01-07-143743-100)

Excerpts:

Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

The end of the report features success stories from the installation of cable guardrail. The first two examples, a semi-truck and a passenger vehicle, both with median widths visibly over 40 foot wide, prevented head-on collisions that otherwise would’ve occurred and likely killed innocent drivers, notably the truck.


1:24 is a perfect example of what happens when you lack median barrier, and that example appears at least 50 foot wide.

The Missouri Department of Transportation did a video back in 2011 that actually discussed the issue with a reduced clear zone, indicating the severity of those crashes are far less and certainly a price to pay in order to prevent median crossover crashes.


The Arizona Department of Transportation claiming median crossover crashes on a section of I-10 with an 80 foot median are very rare and installing a cable barrier would only do more harm; however actual numbers of crashes, injuries, and fatalities go against that fallacy claim as there’s been numerous of them head on, even with the large median. The cost of median barrier installation would be significantly less than the costs of lawsuits, claims, etc. the lack of barrier and deadly crashes have costed. At 80 foot wide, a centered cable guardrail would provide about 40 foot of clear zone on either side, at that point any potential collisions likely to be non-fatal and property damage. This, as opposed to a car flying across 80+ mph with no separation, assuming 80 feet will stop them, and like the numerous times mentioned in the video if not, right oncoming traffic into a fatal collision. I’m not necessarily saying all medians 80 feet wide need cable guardrail, but on sections like this where clusters exist based on previous records despite ADOT calling fallacy, they should certainly be considered and not pushed off by the state merely because of poor data on their end.


Additional studies have been completed by NCDOT (https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/18626/dot_18626_DS1.pdf?), TxDOT (https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4254-1.pdf#page103), WsDOT (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/591.1.pdf), and others that can be easily accessible online.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on April 08, 2020, 02:27:34 AM
So a man named Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, wrote in the NJ.com opinion section to voice his concerns with the future widening projects of the Turnpike and Parkway. It explains that these types of projects will be affecting environmentally sensitive areas. While the concerns are understandable, IMO it's much needed based on the increasing volume of traffic, especially to alleviate bottlenecks on the southern portion of the Turnpike in the vicinity of exit 4 down to the southern terminus where it narrows down from 3 to 2 lanes.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2020/04/turnpike-authority-capital-plan-is-irresponsible-opinion.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 07:05:17 AM
SAFETY BENEFITS OF MEDIAN
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.
Did you notice that the author, American Traffic Safety Services Association, is a private company and an advocacy group -- 
American Traffic Safety Services Association represents the road, traffic, and highway safety industry with effective legislative advocacy, traffic control safety training, and a far-reaching member partnership.
HTCB is a recent guardrail design, High Tension Cable Guardrail.  I see that they have their advocates out marketing their product.  Interesting informercials that you posted there!

The NCDOT study is "Median Barrier Placement on Six-lane, 46-foot Median Divided Freeways."  Those 6-lane freeways are by nature high volume freeways and that width and volume looks in the zone of possible logical warrants.  The cost of the guardrail per vehicle mile traveled goes down as the volume goes up.   Up to 75 feet sounds like something promoted by certain elements of the highway contracting industry.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2020, 07:23:16 AM
Anti-barriers

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? 

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 07:52:28 AM
Anti-barriers  [jeffandnicole edited my comments]
Why are you so against guardrails, cable barriers and other protective measures?
This is a stupid comment.  I always have been in favor of  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.

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.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2020, 09:58:45 AM
It should be noted that when the PA Turnpike originally opened, I don't believe they did have a median barrier.  Just 1 of many examples of how engineering standards evolves over time.

When the NJ Turnpike opened, as we discussed, it was a standard metal W guardrail barrier, not a concrete jersey barrier. Just 1 additional example of how engineering standards evolve over time.

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.

Isn't that exactly what Alps has said, and you argued with him? Twice?

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.
 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 10:35:54 AM
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.
Well, that is a lack of engineering that I find objectional when and if that occurs on the highway system, given limited budgets.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 11:07:12 AM
.  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.

Quote
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.

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? You’ve claimed this, but evidence shows otherwise. At this point, the installation of cable guardrail has proved successful countless times to mitigate those crossovers, and limit any damage to a non-fatal encounter with the cable as opposed to another car head on at that same 75 - 80 mph speed, killing both in the process.

Cable guardrail has been proven successful, and is evident by its use in numerous states across the country, notably those with medians wider than 40 feet which supposedly don’t need them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2020, 11:16:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 11:20:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 11:21:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 08, 2020, 12:32:54 PM
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.

When NJ decided for guardrails in nearly all medians, they decided against cable due to the high maintenance costs and loss of safety benefits between the time being hit and getting replaced. Standard guardrail is much more expensive, but NJDOT determined it's worth the overall benefits.

To roll this back to that turnpike in NJ, when they engineered the Jersey barrier they use, it was designed for a 55 mph truck to hit it at a 15 degree angle - much stronger than traditional jersey barriers. It was designed during the NMSL days. Even though the limit on the Turnpike has been 65 for a few decades now and true travel speeds above that, the NJTA must figure that it's still adequate. It should be noted that they still use standard guardrail in the dual-dual section between parallel roadways slowing in the same direction, but I guess they figure that even if a truck gets thru that, it will generally be a sideswipe accident which tends to be less severe.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 03:23:23 PM
Moderators, feel free to move this sub-discussion somewhere else if you want -- I have no objections to having a median barrier on the NJTP with its 25-foot medians and outer separators.  Those are narrow medians and the highway has very high total volumes and very high truck volumes.

.  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.
I dismissed the one that you posted from an industry advocacy group.

Where is the summary data from an officially commissioned engineering report?

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.
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.

On a 70-foot median and 15,000 AADT, for example, show me the data, not emotional arguments.

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.

Government agencies nearly always claim sovereign immunity, which means that they cannot be sued in court by private entities.

Quote
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.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 03:29:12 PM
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.

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. This is happened umpteenth times across this forum on many different subject areas.

Many states have properly installed cable guardrail in larger medians, up to 70 feet wide, have reaped the safety benefits of them, including examples, some in the report I provided, of how they have actually saved lives - on larger medians - and will continue to do so. North Carolina, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alabama are just a few. Some have been installed in Virginia in recent years and may well expand to other locations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 03:33:37 PM
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.
You don't have an argument, other than emotional.

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.

Quote
of how they have actually saved lives
How many lives have been saved?
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 03:35:16 PM
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.

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.
Please. I've provided plenty of proof, and you dismiss it because it's "advocacy".

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.

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.

If you're curious, do the research yourself. Plenty is out there on the internet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 03:41:10 PM
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.
A vehicle at 70 mph is not going to enter the median at a "45 degree or more angle."  Simple physics and kinematics.

What if some guy tries to commit autocide?  What if … what if ...

Please. I've provided plenty of proof, and you dismiss it because it's "advocacy".
You have not provided any proof.

Quote
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.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 08, 2020, 03:42:53 PM
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 03:45:47 PM
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.
I can't believe that you wrote that.

He looks for a median crossover and uses that to get to the other roadway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 08, 2020, 06:46:27 PM
A cross median accident even on the northern NJTP doesn't automatically mean that any other vehicle gets hit.  This tandem truck wreck tore itself up and some guardrail but nothing else, and there were lots of vehicles nearby.


A concrete median barrier might have prevented crossover, but a HTCB (High Tension Cable Barrier) would have suffered the same fate as that double-faced W-beam guardrail.
 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 09, 2020, 12:42:09 AM
https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf
Wow...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...


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 09, 2020, 07:34:49 AM
https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf
Wow...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?

All projects except one (HYBRID CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS) have STATUS -- To be programmed.  That means unscheduled.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2020, 11:27:49 AM
https://www.njta.com/media/5179/proposed-2020-capital-improvement-program.pdf
Wow...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?

All projects except one (HYBRID CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGNS) have STATUS -- To be programmed.  That means unscheduled.

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.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 09, 2020, 11:35:58 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2020, 11:55:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 09, 2020, 01:29:40 PM
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.
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!
So it is basically a long-range unconstrained plan.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jemacedo9 on April 09, 2020, 02:02:02 PM
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.
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!
So it is basically a long-range unconstrained plan.

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.
They released the list as a "wish list" to justify the proposed toll hikes...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: theroadwayone on April 09, 2020, 02:35:06 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 09, 2020, 03:44:14 PM
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.
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!
So it is basically a long-range unconstrained plan.

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.
They released the list as a "wish list" to justify the proposed toll hikes...
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2020, 04:26:55 PM
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

Correct. No credit cards.

Of course, no cash now either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 09, 2020, 06:17:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2020, 06:33:55 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 09, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2020, 07:30:45 PM
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.
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.
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.

Most people want fewer tolls and better roads.

Also, the law doesnt require options. The law states they need to have public meetings regarding a toll increase.

If they had options, it will only piss more people off. Let's say there were 3 options, and the 3 were voted on equally. The Turnpike Authority can only choose 1 option. They now pissed off 67% of the people that voted because their option wasn't chosen.

The general public has no idea what a TIP is, how projects advance thru various stages and when they'll start, how much money they cost, and why they're so expensive because they can do it for cheaper. When public meetings are held for specific projects, very few people show up, and they want to know two things: Will their property be taken, and why will it take so long.

So while you and I would like to see detail,  the vast majority of the state isn't even aware of a possible toll increase, much less various options.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 09, 2020, 08:00:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 10, 2020, 09:01:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2020, 10:08:10 AM
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?

Any of the widening projects would be great to see.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 10:20:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2020, 11:18:01 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2020, 11:25:30 AM
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.
Per the 2020 CIP, those projects total $1.1 billion. 

Given that the whole CIP totals $24.1 billion, those widening projects would seem worthy of high priority.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 11:27:16 AM
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.
Per the 2020 CIP, those projects total $1.1 billion. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2020, 11:58:51 AM
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.
Per the 2020 CIP, those projects total $1.1 billion. 

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.

Remember the CIP covers both roadways, and the toll increases cover both roadways, so the NJTA won't be able to just constrain all their projects to one roadway.

Also, priorities come in all sorts of needs and wants.  The NJ-PA Turnpike Connector is probably going to be a priority because there's already a well known issue with the bridge, and I'm sure its life expectancy was greatly reduced after the crack formed.  A bridge collapse has the potential to kill many motorists, both on the bridge and below, and would severely undermine the enter nation's confidence in our highway system (more than it already is).  Without any redundancy within the tolled corridor, and insufficient redundancy outside of the tolled corridor, we're probably going to see this project advance relatively quickly.

There's other projects on the GSP that are low cost but have been issues for years, such as some of the partial interchanges.  Exit 17 for Sea Isle is often cited as a nuisance, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a higher than normal accident rate in the area due to how motorists need to turn around and access the interchange.

Other items, such as the fiberoptic network replacement, don't directly affect our drive. But if they are utilized for communications for EZ Pass and the electronic overhead signage, a disruption in that network has significant affects on how the Turnpike can control traffic, and how our transactions may or may not be recorded properly.

So anything we may see as a priority because we can physically see it, may not be a priority to the Turnpike because their engineering department knows they have a limited time to complete other projects.  And priorities just don't come in high-priced projects.  A $2 million project can easily advance faster than a $200 million project due to its limited scope.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2020, 01:22:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 01:37:18 PM
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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2020, 01:53:01 PM
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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2020, 02:12:48 PM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 02:20:45 PM
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge?   :clap:
Yes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2020, 04:08:05 PM
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:
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 04:12:40 PM
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:
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.
How about in 20 or 30 years?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2020, 05:13:56 PM
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:
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.
How about in 20 or 30 years?

In 30 years the original DMB will be 100 years old, so the likelihood of a complete replacement may not be out of the realm anyway.

The DRBA should really be considering something to replace the Ferry system they have, but current board members would probably treat it as a "not my problem" issue and will keep pushing it down the line.  They would also need to get DelDOT and NJDOT/NJTA on board with projects on either side as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2020, 06:15:43 PM
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:
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.
How about in 20 or 30 years?
125K? Still OK.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2020, 07:10:36 PM
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge?   :clap:
Yes.
Tongue-in-cheek.

It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2020, 08:22:26 PM
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge?   :clap:
Yes.
Tongue-in-cheek.

It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.
Would be still a beneficial connection to the Garden State Pkwy from the south.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on April 10, 2020, 08:41:35 PM
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge?   :clap:
Yes.
Tongue-in-cheek.

It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.

What Would You Say if there were a Crash on that Satellite crossing?

:bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Beltway on April 10, 2020, 08:47:21 PM
Time for a Delaware Bay Bridge?   :clap:
Yes.
Tongue-in-cheek.  It would only provide marginal relief to the DMB.
Would be still a beneficial connection to the Garden State Pkwy from the south.

Both states would have to show sufficient interest in order to get it built.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 21, 2020, 10:47:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 11:08:10 AM
That was a good laugh.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

And yes, completing those projects will surely significantly reduce -long distance traffic- congestion much more than needed widening when a small amount of locals are removed from the picture.

They made this same “transit”  and “rail”  argument with I-81 in Virginia, it doesn’t work and backfires every time. No research ever goes into these RE/T pieces, do they? Will they ever get a brain?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 21, 2020, 11:31:05 AM
That was a good laugh.

Quote
Since 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2020, 01:42:47 PM
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 that linked "study" was worth an eye-rolling good laugh as well.  Supposedly they compared pollution levels from 2000-2016 in 3,080 counties in the US, then compared it to Covid-19 deaths (all 2 month's worth), and claimed there was a link.  Without a doubt, that study was rushed, and absolutely ignored other facts such as: Where spread can be easily accomplished, which would be in congested counties, there would be more people.  Where would you find higher levels of pollution?  In congested counties.  Might as well have printed a study saying traffic lights cause Covid-19 deaths as well, since more controlled intersections would be found in congested counties.

The study should've never been printed, and the NJ.com article, which read more like an opinion article, should have never been passed off as fact.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 02:34:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2020, 04:18:25 PM
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:

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 06:16:56 PM
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:

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 21, 2020, 06:35:13 PM
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:

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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".

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 07:13:37 PM
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:

Quote
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 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.

Quote
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".

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 24, 2020, 03:46:07 PM
Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29

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.
Along 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 25, 2020, 02:07:26 AM
Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29

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.
Along 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 25, 2020, 08:13:43 AM
Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29

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.
Along 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.
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.
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 25, 2020, 07:30:11 PM
Page 21: GSP - Eliminating Exit 30; Full interchange at Exit 29

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.
Along 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.
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.
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. 

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.
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...)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2020, 11:04:25 PM
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.html

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 29, 2020, 12:01:51 AM
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.html

Quote
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.
Don't they usually make over a billion annually, close to $1.5 billion including the Garden State? $23 million isn't much.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2020, 01:43:42 AM
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.html

Quote
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.
Don't they usually make over a billion annually, close to $1.5 billion including the Garden State? $23 million isn't much.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2020, 08:54:39 AM
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/were-saving-money-by-not-driving-but-its-costing-nj-23m-in-lost-toll-revenue.html

Quote
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.
Don't they usually make over a billion annually, close to $1.5 billion including the Garden State? $23 million isn't much.

When compared to the overall revenue over an entire year, it's not much.  When you look at these numbers over projected revenues for a single month, it's huge.  This is still a very significant amount when you look at projects that need to be funded, pavement that needs to be repaved, etc.

Also, these are March numbers. The economy didn't take a big nosedive until the middle of the month.  So if we were to approximate these numbers for a full month, such as April, now you're talking a $46 million reduction in revenues that won't be made public until late May.  There will roughly be about a $70 million loss of revenue over two months, with a projected slow increase as the economy opens.  Most people still won't be travelling on vacations.  Many people are going to continue to work from home. So the actual revenues will continue to be well below projections for many months to come.

If you're looking at 1 month and saying "it's not that bad", you're ignoring the significance of how these numbers represent the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2020, 11:12:08 PM
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/04/coronavirus-ended-cash-collection-your-toll-bills-are-now-in-the-mail.html

Quote
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.”
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:51:33 AM
New Jersey bill would set ”˜fact-based’ speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)
Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 10, 2020, 01:18:21 AM
New Jersey bill would set ”˜fact-based’ speed limits (https://landline.media/new-jersey-bill-would-set-fact-based-speed-limits/)
Quote
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.

This has approximately 0% chance of becoming law. Getting the 65MPH zones in 1998 was a teeth-pull of the ultimate degree. This is just a thorn in the side politician saying he put a plan out there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2020, 08:31:12 PM
Amen to Senator O'Scanlon for proposing a bill that is actually realistic instead of the usual hypocritical crap.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 09:11:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 20, 2020, 06:22:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2020, 06:45:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2020, 07:08:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 20, 2020, 07:43:42 PM
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.
Probably 6 with left and right shoulders and clearance to the edge of traveled way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 21, 2020, 10:48:43 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2020, 02:58:08 PM
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?
Work. It'll reopen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2020, 03:27:51 PM
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.

That would be consistent with the design of the Exit 6 to Exit 8A widening project, and even then, it looks like another lane or two could be added each way without having to modify the bridges - excepting the flyover ramps leading in and out of the service plazas to the inner roadways, where the horizontal clearance appears to be less generous where they cross the outer roadways. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 22, 2020, 07:33:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2020, 09:50:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 22, 2020, 09:53:08 AM
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:

-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 work

To me, it seems like a kill two birds with one stone, get some minor construction done and funnel all traffic to one section, reducing wear/tear and self-regulating through volume speeding.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2020, 10:45:42 AM
From my observation:

-It wasn't work for the whole 30 miles, it was just a few touch up spots, hardly needing a full 30 mile closure
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.

-This section was just built, doesn't/shouldn't need major work
Routine 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2020, 04:08:31 PM
From my observation:

-It wasn't work for the whole 30 miles, it was just a few touch up spots, hardly needing a full 30 mile closure
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.

-This section was just built, doesn't/shouldn't need major work
Routine 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.
Simplest explanation is the correct one
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 22, 2020, 04:32:14 PM
From my observation:

-It wasn't work for the whole 30 miles, it was just a few touch up spots, hardly needing a full 30 mile closure
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.

-This section was just built, doesn't/shouldn't need major work
Routine 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.

One morning, the outer roadway was closed due to a major accident.  Easier to close the roadway approaching Interchange 6 than put people in that roadway only to delay them.  After the accident was cleared, there may have been some repairs to be done.  A motorist going past at this point may not have been aware of the accident, and only sees a roadway closed because of what appears to be minor guardrail repairs.

Point being, there's always a point in closing a roadway, regardless if the reason is readily apparent.  Those points are almost always going to be maintenance/crash related.  Never to purposely congest the open roadway.  And if that roadway is congested...it could be due to the gaper delays from looking at the accident that has since been cleared.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on May 24, 2020, 03:21:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2020, 09:42:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 24, 2020, 12:11:38 PM
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.

The interesting thing to me is going to be if it gets rubber stamped this time. Usually these increases are rubber stamped, but in light of the pandemic I wonder if that will still be the case. I wonder if some NJ legislators are going to try to dip into toll revenue more to fund NJDOT projects via some kind of toll sharing scheme.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on May 24, 2020, 03:31:53 PM
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.

i would expect the times listed are the duration from start date, which for each job would be dependent on 1) approval for funding, 2) successful bidding of the project, and then 3) scheduling project kickoff.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 27, 2020, 03:15:52 PM
NJ.com: New toll hike, $24B construction plan approved by Turnpike board despite calls to delay (https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/05/new-toll-hike-24b-construction-plan-approved-by-turnpike-board-despite-calls-to-delay.html)

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 30, 2020, 12:14:45 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 30, 2020, 12:17:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 30, 2020, 09:37:07 PM
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.

 Close enough though.

I see it not a problem.  Heck I have seen worse control cities on some freeways.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 31, 2020, 03:09:57 PM
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 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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 31, 2020, 03:23:52 PM
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.

This is a standard tactic from the Sierra Club and other anti-highway/anti-auto groups.

Of course, this ignores:

(1)  NJTA already diverts money every year to NJDOT for non-Turnpike/non-Parkway projects.  See this (https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcplaw/njta.shtm) which describes diversion in fiscal years 2018 and 2019.

(2) Revenue bonds sold by NJTA to raise dollars for capital projects on the Turnpike and Parkway are sold to people that expect to get their money  back with interest.   Transit in the U.S. does not collect enough revenue to fund any of its capital spending - all of it comes from sources other than the farebox.

(3) As you mention above, the NJTA does not normally get motor fuel tax revenue to operate or maintain its infrastructure.  Transit already does.  So in that sense,  it is a good thing that the NJTA frees up large sums of tax money that would otherwise have to be spent to maintain and operate the Turnpike and Parkway (if they were "free" roads).

(4) Objections to the NJTA proposed capital spending are not about transit patronage or air quality - they are about efforts to practice social engineering, in this instance, to "get people out of their cars," and has been remarkably unsuccessful since this sort of thing became popular in the 1960's and early 1970's.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 31, 2020, 07:02:27 PM
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.



It was probably mixed in with all the other news, but the suspension of cash tolls was publicized in the news and on nearly every VMS sign on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 01, 2020, 09:34:49 AM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 01, 2020, 03:04:29 PM
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 agree.

Wilmington doesn't make as much sense now that the 95 connection is official and the direct route to Wilmington south of Philadelphia. However, it does meet with 495 and 95 once you're over the Del Mem Br, so it makes sense.

As for Trenton and Camden, it's been the Turnpike's MO since its earliest days to consider those as control cities. Trenton is the state capital so it's an important destination. Plus, there is no direct route to there from the North Jersey/NYC area other than Rt 1, which is not a great express route at this point. Camden is still a big city in NJ so that will forever stay there. I take more issue with the refusal to use Newark as a control city going NB. I would use New Brunswick, Newark/New York, and then New York, but that's just me. Ignoring Newark isn't just a NJTA thing. NJDOT is notorious for that as well. 78 and 22 both go directly through the city, and 78 is a main route to the airport there from the west, but those pretty much use New York except in a few instances (pullthrus at exit 29 that seem to have just withstood various replace in kind contracts for signs at this point, the signs for 22 EB being changed on 287, even though several of those were replaced NB with New York as the control city again with the Chimney Rock Rd service road project). Newark is the state's biggest city and still an important business, transit, and intermodal cargo hub in the state. It should be highlighted as a control city. I am fine with Newark/New York being the control cities.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 01, 2020, 10:06:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 02, 2020, 09:19:22 AM
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.
Wilmington
Baltimore-Washington

Kinda like on the Capital Beltway it has:
Alexandria
Richmond
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 02, 2020, 10:52:14 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 02, 2020, 11:27:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 02, 2020, 01:51:25 PM
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.

There are no cameras on entry, so no way to identify a vehicle.

Here's the underside of Interchange 1 on entry: 3 overhead transponder readers, with loop detectors in the ground.  If you spin it around you'll notice laser height detectors as well.  But, no cameras.  Traditional lanes for EZ Pass and tickets are generally set up the same way.  https://goo.gl/maps/6h6zudt5wjoGLtv98

I imagine it may be on the honor system for someone to identify where they entered the Turnpike.  I don't recall reading a story how they're working the invoicing or what the invoices will look like.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 02, 2020, 08:13:55 PM
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."

You just gave half the board an aneurysm, but I agree. Sometimes the state name is the way to go.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 02, 2020, 08:38:35 PM
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.........

For many years there was a great sign on the approach road to the NJTP from the Lincoln Tunnel. It said New Jersey Turnpike South, Pa.-Del.-Md.. How I miss that sign.........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on June 02, 2020, 09:44:15 PM
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.........


Tell that to Colorado DOT.  Nearly every BGS that had Green River (UT) as a control city has now been changed to just Utah.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 02, 2020, 09:46:18 PM
@SIGNBRIDGE:

November 28, 2015 :)
(https://i.imgur.com/6yswkdK.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on June 02, 2020, 10:13:46 PM
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.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2020, 10:15:35 PM
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.


iPhone
only if you made two more delaware memorial bridges and added 3 lanes each way to the i-95 merge
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on June 02, 2020, 10:21:47 PM
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.


iPhone
only if you made two more delaware memorial bridges and added 3 lanes each way to the i-95 merge
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.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on June 04, 2020, 10:56:13 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 04, 2020, 10:57:34 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 04, 2020, 11:48:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 05, 2020, 05:12:15 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 05, 2020, 11:21:32 AM
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?
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?" 

More importantly, these glitches cost the various bridge, highway, and transit authorities notable amounts of revenue that would otherwise be used for maintenance and improvement projects.

Besides that, I just like the idea that the toll plaza on the south end of the New Jersey Turnpike is officially unmarked Exit 1. And getting the ticket is easier too.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 05, 2020, 12:50:16 PM
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.

I. Like
NA-Cashless
1-project 1, int 17
14-project 14, extend 4th lane
20-LOVE, new DE R bridge to PA
23-Like, widen exit 3-4
TPK Tremley Point Connector at Interchange 12
25 TPK Newark Bay - Hudson County Extension Mainline Widening Between Interchanges 14 - 14A
26 TPK Newark Bay - Hudson County Extension Mainline Widening Between Interchanges 14A - 14C
27 TPK Westerly Alignment Mainline Widening Between Southern Mixing Bowl - 15W and Replacement of Laderman Bridge
28 TPK Westerly Alignment Mainline Widening Between Interchanges 15W - 16W
29 TPK Westerly Alignment Mainline Widening Between 16W
2 Mainline
10
- North Mixing Bowl and Interchange 16W RampsII. Meh

III. Prefer
-Skip 1-2 widening
-Widen 4-6 to 4 lanes


So is the nJTP past 16W going to be 6 lanes now?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2020, 02:21:15 PM
III. Prefer
-Skip 1-2 widening
No.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 06, 2020, 01:07:17 AM
III. Prefer
-Skip 1-2 widening
No.
Yes. He does prefer that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 07, 2020, 09:11:41 PM
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?

(https://i.imgur.com/yxb12ZZ.jpg)(https://i.imgur.com/C7KKHNZ.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 07, 2020, 09:25:16 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on June 07, 2020, 10:26:04 PM
I'm guessing that the driver got onto the Eastern Spur in Secaucus, coming from NJ Route 495. 7:21 PM on Friday evening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 07, 2020, 10:54:51 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 07, 2020, 11:07:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 08, 2020, 01:01:57 AM
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 ones with 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 08, 2020, 01:35:32 AM
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 ones with 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 have a couple of photos of tickets on my website. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 09, 2020, 12:40:29 AM
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 ones with 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 have a couple of photos of tickets on my website. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95
I like the mechanical VMS signs there too. I always wanted to see every message they had.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on June 09, 2020, 02:13:52 PM
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 ones with 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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on June 09, 2020, 02:19:38 PM
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 ones with 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 have a couple of photos of tickets on my website. https://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95
I like the mechanical VMS signs there too. I always wanted to see every message they had.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 09, 2020, 09:48:20 PM
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.

 :-D   :rofl:

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 10, 2020, 08:34:02 AM
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 ones with 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 10, 2020, 12:29:04 PM
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.

Originally, I think  NJTA (and probably the other pre-Interstate ticket toll roads in the U.S.) used the IBM card (https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/punchcard/) as a blank, with whatever information that the toll road agency wanted printed on them, and the entry date and time, class information and entry interchange encoded as punches in the ticket, just like any other IBM card. 

The punches in the ticket served the same purpose as the information that was encouded in the mag stripe cards.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 11, 2020, 08:30:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 12, 2020, 04:40:18 PM
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.

There was another reason why they used IBM cards.  At least in the early days of ticket toll roads, IBM was the only company that was in the business of providing toll tickets (IBM cards) customized for the task and the readers for same, as well as back-office analysis (using electro-mechanical accounting machines, not computers).   I think IBM provided a turnkey solution to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission when the original Penn Pike opened in 1940, and was able to sell that same solution to many of the other ticket toll roads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 12, 2020, 05:00:13 PM
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 is not alone in that.  A state government in most ways a very large business when it comes to information systems, and that means there is a need for lots of business-type computing power.   Now that most or all of the plug-compatible mainframe manufacturers (Amdahl, NAS, Itel, CDC and others) are out of business, IBM effectively has that business to itself, and in spite of claims to the contrary, there is plenty of demand for such systems.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on June 28, 2020, 03:28:57 PM
Yet another nostalgic post for those neon VMS signs that used to grace the New Jersey Turnpike.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Njtp_vms_cropped.jpg

Many of us are familiar with them, and some of us are fond of them, despite the undisputed fact that their replacements can do better jobs of delivering messages to motorists. But my question is, where else in the world did such signs exist?

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 30, 2020, 09:46:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 30, 2020, 10:38:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 30, 2020, 10:43:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 30, 2020, 10:55:27 AM
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.

No they don't. Doesn't cause that much confusion right now. Most people think it's just a continuation of 80's numbering. Only way I think it ever gets renumbered is if they ever switch the Turnpike to mileage based numbering, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on June 30, 2020, 10:56:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 30, 2020, 11:05:32 AM
The new alignment of I-95 would add approximately 4 miles to the exit numbers north of exit 18.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on June 30, 2020, 11:20:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 30, 2020, 11:57:03 AM
US-46 is the historic northern terminus of the NJ Turnpike, its technically Exit 18E. Exit 68 is assigned to Challenger Rd.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 30, 2020, 01:21:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on June 30, 2020, 04:12:27 PM
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.
It is 68, at least southbound (http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i95&state=NJ&file=102_0892.JPG).

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 30, 2020, 04:16:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 02, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 02, 2020, 04:20:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 02, 2020, 04:57:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 02, 2020, 05:28:13 PM
Istone19, 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2020, 05:48:23 PM

Although I have to admit looking at the Turnpike website, they have apparently decided "interchange" is a synonym for "toll plaza". It's not.

Well, it is. Of the complaints people have about the Turnpike, and there are a lot of them, this is one that has never been an issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 02, 2020, 05:55:47 PM
J&N, what are some of the common complaints people have about the NJT? It's always been my favorite highway to drive.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 02, 2020, 05:59:37 PM
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.

We moved to NJ in 1967 when I was 9 (and always watching as we drove) so missed the original 18 Toll Plaza but was in awe of the 16/18 (now 16E/18E) Plaza. We frequently traveled to Connecticut via the GWB and I remember my father frequently stopped on 46 for gas, something that had to stop once the "missing mile" was built. If we were to make that trip today, so much has changed: I-78 instead of US 22, west alignment instead of east (only) alignment of the Turnpike, I-95 (north of Turnpike) instead of US46, and I-95 through the Bronx instead of shortcutting on the Hutch which became basically not an option when the Bruckner traffic circle (I think somewhat still there beneath the I-95/I-295/I-278/I-678 interchange) could not be easily reached from the Cross-Bronx.

One thing that impressed me about the Turnpike was how they built the "missing mile" and the west alignment so that the two major traffic flows never share roadway. Traffic from the south heading to the GWB is encouraged to use the west alignment which the configuration of the "missing mile" keeps completely separate from traffic coming from the Lincoln Tunnel up the east alignment and heading to I-80 west (and likewise for southbound moves). The same thing was done by NJDOT at the I-287/I-78 interchange where I-78 East to I-287 South traffic is kept separate from I-287 South to US202/206 South traffic.

We lived in Berkeley Heights, 10 miles east of the I-287/I-78 interchange where for many years before I-78 was completed through the Watchung Reservation, the signs that would have said I-78 East cryptically just said "Local Traffic Only". As we were "local traffic", it was nice having our "private" freeway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2020, 06:04:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 02, 2020, 06:06:45 PM
The fact that it's sequential based exiting vs. mileage based really isn't mentioned either. Theres a lot of people that don't understand how mileage-based exiting works.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 02, 2020, 06:20:07 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 02, 2020, 06:25:24 PM
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.

Well, that is a fact, and I'll admit I goofed on that one!

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 02, 2020, 06:32:42 PM
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.

My issue is that the turnpike's map on their website shows the site of "interchanges" 18E and 18W as being at the toll plazas, not the physical set of ramps that make up the interchange. The location of the toll plaza doesn't mark the change from toll to free - you still need to get to a place where you can enter or exit without paying a toll for it to be free. If the road was free beyond the 18E plaza, then the 16E and 18E tolls would be the same. But you can't get on to the stretch of the Turnpike north of the 16E/18E plaza up to US46 without either paying the higher 18E toll or paying the ramp toll at 17 so it's not free until you get north of US46.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 02, 2020, 06:34:22 PM
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.
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 02, 2020, 06:37:18 PM
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).

Besides, a few feet of it were built - the ghost ramps on I-295 east of NJ31 (looking at Google Earth, it appears Mother Nature is doing her best to reclaim them).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 02, 2020, 06:37:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on July 02, 2020, 11:49:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 02, 2020, 11:53:01 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 03, 2020, 11:24:07 AM
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....

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.
The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).

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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2020, 01:30:11 PM
How do motorists handle this on beltways, when they go thru the origin point of the exit numbers? Do their minds blow up in confusion? Or do they simply continue on to the exit number or route they're looking for?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 03, 2020, 04:56:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 03, 2020, 07:06:10 PM
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.
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 03, 2020, 07:07:48 PM
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.

IIRC it went to 3 or 4 from the NH line then started over at the Turnpike start.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 03, 2020, 07:42:57 PM
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.
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?

Engineering. They pretty much knew the exact centimeter where everything would go.  Now, could things have changed later on if the final plans changed? Sure, and it has happened often. Some of the exit numbers on NJ 55 in the Millville area changed after the northern section was built, for example.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2020, 10:07:59 AM
They did even calculate where it would have tied into I-287 in South Plainfield as I-287 had its zero milepost at Durham Ave.  It was changed after the Somerset got cancelled which is why north of Bernardsville the exit numbers were changed in the mid 1980's.  The section south of North Maple Avenue did not have exit numbers until circa 1994 due to that situation as CR 529 would have been Exit 1 and Durham Avenue, CR 501, NJ 27, and US 1 all would have been awkward as they would have have to given it future I-95 exit numbers or leave those unnumbered.

They did though give some ramps random numbers like CR 527, Weston Canal Road, and US 202 & 206 at both interchanges plus one gore Exit 10 for US 22 going NB on the left ramp.  Do not know what logic that was if the rest of the numbers around them were not numbered yet.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 06, 2020, 10:39:50 AM
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....

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.
The MUTCD would indicate that one alignment becomes the mainline and the other gets numbered as a loop (so 1 to 8 or so).

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."
Oh I would love it if they went to mileage base.
And as for the NJTP numbering south exit 6, if it were me, I would just label it 95 express.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 06, 2020, 10:47:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 06, 2020, 12:35:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 06, 2020, 12:57:00 PM
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.
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. For the NBHCE, just continue 78's exit numbering as long as it doesn't conflict with mainline exit numbers like the PTC does with the Northeast Extension. This is the system that makes the most sense intrinsically. That's far more important to following the letter of the law just to make some road geeks happy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 01:09:34 PM
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.

Or just do what's done in a few hundred other cases and sign it as I-695 or I-895, instead of trying to be fancy about it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 06, 2020, 01:34:32 PM
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.

Tell that to the MUTCD gods.

Quote
That's far more important to following the letter of the law just to make some road geeks happy.

I actually agree that it would be best just to have the New Jersey Turnpike use its own mile-based numbering for its whole length.  And I'd even be happy with the "W" and "E" exit number suffixes.  I think a lot of roadgeeks would be happy with this, although, as I've said, roadgeeks will probably never agree on anything except "roads are fun."

The problem is the MUTCD mandates that got the classic signage changed in the first place.  You can't get around those without getting an exception or just flat-out ignoring it.

Section 2E.31, Paragraph 16: "Where numbered routes overlap, continuity of interchange numbering shall be established for only one of the routes (see Figure 2E-21).  If one of the routes is an Interstate and the other route is not an Interstate, the Interstate route shall maintain continuity of interchange numbering."

They left some ambiguity in there by saying "numbered" route, but I infer that to mean any route; it's just that routes are usually numbered.  NJ 700 is a numbered route that ends at I-95.  The New Jersey Turnpike is a named route with a shield that fits into road signs as if it were a numbered route.

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.

Believe me, there are tons of things in the MUTCD that I would re-write if I were in charge.  But I don't make the rules.  I'm just trying to think of legible ways to work within those rules, and signing NJ 700 seems like one way to let people know, "Oh, okay, that's why the exit numbers suddenly drop from 44 to 8."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 02:21:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 06, 2020, 03:20:54 PM
Quote
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.

(I can't find who actually said that (response may have been edited after quoting) so let's just leave it as someone said it.)

I agree with the above. While I do know what route I'm also on, I tend to think of toll roads by their name as the primary identification and their route as secondary. So with that view, I want exit and milepost numbers to follow the named toll road, not the route. Yet I also understand that many people think of it as route as primary and name as secondary. I think this may be generational - older people knew the name first as many of them pre-dated the Interstate system.

Very few of the older toll roads, once retrofitted with Interstate numbers, were the same route from end to end (the Mass Pike seems to be the one significant exception in the Northeast). And for the closed (ticket) system toll roads, that meant exiting to follow the route (if it was even built yet - I'm pretty sure back in the 60s the Ohio Turnpike just had I-90 disappear at Elyria and then magically change from I-80 to I-76 as none of the free sections of those routes had been built yet.

The problem with standards is as much as one wants to think they work for all situations, they usually don't. Well-known named roads is one place where standards for exit / milepost numbering by route don't work as well as the standards designers want to think they will and is a good place for making an exception since it will align with how many people think.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 03:35:29 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2020/07/man-struck-killed-on-turnpike-while-riding-electric-scooter.html

Quote
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.

Based on a quick look of these scooters, some models don't even meet the minimum speed requirement for a vehicle on the NJ Turnpike (35 mph), and certainly had no reason to be in the left lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: KEVIN_224 on July 06, 2020, 04:28:53 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 06, 2020, 04:56:44 PM
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!

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 06, 2020, 05:08:39 PM
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?

Honestly, I don't know.  Maybe that was a false assumption on my part.

Quote
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.

Good point.

Quote
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.

That's a loose interpretation of Section 2E.31, Paragraph 11: "Regardless of whether a mainline route originates within a State or crosses into a State from another State, the southernmost or westernmost terminus within that State shall be the beginning point for interchange numbering."

Honestly, though, your interpretation would be my preference.  No reason at all to sign NJ 700 as a distinct route if the NJTP and I-95 exit numbers are allowed to merge together seamlessly.  Simpler and easier for everyone to understand.  I just hope the FHWA/AASHTO/MUTCD gods/whoever is final judge of exit numbers, actually approves of doing it that way, because that really would be the nicest solution, even if it isn't exactly what the MUTCD intended.

As for I-276 not starting at 0 and continuing I-76's mileage (perfect analog to I-335 and I-35 in Kansas, by the way), I'm not sure if that was specifically approved as MUTCD-valid numbering or just given a pass because it's a 3DI that probably more people identify as the PA Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on July 06, 2020, 09:32:18 PM
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.

1-4, 2-9, 15-28, 15, 31-62

(left the turnpike at Exit 9, reentered at Exit 14 (NB only), Tpke Exit 15 was also I-95 Exit 30)

Good god, it was quite the confusing system if you didn't know what was up.  At least the NJ Turnpike is pretty straight forward. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 06, 2020, 09:46:34 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:56:03 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the intent behind grandfathering in the toll roads was that they will die and free interstates just like the ones that were built that way would arise from their corpses.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 06, 2020, 09:56:35 PM
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.

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.
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.


iPad
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 10:06:53 PM
Soooo any one know when this will be fixed. Sorry im late to the party.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/70a527272e1c80088146fa567c526e9c.jpg)


Ill go put on my 60’s mobster suit.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 10:08:26 PM
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.

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.
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.


iPad
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.

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.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/70a527272e1c80088146fa567c526e9c.jpg)


Ill go put on my 60’s mobster suit.


iPhone
Late to the party is right!  That was fixed two years ago.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 10:11:31 PM
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.

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.
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.


iPad
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.

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.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/70a527272e1c80088146fa567c526e9c.jpg)


Ill go put on my 60’s mobster suit.


iPhone
Late to the party is right!  That was fixed two years ago.
Holy sh** really?

Sadly the GPS doesnt take you the new way (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200707/19325e57f6d92e9d3991eebd5604918a.jpg)



iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 06, 2020, 10:20:00 PM
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. LOL

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. 

 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on July 06, 2020, 10:25:27 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.0

I-95 is officially continuous thru NJ
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 06, 2020, 10:30:57 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 07, 2020, 07:58:16 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 07, 2020, 09:33:22 AM
Then not to mention on I-44 E Bound they do not give an exit number to US 412 east and the Creek Turnpike as part of the same flaw you mention.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2020, 11:03:21 AM

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? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 07, 2020, 12:26:18 PM

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?
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.

Also thats true it makes sense for the GPS to use the fastest route & shortest.

But idk whats up with the 2nd & 3rd route. Ive never seen that route that takes you into the hills of PA & NY.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 07, 2020, 12:46:26 PM
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.

And I agree about them being questionable. I'd love to see them give you reasons for the alternatives. Maybe something like "this route is 14 minutes longer but uses less crowded roads resulting in easier driving."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2020, 01:16:38 PM

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?
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.

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: 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jemacedo9 on July 07, 2020, 01:28:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 07, 2020, 01:51:09 PM
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.

It only takes one person to prove a "no one" (or "everyone") statement false and I'm going to be that one person. If I was not aware of the PA Turnpike's awkward renumbering, I would most definitely be saying "PA Turnpike Exit whatever" because on the PA Turnpike I knew when I was younger, that was adequate to identify which part of road (mainline or NE extension) and approximate location. I wager someone who lives quite away from it but is familiar with it from past experience and is unaware of the renumbering would not expect the current system where exit numbers intertwine between mainline and NE extension.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 07, 2020, 02:19:21 PM
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. LOL

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. 

 
There 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.

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.
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.

One can't even refer to the PA Turnpike without qualifiers anymore anyways, and the reason has nothing to do with exit numbers, and everything to do with the additional spurs in Pittsburgh, none of which are properly connected to the rest of the system (though I-376 comes very close and probably has contiguous PTC maintenance, it's still a Breezewood).

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.

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
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.

I fail to see how I-276's exit numbers would be as bad as I-90 and I-87.  It has one and only one set of numbers - they just don't start at 0.  I-87 and I-90, however, have THREE, one of which is backwards on I-90.  It's not even close, especially since the MUTCD doesn't explicitly say that exit numbers/mileage must start at 0.

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?
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?

On the PA Turnpike, the Northeast Extension numbers were fudged to not conflict with mainline numbers.  As for the sign, that's probably the ticket system combined with institutional inertia.  It would be interesting to see if there are any changes there now that they're all-electronic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 07, 2020, 02:40:48 PM
I look at this way. Consider the "NJ Turnpike" to be the primary route you're basing the numbers off of, like it's a numbered route. This is how most motorists understand it anyway. You don't usually say "I'm heading to 95," you say "I'm heading to the Turnpike". Then you can just follow the rules for multiplexed routes, where the "primary" route continues the mileage and exit numbering, which is basically what you already have and continue the Turnpike's numbering to the GWB. Most long haul traffic passing through NJ on the Turnpike aren't going to get off to follow 95 even with the connection completed, because if your destination is Delaware, Baltimore, DC, or points south, that's going to add distance and most likely a lot of time since 95 passes directly through the heart of two metropolitan areas (Philadelphia and Wilmington). It just strikes me as the more logical way of looking at everything, and I don't see the Turnpike Authority changing anything anytime soon. Such as how they seem to have no inclination to move to mileage based exit numbering, even if they "cleaned up" some of the Parkway's exit numbering inconsistencies in the recent resigning projects.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 07, 2020, 03:25:34 PM
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.

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". Later in your note, you made note of "institutional inertia". How about "human inertia"? People remember the terminology they first encountered and are slow to change. Near where I live in Illinois, the I-355 Tollway (originally the North-South Tollway, now the Veterans Memorial Tollway) open in 1989. Before it opened, IL-53 was routed from the north via I-290 and a previous three mile freeway stub leading to where the I-355 Tollway would start. When the tollway opened, the I-355 designation was applied to the free stub as well and IL-53 was moved to parallel surface road. And yet here it is 31 years later and people still refer to that free stub as well as I-290 north of it as "53". There hasn't been a sign saying it's IL-53 during that time, the signs even make it clear where IL-53 leaves its freeway route north of there and yet people still say it. Heck, I can remember even traffic reporters (who should know better) still calling it "53" ten or 15 years after the change. Like it or not, drivers are very slow to pick up on changes to how routes are routed.


Quote
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.

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."

Quote
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.

Again, "human inertia". To many of us, regardless of how they brand it, it's the PA Turnpike all the way from Ohio to New Jersey.

But I realized from my own driving that I really only care about exit numbers when doing long-distance driving. Locally, I never look at exit numbers and might not even notice if they changed. I know the roads so well most of the time I don't even need signs at all.

Long distance, if it's a road I've driven before, I'd notice if the road switched from sequential numbers to mileage as did the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike many years ago. One thing I noticed about the Ohio Turnpike was how many years they left up the "Old Exit XX" signs. They seemed to understand that it would take people years to fully adapt and this on a road with no spurs. Note also that they went with "Ohio Turnpike" as the base route for numbering - not I-80 and then I-76. And if it's a road completely new to me, then I wouldn't care as I'd have no prior experience to compare to.

We are going to just have to disagree on most of this but I think some of the toll roads have an identity crisis. I just don't believe you can market the road name and then do exits and mileposts by route number. Here in Illinois, I've found that use of the names of the tollways has faded as three of four of them have been renamed and they've been re-mileposted and given exit numbers based on the route, not the tollway name. I predict in 15 to 20 years, the use of the Pennsylvania Turnpike name will fade too.

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).

One last thing about "human inertia". No doubt one reason I call the Thruway south of Albany by name and not I-87 is due to all the years it wasn't I-87 south of Newburgh (exit 17) when it did its jump across the river to what is now I-684. With no number for that section, what else would people call it but just "the Thruway" and now inertia keeps them thinking of it that way. 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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2020, 04:06:25 PM
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".

It was PA Route 9.  I believe it was signed as such as well.  I can't speak for your area of the country how anyone talked about the PA Turnpike's Northeast Extension, but here in the east the mainline was the PA Turnpike and Route 9, and eventually I-476, was the Northeast Extension.  At least over here in the east, there was no confusion.  Heck, 476 is still the secondary reference when the highways are talked about.  It's either the Blue Route south of the Turnpike, or the Northeast Extension north of the Turnpike.


Quote
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.

This one acts a little different.  I think more people think of the NJ Turnpike going south as I-95 the entire way, especially before the PA Tpk interchange was finished, because there was no indication the Turnpike wasn't 95.  Even the lonely "TO I-95" signs that rarely graced the concrete barrier wall would still make it appear it was 95.

Coming up from Delaware, it was (and still is) very clear I-95 veered to the left and the NJ Turnpike veered to the right.  If you knew how to go, you followed the Turnpike signs.  If you didn't, the confusion wouldn't be apparent until motorists took 95 all the way into NJ and would see "End 95 Begin 295".

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on July 07, 2020, 05:32:38 PM

Quote
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.

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."


But... they were changing the exit numbers anyway...  - There was a pretty decent campaign about the change. PennDOT published a book - http://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/mileageb.pdf - with the updated exits numbers. If there was going to be a change anyway... Why not take look at what else to "fix?"

Other regional overlaps occur - Exit 339 is FT Washington on I-276, and it is City Ave, Exit 339 off I-76. Could people conceivably use that exit pair? Somebody once said it only takes one person to make it so.

How would you have renumbered? Have I-476, from I-95 thru to Clarks Summit have three sets of contiguous exits? Continue from Exit 359, resulting in exits being 339-359 miles off from the "main line?"

I'd be fine with renumbering NJ Turnpike from the southern terminus, if it had to be done. Is it really any difference from new exit 42 in PA to Exit 7 Northbound now?

Yes, I am about 21 years younger than you are. But I can list all sorts of other changes that have been made to the Turnpike System over the years from the mundane (Jersey barriers replacing the old median system) to what mattered as a kid - McDonalds replacing Howard Johnsons - to the really cool, like the new southbound bore of the Lehigh Tunnel, or the massive Mid-County interchange works (old 25A). None of us get to travel the highways of our youth again...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 07, 2020, 09:50:50 PM

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?
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.

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.

Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on July 07, 2020, 11:06:38 PM
With AET this will likely matter less as there won't be tickets to follow specific exit numbers in a closed system.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on July 08, 2020, 03:48:37 AM
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.

Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway”  It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 06:52:09 AM
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.

Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway”  It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it  :sombrero:
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.

It was a Highway for the local commercial & residential.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2020, 07:08:37 AM
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.

Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway”  It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it  :sombrero:
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.

It was a Highway for the local commercial & residential.


iPhone

Huh?  It was on a path directly to NYC. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 07:19:50 AM
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.

Seems like 95 had/has a chance of being better then NJTP if it just continued on a straight course.
Look up something called the “Somerset Freeway”  It is worth reading about without having anyone on the forum tell you exactly. Google it  :sombrero:
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.

It was a Highway for the local commercial & residential.


iPhone

Huh?  It was on a path directly to NYC.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200708/681c162fa5076edf0c2ea2c594c04f3e.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200708/8d6222ce1533f8f3f50a9837686a526d.jpg)


Now that I look at it. I see how it would have helped, but look how far west it is. Thats why I said that. Current I-95 gets closer to NY then that.

Thats why I said that.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2020, 07:38:10 AM
I-95 North of 287 would've still been the same regardless of the routing south of 287.   The Somerset Freeway was just a portion of I-95. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: wanderer2575 on July 08, 2020, 08:09:24 AM
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!

Had they simply not included the exit number ranges on the I-276 East and I-476 North signs, this wouldn't be an issue.  I wonder if that was done only so people could look at their toll tickets and prepare themselves for the sticker shock in advance.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 08, 2020, 08:55:32 AM
So are there any plans to actually re-number the exits of I-95 north of exit 18?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 08, 2020, 09:06:17 AM
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 12, 2020, 10:39:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 12, 2020, 11:40:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 13, 2020, 08:50:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 13, 2020, 10:07:15 AM
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.

Actually, the quarter-mile advance guide signs are intended to replace the classic-style exit direction signs, which were a bit of an anomaly that was unique to the classic NJ Turnpike style of signage.  These signs came shortly before the start of the deceleration lane, while a typical exit direction sign, if placed overhead, would come at approximately the point where the exit ramp separates from the mainline.  The classic exit direction sign would use a special arrow that points up, curves slightly to the right, and then points up again, widening as the arrow shaft moves from bottom to top.

At the point where the exit ramp separates from the mainline, classic NJ Turnpike style would use an overhead sign with the only exit number and either a curved upward-right arrow, or a straight slanting upward-right arrow.  They were inconsistent in that last detail, and as much as I loved the classic style of NJ Turnpike signage, there were noticeable inconsistencies.  These signs are being replaced with MUTCD-standard exit direction signs, and MUTCD-standard exit gore signs are being installed inside the exit gore locations.

Edit:  I can't seem to find these new signs, by the way.  Are we using the same StreetView?  https://goo.gl/maps/ndrNxVwNVST54NF47
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 13, 2020, 01:04:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on July 13, 2020, 01:34:17 PM
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.

Good point.  It's interesting that the new quarter-mile advance guide sign is ground-mounted.  Did it replace the classic-style exit direction sign?  Is the overhead assembly gone?  Or does it just come shortly before it?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 13, 2020, 02:21:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 13, 2020, 02:23:39 PM
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.

The signs on the overhead were replaced with those other ones I was talking about, but that particular structure is pretty old. When they replaced the signage in that stretch, they just replaced the signs on the original structures. That structure is probably past its service life and they figure it's just easier to ground mount the replacements.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 13, 2020, 03:23:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 14, 2020, 01:10:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 14, 2020, 08:29:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 14, 2020, 09:54:29 AM
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.

Well if 12 years is the official replacement point, then seeing new signs crop up now will make sense, and would suggest we'd see new signs in the 6-9 area starting in the next year or two.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 14, 2020, 11:56:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 14, 2020, 12:01:29 PM
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.

Pretty forever most likely. They had plenty of signage from the late 1960s/early 1970s from the original dualization that stood the test of time pretty well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 14, 2020, 04:08:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2020, 04:31:42 PM
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 while he may or may not have said that, he may have said it years ago, and he only said "until due for replacement".  You're only assuming a time period.  I'm only assuming a time period.  But hey, things change.  The Turnpike may have fully intended on waiting until the end of its life-cycle, but something happened, or internal discussions took place, and the signage was changed early. 

I believe it was reported on here several pages back that they finally installed the I-95 shields on the thru signs between Exits 6 & 9...but in some cases changed out the entire sign, rather than placing the shield on the existing sign which would only be 7 years old or so.

Also, why do you think it was 'suddenly' decided?  Did you have any inside info that as of a few months ago it wasn't going to happen?  These projects can have multi-year long timelines.  The only thing you're going to see is the final product of the sign posted on the roadway.  Doesn't mean it was decided a week before to do that.  Hell, those signs could've been sitting into a warehouse for 6 months waiting to be installed!

[rant]Steve knows his shit.  But he can only say so much.  Just because it goes into someone's ear doesn't mean it's allowed to come out of one's mouth, or typed on one's keyboard.  I try stressing if anyone on here wants the info available to the public, look at the public records, which the Turnpike makes very available and prominent on their website.  This details every construction project that goes out to bid; every contract over a minimal amount that the Turnpike enters into.  There's a lot of great stuff in those documents.  I would think these would be must-read documents that contains a lot of great info - just like that big ol' MUTCD - but people constantly would rather just use he-said, she-said, ASSume, coulda-woulda type info.[end rant]
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 15, 2020, 02:11:35 PM
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

Exit 4: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/2020-07-12_10_15_27_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_43.jpg
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2020, 03:57:05 PM
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

This one looks temporary. Being the entire gantry was removed, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire gantry is replaced.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 15, 2020, 04:57:04 PM
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

Exit 4: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/2020-07-12_10_15_27_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_43.jpg
I wonder if those were upgrades or knockdowns.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 15, 2020, 10:54:06 PM
Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 16, 2020, 06:01:24 PM
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.
    -IF they do this, it should come after other priorities listed below AND they really need to make sure the NJTP in the souther area can keep the 'parkway' type feel it has with the green canopy.

2.  Why is the NJTP so against having 4 lanes in each direction?  I really do think from Exit 6 to Exit 4 it should be 4 lanes in each direction

3.  I wish they would do multiple cross-overs from the cars only to cars-bus lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on July 16, 2020, 08:59:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 16, 2020, 09:18:57 PM
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.
Expand the 3-3 configuration to the Del Mem bridge & make it merge into the 4 lanes per bridge.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 16, 2020, 10:10:24 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 16, 2020, 10:13:04 PM
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)
The bottle neck is from the lack of Express lanes.

The construction project on 295 pass the toll fixed the traffic issue.

Also where is that picture. Im glad they are finally respecting the city of philly.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on July 16, 2020, 10:19:54 PM
^^^^ It appears to be on the Garden State Pkwy South @ the I-95/NJTP Exit
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 16, 2020, 10:25:41 PM
^^^^ It appears to be on the Garden State Pkwy South @ the I-95/NJTP Exit
Thank you. Ive drove pass this before & couldn’t remember. Now I do.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2020, 04:23:24 AM
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 exists northbound also.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 17, 2020, 09:30:54 AM
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)

1.  YES!  The Trenton control city is stupid, not only does 95 not go there, but it's not a major city.  Philadelphia needs to be the control city.  So they have changed it now at the GSP interchange?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 17, 2020, 11:05:01 AM
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.

I've encountered stop-and-go on that segment, both directions, and moving from 70 mph to 35 - 45 mph and back for miles on end in bumper to bumper traffic is not "free flowing". North of Exit 3, I've rarely encountered any issues. You may not personally have encountered issues the times you drive it, but that does not automatically dismiss the reality it does exist perhaps times you chose to not drive it.

I predict by 2030 that 6 lane widening will be complete.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on July 17, 2020, 12:42:44 PM
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)
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 17, 2020, 12:48:22 PM
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)
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.

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.
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 7/11
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2020, 01:48:51 PM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 17, 2020, 02:25:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2020, 03:01:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 18, 2020, 08:13:17 PM
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.

Technically it does connect directly to 540, as the SLD for 540 indicates that 140 is concurrent with 540.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000540__-.pdf
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 18, 2020, 08:18:04 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:21:04 PM
There is a supplementary sign at Exit 130 for New Brunswick.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 18, 2020, 11:05:21 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 18, 2020, 11:24:44 PM
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.

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.

Having recently toured all the interstates and toll roads, I think a complete re-evaluation of control cities state-wide is in order. Many are either out-of-date or inadequate.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 19, 2020, 04:52:28 PM

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.
When, when is it congested aside from the day before Thanksgiving?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 19, 2020, 04:55:23 PM

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.
When, when is it congested aside from the day before Thanksgiving?
Rush hour.

During the summer

During Thanksgiving/Winter

During normal conditions.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 19, 2020, 05:09:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 19, 2020, 05:40:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 19, 2020, 06:02:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 19, 2020, 07:46:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 19, 2020, 09:20:04 PM
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.
Are you from the Tristate area? The population over here has grown exponentially in the last ten years.

Not including the amount of travelers that go through the area.

Im not from jersey, but when I cross that bridge I notice the traffic & bottlenecks.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on July 19, 2020, 09:27:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 19, 2020, 09:43:47 PM
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.

So I had to make sure it was known.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 08:38:32 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 20, 2020, 08:44:49 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 20, 2020, 10:32:49 AM
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 am very familiar with I-64.
Listen I drive the NJTP enough along with I-95/I-64 from the OBX to NE.
I can tell you IMO the NJTP really doesn't need that widening, I am not subject to those kind of delays.
It is NOTHING like:

-NJTP exit 6 bto 9 pre 2014
-I 95 DE pre-Christinia expansion
-I 95 DE tolls both pre 2010 project

And currently, I would say the following are more issues:
-NJTP WB spur needing 6 lanes
-NJTP exit 4-6 needing 8 lanes
-Tydings Bridge needing at the very least FULL shoulders
-I-95 in MD between I-895 and I-495 needing 12 lanes
-I-95 in VA from I-495 to exit 126 needing 12 lanes
-I-95 in VA from exit 126 to I-295 needing 8 lanes

Those are area with much more congestion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2020, 11:07:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 20, 2020, 11:35:33 AM
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?
Which segments?

It certainly is more congested than the NJTP exits 2-4.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2020, 11:59:39 AM
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?
Which segments?

It certainly is more congested than the NJTP exits 2-4.
The 4 lane segment between Exit 205 and Exit 234.

I can drive it during off peak periods and maintain 60 - 70 mph and “free flowing”  despite a posted 70 mph speed limit throughout.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 20, 2020, 04:28:05 PM
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?
Which segments?

It certainly is more congested than the NJTP exits 2-4.
The 4 lane segment between Exit 205 and Exit 234.

I can drive it during off peak periods and maintain 60 - 70 mph and “free flowing”  despite a posted 70 mph speed limit throughout.
It definitely needs it before the southern portion of the NJTP I'll say that much.
Haven't been on I-64 since 2017, so is construction now finished with the expansion?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on July 20, 2020, 04:46:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 20, 2020, 05:52:09 PM
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.

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.
. That was pretty good. I liked were you went with that.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 20, 2020, 11:14:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2020, 11:25:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 20, 2020, 11:48:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 21, 2020, 01:36:01 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2020, 04:50:08 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.

It's almost like you saw that and couldn't remember where you saw it...1 page ago...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.msg2517373#msg2517373
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 07:47:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 21, 2020, 08:06:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 08:40:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 21, 2020, 09:45:29 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.
Hopefully they do this for all exits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2020, 09:56:28 AM
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 wouldn't say they *just* started posting travel times, as I have a picture from December, 2017 with the travel times posted!

For normal travel, there's a 6 minute difference shown for staying on the Turnpike the entire way from around Exit 4 south, vs. heading over to I-295.

A random check on Google Maps with free-flowing traffic on both roadways actually showed a 7 minute difference, so it appears the NJ Turnpike signage is accurate.  Figure 30 seconds lost on the ramp from the Turnpike to 73, a minute or 2 on 73 to 295, then 2 minutes due to a 55 mph limit (or less) for about 9 miles on 295 vs. 65 mph all the way on the Turnpike (about 1.5 minutes quicker). 

Plus, the Turnpike is shorter: A straight shot of 34.2 miles to the bridge from 73, vs.  36.9 miles on 295. The difference is 295 is curvier, especially including the slingshot Aljo Curve.  Plus, 73 goes in a northwest direction from the Turnpike, so you gain a little additional distance to travel there too.  So add another 2 minutes there, and you get your 6 - 7 minute time difference.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2020, 11:11:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 21, 2020, 12:31:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 21, 2020, 01:37:51 PM
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.

Then it would be better if they said "Six Flags" on the signs. That does make more sense since the exit for 537 is basically smack in the middle of the distance from Parkway to Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on July 21, 2020, 01:59:44 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/rjm4mTUCkuLxga5a7
Philadelphia is now used for the NJ Turnpike on the Garden State Parkway.
Hopefully they do this for all exits.
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. 

The sign for southbound I-95/NJTP (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5402081,-74.2968155,3a,75y,83.81h,99.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIlWPcylYkla6Jbk-mwiPbg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) beyond the NJTP toll plaza still reads Trenton.  For consistency, I would've replaced that southbound sign with one that lists both Trenton & Philadelphia.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 21, 2020, 03:17:00 PM
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.

Interesting.
I wonder where on that span between exit 205 and 234 it goes from Hampton and Richmond jurisdiction?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 21, 2020, 03:17:33 PM
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.

What was the reason 6-9 was so crowded, as that's not a very urban area like NJ is north of 9.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2020, 03:25:11 PM
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2020, 03:27:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 21, 2020, 03:46:11 PM
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.

Quote
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.

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.
Very very frustrating, 95 needs to be 8 lanes from 295 to exit 126, then 12 lanes to PWpkwy, then 14 lanes to 495.

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.
Actually I think it really picks up after 195, which takes the 'local' 295 traffic onto the NJTP.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 21, 2020, 04:13:31 PM
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.
Title: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on July 21, 2020, 04:24:29 PM
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 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.


iPhone
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 21, 2020, 05:28:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 21, 2020, 07:11:41 PM
I-4 between Davenport and Kissimmee the same way.  I-4 is 6 lanes but east of Disney you have 4 lanes of SR 429, 4 lanes of SR 417 and then much traffic distributes themselves to the theme parks and resorts of US 192 (as many live in Polk County and commute) and then you have many that head east now on 8 lanes of SR 528.

22 lanes on the east side.

From the west you have Champion's Gate that is a big bedroom community now for Orlando and Disney.

At Exit 55 you have 6 lanes now on US 27 that takes a lot of traffic off of I-4 and the 6 remaining lanes of I-4 to Tampa. 

Only 12 here, but 6 lanes to connect the 12 west of Davenport to the 22 on the east end plus local use in between.  Especially that US 17 & 92 is no relief route anymore due to its own development and that of Poinciana, a community that does not have a place for most to work, so many have to travel to Orlando or Kissimmee to get their paychecks clogging US 92 and John Young Parkway up with commuters. 

So all of it is on I-4 now from Disney to US 27 thanks to over developing and no road planning at all except for way in the future projects like the Beyond The Ultimate which maybe in jeopardy cause of this Pandemic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 22, 2020, 09:52:07 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 22, 2020, 12:55:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 22, 2020, 03:07:25 PM
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 hope so...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 23, 2020, 09:04:52 AM
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

Those are minor things that probably don't even merit crossing the authority's radar.

1. I doubt they have any real desire to change control cities. Honestly, all of you who grouse about this should just leave it be. Trenton comes before Philadelphia on the Turnpike's journey. They've considered Trenton an important control city pretty much since the road was built. The signage for Exit 6 properly shows Philadelphia as a destination by following 95. That's enough.

2. I doubt that the exits north of 18 are not getting renumbered unless the Turnpike goes to mileage based exit numbering, which I don't see happening any time soon either. Drop it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 23, 2020, 08:49:31 PM
I agree with you storm2k. This argument re: control cities goes on and on and on. No matter what cities are used, someone's not going to like it. The debate can go on forever. So yes, let's give it a rest.

The endless exit numbering discussions are a real hornet's nest and there are no simple answers especially trying to integrate the national system with the legacy toll road numbering. I think you're right that the NJ Turnpike is not likely to convert to mileage based numbers until and unless the FWHA forces them to. So let's give that a rest too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 04, 2020, 12:36:22 PM
Looks like efforts are under way to begin installing the new hybrid style barrel/VMS signs on Turnpike entrance ramps. They've built a couple of piers on the Exit 12 overpass over the SB lanes. They look just like the kind of piers they built near 15W for the original VMS/VSLS installs from a few years ago.

(https://i.imgur.com/4X3c7PU.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2020, 11:18:00 AM
Philadelphia is now on the Parkway in Woodbridge for the Turnpike. So they are making progress there some.

Exit number change is as likely as Self Serve Gas in the Garden State.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 05, 2020, 08:25:26 PM
Self-serve gas will probably happen first! LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 06, 2020, 08:48:37 AM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on September 06, 2020, 09:46:17 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 06, 2020, 12:59:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 06, 2020, 08:13:06 PM
Why is New Jersey so against self-serve in the first place?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on September 06, 2020, 08:25:18 PM
Why is New Jersey so against self-serve in the first place?

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/74549/why-cant-you-pump-your-own-gas-new-jersey (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/74549/why-cant-you-pump-your-own-gas-new-jersey)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 06, 2020, 08:48:54 PM
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 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 station, 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 06, 2020, 09:24:00 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 06, 2020, 10:51:32 PM
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.

Several BP stations I used to frequent had cards that the employees swiped in the card reader to activate the pump before they could swipe your CC. Not a ton of places really do it though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on September 07, 2020, 01:02:29 AM
I encountered a locked-down gas station in Oregon.  It required employees to enter in a code to free the pump for use.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 08, 2020, 12:20:36 AM
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/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 08, 2020, 07:55:01 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 08, 2020, 06:22:55 PM
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."

That statement is true.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 08, 2020, 06:38:31 PM
Biking over the Turnpike bridge on CR 526 on Saturday, I saw that the NJTA put up a sign on that bridge that attaching anything to the bridge fencing is prohibited and citing the NJSA statute. That bridge used to only have a pair of US flags on the fence itself (not on poles above the top rail like the one in Woodbridge).

In the least surprising news of the year, the police broke the law (https://www.facebook.com/events/s/replacing-american-flags/597290697826772/) but it's now moot because Murphy bought into the pressure. (https://www.nj.com/news/2020/09/murphy-slams-brakes-on-removal-of-american-flags-from-nj-turnpike-parkway-overpasses.html)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 08, 2020, 08:39:02 PM
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."

That statement is true.

Nineteen years later seems an odd time to decide to enforce that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 08, 2020, 09:20:06 PM
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."

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 09, 2020, 12:35:26 AM
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."

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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 09, 2020, 07:16:28 AM
It only started happening now because someone put up the defaced American flag with the blue line through it on the Woodbridge bridge. I do remember seeing someone had put up a Trump sign on a Turnpike bridge in 2016 (though just a lawn sign with the prongs weaved through the fencing).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 09, 2020, 01:51:33 PM
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."

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ketchup99 on September 09, 2020, 03:22:29 PM
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."

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on September 09, 2020, 03:48:38 PM
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."

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.

Yup, but "mah freedom of speech" will be a thing brought up if they don't ban ALL flags equally.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 10, 2020, 04:55:55 PM
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."

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. 

Given that the 19th anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks is just around the corner (tomorrow); I would recommend waiting until either next week or the week after to take the flags down.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on September 12, 2020, 09:18:37 AM
Yup, but "mah freedom of speech" will be a thing brought up if they don't ban ALL flags equally.

That's right.  It needs to be viewpoint-neutral in order to be constitutional.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 22, 2020, 08:24:19 PM
Since when does Exit 19W (used to be marked Sports Complex and was only open during games but now its open to all) to the Meadowlands/Xanadu area have a toll? I went there today and the signs now had big EZPass Only banners on top of the sign and a small sign read Cars $1.95, Others $3.00

That used to be my free shortcut to Route 3 to Lyndhurst, I guess the Turnpike authority with their budget issues decided to end that freebie. At least the one from NJ 3 East to the North (Eastern Spur) Turnpike is still free.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 22, 2020, 09:50:18 PM
Exit 17 on-ramp is technically a one-way toll. They added the toll at the Meadowlands exit when they converted it to full time Exit 19W for the mall which everyone is blaming the pandemic on.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mariethefoxy on September 22, 2020, 09:51:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 22, 2020, 10:06:10 PM
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.

Yep - it was free but open on a limited basis. With more going on in the area, they made it a full time interchange, and with that, they're charging.

This decision was made years ago, and has nothing to do with the pandemic, nor does it have anything to do with 'budget issues'.  In fact, the Turnpike was bringing in more money than expected when the decision to toll this interchange was made.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 22, 2020, 10:38:54 PM
Basically, for years it was only open for sporting events and closed otherwise. With American Dream, they decided that they would open it full time, but as a consequence tolls would be charged. Using it for free til now, consider that a grace period.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 10, 2020, 06:22:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 10, 2020, 10:57:57 PM
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?
Yup, if the road is closed they can display that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2020, 08:10:02 AM
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?

The basic answer:  Yes, they do work, and will display other messages.  Right now I can't recall exactly what they say though, but the E side will say something like thru to New York, and the W side will say something like 15X & 16W only.  Yes, the road is generally still open thru 18W, and yes you can still get to I-80 & the GWB.  The Turnpike is simply trying to disperse traffic due to congestion, football games, etc.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mariethefoxy on October 11, 2020, 02:41:24 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 11, 2020, 10:22:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 14, 2020, 11:30:40 AM
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.
Did they ever get to removing Dover for I-80 west being Hackensack and Paterson are control points at the Express Local split?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2020, 05:06:58 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 29, 2020, 10:29:32 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 05, 2020, 09:41:54 AM
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.

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 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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 05, 2020, 10:20:07 AM
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.

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 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)

I have said many times I am upset as I would rather the $$$ be used to make the NJTP 4 lanes each way from exit 4 to exit 6, that should be the priority.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2020, 05:31:25 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2020, 06:56:55 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 06, 2020, 08:03:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2020, 08:26:26 PM
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.
All of these issues are on the Authority's radar. They're aware of what every inch of their system looks like.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2020, 06:42:49 AM
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.

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.[/quote]

Thanks for the estimate (and margin of error!). 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2020, 08:10:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on November 07, 2020, 03:47:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 08, 2020, 11:33:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2020, 11:52:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 09, 2020, 07:45:18 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 09, 2020, 08:00:57 AM
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.

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.
arent there already 12ft shoulders on this section or are they adding the the left
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 09, 2020, 08:16:16 AM
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.

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.
arent there already 12ft shoulders on this section or are they adding the the left
Sorry, I should've clarified. I meant overpasses over the turnpike. Many had no safety shoulders prior to the 6-9 widening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 09, 2020, 08:25:59 AM
now i havent seen any thing on the north end of the tpke why dont they extend the truck lanes to the gwb
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 09, 2020, 08:38:12 AM
now i havent seen any thing on the north end of the tpke why dont they extend the truck lanes to the gwb
Given 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2020, 09:05:07 AM

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?


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.
arent there already 12ft shoulders on this section or are they adding the the left

As famartin stated, the previous response was in reference to a question about the overpasses over the Turnpike.  He was correct in that wider shoulders and/or sidewalks were provided where there may not have been any originally.  The travel lanes tend to remain the same. 

One unusual example of a bridge that was widened was I-195 West over the Turnpike.  This could in theory be used as a 3rd lane in the future, but was primarily done to permit 2-way traffic over this overpass while the Eastbound 195 structure was replaced.  The EB structure was only built to provide 2 lanes, which reveals that NJDOT has no plans to widen 195 in the future.  They could've used that extra room on the WB overpass to add what NJDOT terms an auxiliary lane, connecting the accel lane from 195's Exit 7 to Exit 6's decel lane.  Being it's only about 1,400 feet between those lanes, it's a little surprising they didn't do that.

now i havent seen any thing on the north end of the tpke why dont they extend the truck lanes to the gwb

For the most part, they decided on a spur option rather than a single route option.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2020, 09:17:31 AM
Regarding bridge construction methods, one departure from the historic building of the overpasses during the Turnpike's 6-9 widening was the NJTA eliminated 2 of the 3 bridge supports whenever possible over the dual-dual lanes, which usually was when the overpass went over the Turnpike at a 90 degree angle.  This allowed for a single support between the opposing directions, but no support between the inner and outer roadways. 

Before anyone gets all fictional that this could mean the roadways would be combined in the future, 3 supports were used on nearly every overpass that didn't cross the Turnpike at a 90 degree angle, so, no, combining roadways won't happen.

Based on that though, it would probably be possible for the Turnpike to eliminate the center support for new overpasses between Interchanges 1 and 4 as the total overpass length would be comparable to the inner/outer roadway overpass length.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 09, 2020, 09:37:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2020, 10:36:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 09, 2020, 10:41:34 AM
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.
oh yes i completely agree just it would be worth constructing considering this section is fu**ed at all hours of the day
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 09, 2020, 10:50:01 AM
Points 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.

Quote
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 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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2020, 10:55:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2020, 11:05:00 AM
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 believe that will be addressed within the next 20 years or so as part of the new Capital Plan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 10, 2020, 10:50:32 AM
Points 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.

Quote
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 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 bad
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2020, 09:28:27 AM
Points 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.

Quote
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 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 bad

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 18, 2020, 11:33:55 AM
Points 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.

Quote
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 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 bad

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 19, 2020, 09:06:08 AM
Points 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.

Quote
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 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 bad

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.
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 lmao
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 19, 2020, 09:12:19 AM
^^^^

 :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Punctuation is your friend!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on November 19, 2020, 09:19:13 AM
^^^^

 :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Punctuation is your friend!
I know lol i was in a rush to do something lol
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: theroadwayone on November 20, 2020, 02:27:47 AM
^^^^

 :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Punctuation is your friend!
I know lol i was in a rush to do something lol
It happens to all of us.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 20, 2020, 06:23:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 20, 2020, 06:35:25 PM
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.

At least the new pull-throughs southbound at Exits 8/7A/7 (and the old one at 8A) are wide enough to replace "Camden" with "Philadelphia" fairly easily, like with the Exit 129 signs on the southbound parkway. The pull-throughs further north may be too narrow to fit "Philadelphia" without full replacement, and they aren't that old to begin with.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MaddogMicharski on November 22, 2020, 12:08:21 AM
The stretch from Exit 6 to Exit 9 should have a speed limit set to 75 in the car lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 22, 2020, 02:24:00 AM
The stretch from Exit 6 to Exit 9 should have a speed limit set to 75 in the car lane.

No roads in NJ have a speed limit higher than 65.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2020, 08:42:30 AM
The stretch from Exit 6 to Exit 9 should have a speed limit set to 75 in the car lane.

Quite often even if one entrance ramp is closed, trucks can be in that car lanes. So there's often more than just cars in those lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 22, 2020, 06:53:04 PM
^

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 22, 2020, 09:45:27 PM
^

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 22, 2020, 11:55:56 PM
^

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.

Often lower than they should be... like I-295 in Bucks County's ridiculous 55... (sorry, going OT here... back to NJ Turnpike)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on November 23, 2020, 01:17:11 AM
^

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2020, 01:49:09 AM
^

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.


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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: noelbotevera on November 24, 2020, 08:19:13 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 24, 2020, 08:52:53 PM
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.

How about because to try to keep the directions separate would add complexity for no benefit. The service plaza is north of the toll booths so there's no toll advantage gained by turning around there. Plus, as you bring up next, there is the Park and Ride lot there and those people would want to turn around (several hours later).

Quote
-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.

The Park and Ride lot at the Lombardi Service Plaza predates the Secaucus rail station by tens of years.

Quote
-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?

How does it prevent access to US46? You just need to be on the correct roadway to get there. As far as I can tell looking at it with Google Earth, US 46 is accessible to and from all four directions (Turnpike west leg, Turnpike east leg, I-80, and I-95 to/from GWB). As I've posted before, the ramp design in that area is designed to keep the two major flows in each direction (I-95 by Newark Airport to/from the GWB and Lincoln Tunnel to/from I-80) completely separated (under normal routings with I-95 to/from GWB traffic using the west leg, they do not share even an inch of roadway). OTOH, traffic to/from US46 is a very minor flow compared to those two major flows.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on November 24, 2020, 09:21:57 PM
^

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.


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)

good callout. i always used to get on the PA Turnpike *from* US 1 (since I'd be heading there from Ewing), so I never noticed that the speed limit was lower east of that interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 25, 2020, 12:39:34 AM
The Lombardi park and ride is for buses, Secaucus is for trains
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 25, 2020, 01:37:13 AM
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?



There is no rule to say how many park and rides can be stationed in a small area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 25, 2020, 06:47:49 PM
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?


The turnaround is free because you're on the free part of the Turnpike. The Lombardi is north of both 18E and 18W plazas.
The Park & Ride for the bus was built there decades before Secaucus Junction was a thought in anyone's mind.
And both spurs of the Turnpike have ramp access to 80, so there's no loss of movement. Just follow the signs if you want to get to 46, which is the original Exit 18 before there were Eastern and Western spurs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 25, 2020, 06:51:29 PM
New Contract for Turnpike (and Parkway) toll takers (https://www.nj.com/news/2020/11/more-than-10-of-drivers-in-nj-pay-tolls-with-cash-collectors-just-got-a-new-contract.html)

Quote
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.

AET conversion is included in the Turnpike Authority's 10 year plan. Given that its two neighboring toll authorities (NYSTA and PTC) are full steam ahead on AET already, NJ hopefully will be full bore on its own conversion before another contract is needed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2020, 02:10:10 PM
This is what I like about the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.  They do not fool around with lots and lots of process when it comes to Turnpike improvements.  For example, approval to widen the Turnpike from Exits 1 to 4 (defined as starting at the NJ-49 bridge in the south at milepost 0.0) was only recently secured, and they are already looking for consultant support to help get it going.

Order for Professional Services No. T3839 New Jersey Turnpike Interchange 1 to 4 Widening Program (https://www.njta.com/media/5734/b-ops-no-t3839-consultants-request-for-letters-of-qualifications-11-24-2020-signed.pdf) (PDF)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 29, 2020, 09:33:59 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 29, 2020, 09:40:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2020, 10:43:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 01, 2020, 11:58:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on December 01, 2020, 01:55:31 PM
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.
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. 
https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2020/02/story-for-tomorrow-am-icc-closures-to-continue-into-spring/
That's not too bad for that lightly used toll road.  But I think it would be a deal breaker for the heavily traveled toll roads like the NJTPK.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 01, 2020, 02:13:40 PM
The NJTP doesn't have to change gantry configurations as its already a closed ticket system. They could change the GSP around though. The current one-way tolling setup lands up with long stretches of "free" roadway... or you get hit with a hefty toll depending on your entry and exit. Given that they want to complete ramps on all the remaining partial interchanges (they were built that way to force people thru mainline plazas), don't be surprised if they add new ETC tolling points.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2020, 02:59:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on December 01, 2020, 03:01:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jwags on December 01, 2020, 03:14:38 PM
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.

The Mass Pike did introduce some free zones around closely spaced interchanges. This is in contrast to the NYS Thruway that has some mainline gantries that charge less than 15 cents.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 01, 2020, 03:15:48 PM
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.

Either way works.  Mainline or ramps in the case of the Turnpike here. 

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.

The NJTA in making the ramp tolls go away is not saving anything as the same amount (if more ) gantries would be needed. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on December 01, 2020, 03:34:55 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2020, 03:39:43 PM

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.

I think you meant...

The Great Egg Harbor bridge is tolled 1 way.  It's tolled Southbound Only.  (However, no Express EZ Pass lanes here due to the curvature in the roadway).

The Beasley Bridge charged a toll anyway.  When the bridge shut down, I think it was $1 each way, or just one way, but either way there was a toll charged, and round trip may have been more expensive than taking the GSP.  Many people at the time complained that the Parkway (Turnpike Authority) was shutting down the bridge because the Parkway wanted to take away the free option.  Clearly they were outing themselves as people that didn't have a clue.

I think you meant the Ocean City-Longport Toll Bridge, which is operated by Cape May County.  Yes, it's tolled inbound into Ocean City.  If you look at the GSV though, they interestingly did place an EZ Pass reader and a camera on the free side, so one would think they are thinking into the future when they started accepting EZ Pass not too long ago.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2020, 03:55:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 02, 2020, 11:26:20 AM
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?

Then Exit 116 for the Arts Center is free. If you live in Aberdeen or Keyport you can go to an event there and pay no toll. Heck Exit 120 traffic to and from The Arts Center are also Toll Less.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 02, 2020, 06:11:39 PM
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.

I never understood why they didn't have tolls on the ramps to 47 from the SB Parkway or onto the NB Parkway from 47 WB. There's a ton of traffic headed to and from Wildwood all the time. Same as to why they didn't build a final barrier before Exit 0. But it's been this way since the road was built.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on December 02, 2020, 07:20:07 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ketchup99 on December 02, 2020, 10:28:41 PM
Was it? I thought I-95 was meant to be routed along I-287 to Port Chester.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 02, 2020, 10:30:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ketchup99 on December 02, 2020, 10:33:06 PM
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.
Something like this?
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2020, 10:46:31 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 02, 2020, 10:58:31 PM
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.
Something like this?
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)
No, here it is (I took this from the Somerset Freeway DEIS and enhanced it a little)
(http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/I-95Corridor_1964.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on December 05, 2020, 08:49:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 05, 2020, 01:20:50 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on December 07, 2020, 12:52:47 PM
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.

I hope they at least stripe the lanes where the toll plazas used to be, instead of doing this: https://goo.gl/maps/rz49xtkWtqRd5NmRA
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dgolub on December 12, 2020, 09:19:38 AM
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.

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.

For the most part, I've kept my roadgeeking within a 50-75 miles radius of where I live so that I don't need to use public bathrooms.  I made a couple of exceptions during the summer and fall, but now that the case numbers are spiraling out of control, I'm keeping my trips short enough that I can be back home in 3-4 hours.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 29, 2020, 12:04:08 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2020, 12:27:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 29, 2020, 12:46:17 PM
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 know that. I've taken several pictures of those. These are mine from last summer, though they weren't the first I took:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/2020-07-12_09_33_26_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_6_%28Interstate_95_SOUTH_to_Interstate_276_WEST%2C_Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2C_Philadelphia%29_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/2020-07-07_14_31_15_View_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_700_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_6_%28Interstate_95_SOUTH_to_Interstate_276_WEST%2C_Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2C_Philadelphia%29_in_Mansfield_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/2020-07-12_09_37_27_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike_Pennsylvania_Extension%29_at_the_exit_for_U.S._Route_130_%28Florence%2C_Burlington%29_in_Florence_Township%2C_Burlington_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)

However, I'll make the argument that if you are not a frequent traveler of either road, neither trailblazer is "recognizable". That said, you can read the PATP trailblazer more easily (at least it says "Turnpike" at a font you might be able to read while driving). If you are not familiar with the area and don't get close enough to see the word "turnpike" (which is VERY small), you might think the NJ Turnpike trailblazer was some sort of advertisement for NJ Toilet Paper...

And, lets not forget, PA has been nice enough to post the NJ Turnpike blazer on its roads...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/2020-07-09_13_47_09_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28Pennsylvania_Turnpike_Delaware_River_Extension%29_just_south_of_Exit_42_%28U.S._Route_13%2C_Levittown%2C_Bristol%29_in_Bristol_Township%2C_Bucks_County%2C_Pennsylvania.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/2020-07-07_14_51_26_View_north_along_Interstate_95_%28Delaware_Expressway%29_at_Exit_40_%28Interstate_295_EAST%2C_Trenton%29_in_Bristol_Township%2C_Bucks_County%2C_Pennsylvania.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)

Considering the photo below shows how the road is signed just after crossing into PA, I think NJTA could easily (and should, for consistency) do similar signage at Exit 6.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/2020-07-12_09_43_30_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28Pennsylvania_Turnpike_Delaware_River_Extension%29_1_mile_north_of_Exit_40_%28Interstate_276_WEST-Pennsylvania_Turnpike%2C_Harrisburg%29_in_Bristol_Township%2C_Bucks_County%2C_Pennsylvania.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2020, 02:43:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 29, 2020, 03:11:29 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2020, 04:38:46 PM
Yes, those signs are from NYTA. Note the NY-17 shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 29, 2020, 06:05:15 PM
Yes, those signs are from NYTA. Note the NY-17 shield.

You can also tell they're from the Thruway authority because you can't read them for shit at night
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2020, 06:29:05 PM
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
Although they're NYSTA installs, they're on NJDOT property and that would be why they haven't been changed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 29, 2020, 08:40:53 PM
There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadsguy on December 29, 2020, 10:45:02 PM
There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?

I-287 South?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: plain on December 30, 2020, 12:07:32 AM
Those I-87 & I-287 shields are looking mighty demountable there
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 30, 2020, 12:08:31 AM
There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?

I-287 South?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sturmde on December 30, 2020, 12:20:22 AM
Oh?  I thought the error was that it says Tappan Zee Br, and not  :banghead: :banghead: Mario Cuomo Br
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on December 30, 2020, 08:04:06 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 30, 2020, 04:47:58 PM
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 rounded corners suggest Turnpike Authority design standards, not NJDOT. NJDOT standards would have square corners with a rounded white border, a yellow toll banner, NJ Turnpike written out at the bottom, and I'm pretty sure omit the PA Turnpike shield completely.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 30, 2020, 05:08:54 PM
This is almost certainly an NJDOT install, so not sure some of what is mentioned above applies...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/2020-07-17_12_50_28_View_east_along_U.S._Route_40_and_north_along_New_Jersey_State_Route_45_%28West_Avenue%29_at_Salem_County_Route_672_%28Main_Street%29_in_Woodstown%2C_Salem_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on December 30, 2020, 05:10:13 PM
^^  These are NJDOT installations . . . they went in under the same contract as the signs changing I-95 to I-295 around Trenton.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 30, 2020, 05:20:11 PM
Interesting. NJDOT doesn't usually do roundrects.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 30, 2020, 08:00:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 30, 2020, 08:39:53 PM
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.

I wasn't sure which sign you were referring to, but yeah I noticed that error with the "south". The old signs they haven't replaced in NJ are better, but they should have "East" above 287. Oh well. The sign at US 1 in Edison which directs traffic to
 SOUTH
287 440
is on par, perhaps even worse.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2020, 09:17:52 PM
There is also an error on the sign for the bridge. Does anybody else see it?

The South is above the I-87/ Thruway shields.  The I-287 is direction less it seems as probably there to confuse the motorists less if they saw that then suddenly reading "East."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on December 30, 2020, 09:26:40 PM
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).
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i287/101_6021-s.JPG)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 30, 2020, 09:32:48 PM
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 think we're talking about two different photos.  I'm looking at the photo in the above link.  The NEW sign that says Mario Cuomo Bridge, not Tappan Zee Bridge. It says from left-to-right across the top line: 87/T'way/287/SOUTH.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2020, 09:50:23 PM
Wow and they left out space between words to get it all in!  By the time you read that you will miss New York City.   

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.  Hey look at George Washington Bridge.  Most signs in NY say "Geo Wash Br" or in NJ they read "G. Washington Br."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 30, 2020, 10:02:38 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2020, 10:10:33 PM
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).

M. Cuomo would work as well.  I see the ambiguity in though and right now politics is a nasty game more than ever.  Now we have love them or hate them depending what perspective you look at now and I am sure many New Yorkers do not like the change like they did other renames as well. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 30, 2020, 10:31:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on December 30, 2020, 10:34:51 PM
Around the fall of 2018, I did see a VMS on the Thruway SB that said "GMCB ROAD WORK" or something to that effect.  Given the newness of the bridge at the time, the "four random letters" probably threw off any motorist who wasn't a "road enthusiast".  I knew what it stood for, but had to think for a minute. 

Since that time, we've had the whole renaming more drilled into our heads.  And now, the VMSs probably have to say "GMMCB"... can't forget that extra M! 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 31, 2020, 02:05:49 AM
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?
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.
SignBridge was referring to the sign linked above (not the ones i photographed), which DOES show 287 erroneously grouped with south.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 12, 2021, 09:39:17 AM
Why isnt East Brunswick a control city for Exit 9?

https://goo.gl/maps/bAFYWpmz6w3WPMALA
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on January 12, 2021, 10:06:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 12, 2021, 10:07:05 AM
Why is East Brunswick a control city for Exit 9?

https://goo.gl/maps/bAFYWpmz6w3WPMALA
I presume you mean "isn't", and its interesting it got removed, but no idea why.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 12, 2021, 10:29:27 AM
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.

Fixed it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 12, 2021, 10:32:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 12, 2021, 01:09:25 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 12, 2021, 02:42:06 PM
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

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on January 12, 2021, 03:16:20 PM
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 LOL

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.
the 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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 12, 2021, 09:55:52 PM
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 LOL

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.
the 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

it's a parkway LMAO
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 12, 2021, 10:14:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 13, 2021, 12:45:39 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 13, 2021, 12:57:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on January 13, 2021, 11:54:13 AM
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]")?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on January 13, 2021, 12:00:20 PM
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]")?

Maryland:


 :-D :-D :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 13, 2021, 01:08:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 13, 2021, 07:59:33 PM
Isn't New Brunswick the Turnpike's actual name of the interchange at Exit 9? That's why it's signed as such and all other towns in the area are secondary to the interchange name. And it was probably named that because circa 1950 when the Turnpike was built, it was the only real town in the area. East Brunswick back then was probably nothing but farms.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on January 13, 2021, 09:56:18 PM
...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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 13, 2021, 10:01:28 PM
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 is something they'd only put on ancillary signs at this point, like they did at Exit 11, and I think Old Bridge makes more sense than South River.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 13, 2021, 10:06:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 13, 2021, 11:30:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on January 14, 2021, 12:49:51 AM
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.
NY also has its own supplement to the MUTCD.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 14, 2021, 08:57:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 14, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
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).
(https://nysroads.com/images/gallery/NY/i287/101_6021-s.JPG)
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.

Similar (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.11828,-74.1533385,3a,75y,255.6h,76.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssyCOiu9uqvkCuuptHlKh2A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) was done along the northbound throughway; the SOUTH legend placed directly above the NJ 17 shield.

Only along the southbound Thruway does one see I-287 South & I-287 East legends on adjacent panels.

Aug. 2018 GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1248981,-74.1657053,3a,75y,152.4h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA9A3eu5EER3adG06v7LDJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

Sept. 2019 GSV showing newer pull-through BGS using the same signing convention for I-287 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1249183,-74.1656768,3a,75y,152.4h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNbXnEESlp8oGQLNbxYZIng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on January 15, 2021, 05:04:10 PM
I've often thought Albany might be signed too soon on I-87, wouldn't Newburgh be better?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on January 15, 2021, 05:38:32 PM
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? 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on January 15, 2021, 06:05:59 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 15, 2021, 06:26:57 PM
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

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on January 15, 2021, 06:50:17 PM
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)

I don't know whether the Thruway uses Utica or not and when I made that post, was debating with myself whether to say Utica or just skip to Syracuse. It definitely was marginal in my mind.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 15, 2021, 07:55:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 15, 2021, 10:00:07 PM
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 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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2021, 10:09:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 16, 2021, 04:39:03 AM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 16, 2021, 10:45:54 AM
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...

Florida on I-75 is the same.  It uses Tampa Southbound from the GA State Line, but then has Ocala, Lake City, and Valdosta all going NB the entire time Tampa is used the other way.

Anyway, as far as Newburgh goes, it is a control city on I-84 from west and east.  In fact on that route it would be better used than "Milford" which PennDOT chose to use for I-84 East out of Scranton.  To me Milford really has no use as no major roads intersect there and its a small PA borough.  Plus the route west of Milford was built after the route east of it, so it never was a freeway terminus either.  Even Port Jervis would serve better as its at the state line of NY, or Middletown due to NY 17 (Future I-86).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 16, 2021, 11:11:28 PM
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 :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 22, 2021, 09:53:41 PM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 22, 2021, 09:56:09 PM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 22, 2021, 10:30:06 PM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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...



PHLBOS, you are correct and you can see the NJTA signing all the way to the GW Bridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 23, 2021, 01:31:06 AM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2021, 09:50:50 AM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 23, 2021, 10:17:18 AM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2021, 11:50:26 AM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?

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.
Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.

If the Turnpike bought it, then it is theirs and it is the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on January 23, 2021, 01:19:26 PM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Fair enough.

However, it is worth noting that Newark was used (along with New York) on older northbound NJTP ramp signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1273789,-74.6996487,3a,75y,40.65h,91.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s12Wd5J4HRPfqhuvoI6vnTg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664).  Such existed until roughly a decade ago.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 23, 2021, 02:56:37 PM
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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?

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.
Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on January 23, 2021, 05:17:45 PM


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...
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)

... which also isn't on the Turnpike :D
Even 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.
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.
Why would the Turnpike Authority maintain a road that is not theirs?

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.
Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.

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.

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...).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 23, 2021, 10:26:10 PM


Right, but that is similar to when the Thruway added I-84 -- even to their logo.

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.

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...).
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on February 06, 2021, 05:20:09 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 06, 2021, 05:36:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2021, 11:28:23 AM
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...

Users with an out-of-state EZ Pass (but not necessarily out-of-state plates) pay the normal cash rate, which is the same as the Peak EZ Pass rate.

However, NJ does NOT offer a pay by plate rate. No EZ Pass and No Cash results in a $50 fee plus highest toll charged for the vehicle class. (If a car traveled from Int. 3 to 4 on the NJ Tpk, going thru the EZ Pass lane both times will result in being charged from Int. 18E/W to Int. 4, since they don't track entry points.

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.

If they had offered a peak EZ Pass discount, it was removed 15-20 years ago. Honestly, I can't remember if one was ever offered.

The discount rate for out-of-state EZ Passes ended in 2011.
https://www.nj.com/news/2011/05/nj_turnpike_authority_ends_off.html
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 11, 2021, 07:54:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 11, 2021, 08:23:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 11, 2021, 07:28:44 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 11, 2021, 08:38:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 11, 2021, 08:57:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 11, 2021, 09:15:40 PM

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 11, 2021, 09:23:41 PM
Funny you should mention New Haven. I've long wondered why New Haven was used instead of Bridgeport, Ct. for I-95 North. Bridgeport has the larger population and is before New Haven as you go north. However I think New Haven was used because that's where I-91 splits off from I-95 so it's considered more relevant to the Interstate System.

And now back to the New Jersey Turnpike.......
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 11, 2021, 10:32:53 PM
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.

Not sure why you think otherwise, but if you are not from NYC, the crossing names have no relevance either. Probably even less than the part of Manhattan your destination happens to be in.  I mean, if you are going somewhere in NYC, who CARES what bridge/tunnel you use, you just want to get there. Meanwhile, you probably have some idea what part of the city you are going to.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 11, 2021, 10:40:11 PM

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).

Not sure New Haven is the most appropriate... between I-80 etc traffic entering from the west and the large swath of urbanity located north of Manhattan, plus the forever non-moving mess otherwise known as the Cross Bronx, there's a good chance traffic crossing the GWB is going someplace fairly close, and not continuing on to CT. If I was coming from south of NYC and wanted to avoid traffic headaches heading to New Haven and beyond, I'd probably do what most do - bypass NYC on I-287.

For that reason, Upper Manhattan/The Bronx would seem to make more sense to me after you pass 495/3, especially since it works fine for traffic coming in from I-80 too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 11, 2021, 11:40:16 PM
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.

If New Haven would cause more confusion than it solves, then the next best solution is the Minnesota solution of using the route indication (Turnpike/I-95) only, possibly identifying the G W Bridge as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 11, 2021, 11:50:17 PM
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.

That's fair, though I don't think I'd consider Upper Manhattan and The Bronx or Upper Manhattan and Midtown Manhattan redundant.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on February 12, 2021, 12:24:09 AM
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". 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 12, 2021, 07:35:34 AM
Quote
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.

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).

Quote
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 12, 2021, 03:28:38 PM
> 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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 12, 2021, 03:46:26 PM
> 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 12, 2021, 05:54:50 PM
> 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 12, 2021, 07:51:20 PM
> 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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 12, 2021, 08:36:15 PM
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". 

If I remember correctly, the original entrance signs on the western end of the Connecticut Tpk. read: Eastbound- New Haven.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 12, 2021, 08:42:47 PM
Quote
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.

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).

Quote
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.

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?

Many of the destinations you suggest were commonly used in the NYC area from the 1930's thru the 1970's. For example, signs on the Cross Island Pkwy for the Whitestone and Throgs Neck Bridges showed destinations of: Bronx, Westchester, New England. Signs at entrances in Westchester to the New England T'way, (I-95) displayed New York and Connecticut as the destinations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 13, 2021, 09:52:15 AM
> 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.

Disagree, seeing “Manhattan” or “Bronx” on a sign isn’t all that useful either. I think it actually conveys less useful information than the crossing. If you’re driving from say Long Island to the Bronx, knowing if it will be via the Triboro Br vs the Whitestone Br will put you in a completely different part of the same control city of monolithic “Bronx”. One could argue, as above, that perhaps neighborhood names like Midtown could be used as control cities, but unlike for crossing names, there isn’t any historical precedent for that, it isn’t officially acceptable as an option, and can be tricky since neighborhood/submunicipal boundaries are often nebulous and may not be universally agreed upon. At least the departure and landing points of crossings are fixed and not subject to change.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 13, 2021, 10:37:44 AM
> 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2021, 10:44:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 13, 2021, 10:47:59 AM
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.

Yes, well said.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 13, 2021, 10:49:41 AM
> 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.

Given that there is more than one reasonable viewpoint on this matter of opinion, as I said we'll just have to agree to disagree *shrug*.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 13, 2021, 11:10:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2021, 11:12:25 AM
> 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. 

I'll use one of my NJ Turnpike Toll taking stories as an example:  Guy was on I-80 East in NJ, wanting to go to Boston.  For some reason, he turned onto I-95/NJ Turnpike South.  He drove about 2 hours to Interchange 1.  Got into my lane.  As he was paying the toll he asked how much longer it was to Boston.  I told him he drove 2 hours the wrong way.  He wasn't happy.

When it comes to geography challenged, don't think *anything* will help someone.  I don't know if the guy stopped at a service area, but if he did, he didn't look at a map.  I don't know if he got gas, but if he did he didn't ask the gas attendant. 

I have half-joked in the past that I imagine that about 25% of our country's gasoline usage is wasted fuel because people don't drive the most direct way to their destination.  I would hope that GPS equipment has cut down on that. 

It doesn't matter if a sign says "New York City", "Midtown", "Lincoln Tunnel" or "95 North".  If you don't know where you're going, or more importantly - where you are presently at - none of this is going to assist you.

And if you need any more verification of this:  Have your favorite meteorologist as a Facebook Friend.  When they post a map of expected snowfall, guaranteed dozens of people will say "How much snow will I get in (town) or (county).  The map is RIGHT THERE.  The county lines are shown.  If these people have no clue how to identify their location on a map; well, they're the people that rely on GPS to find their way out of their development every single time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2021, 07:25:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 13, 2021, 08:06:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: motorways on February 13, 2021, 08:53:08 PM
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.

Good thing they're only guidelines and not commandments.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 13, 2021, 10:46:28 PM
Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 13, 2021, 10:58:44 PM
Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.

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).
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 13, 2021, 11:02:38 PM
Actually it is common for many US routes and interstates side by side to sign the same places from one intersection.  Darien, GA has Savannah signed on US 17 North and to the connector roadway to I-95.   VA Beach on Laskin Road had both Norfolk signed for local US 58 and for former
 Tolled VA 44 at the split for both routes and near Charleston, SC on US 58 & 78 you have that city signed at a split for the I-26 Connector, though its says (or said in 2009 anyway) Via Freeway for the interstate to give one a choice.

Rocky Mount, NC still has Richmond signed on US 301 N Bound and for NC 4 N Bound at the wye split of both roads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2021, 12:57:24 AM
VA Beach on Laskin Road had both Norfolk signed for local US 58 and for former Tolled VA 44 at the split for both routes
Actually, it still remains today and was carbon-copied from the old sign when replaced about a decade ago.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8441527,-76.038274,3a,45.8y,263.37h,86.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stgAB4OUawn2se1vk_0DASg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 14, 2021, 01:47:23 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 14, 2021, 03:20:13 AM
Some of the above ideas suggest to me that you have not actually read the MUTCD.

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).
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.

The above user seemed to be referring to more than just the east/west split of the Turnpike mainline, but also to the idea of signing "New York" or "Manhattan" at the I-95/I-78 interchange ("mainline vs extension" of the Turnpike) for both I-95/mainline Turnpike north as well as I-78/Turnpike extension east. That would be a case where, clearly, the MUTCD prohibition applies.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 14, 2021, 03:22:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 14, 2021, 06:37:27 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on February 14, 2021, 08:19:15 AM
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.

Plus, in the days prior to the HO/T era, they needed to give a route that wasn’t subject to HOV restrictions. For many years a sign on eastbound I-66 prior to the Beltway said to use Exit 64 to get to Washington via Route 50 (it used those words, "VIA ROUTE 50," rather than a shield). In that case it was also because of trucks being banned from I-66 inside the Beltway, although Route 50 is subject to an 8-ton gross vehicle weight limit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 14, 2021, 08:48:00 AM
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.

There are always lots of ways to get somewhere - you pick the best (for some definition of best) and sign that way. It appears to me that the NJT directs traffic to/from the GWB to the western route for a couple of reasons: load balancing (Lincoln Tunnel traffic on the east route, GWB traffic on the west route) and to provide separation of the two major traffic flows at the north end. The roadway design at the north end (Lombardi Service Area to the I-80 junction) is such that the two major flows there - Turnpike (Newark and south) to/from the GWB and Lincoln Tunnel to/from I-80 - never share any roadway. But with their changeable signs, if circumstances require, the Turnpike to/from GWB traffic can be sent to the east roadway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 14, 2021, 11:04:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/EzvZgEHrhVpAUnYu5

See NB I-95 & NJ Turnpike get no control city from I-78.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 15, 2021, 12:28:13 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on February 16, 2021, 05:25:02 PM
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?

While you chew on that, I'll apply it to my stepsister and her husband.  For 20+ years they lived at the Shore, or precisely, just west of it, before moving to the Southeast US. 

-  When they lived in Toms River, you might say they lived at GSP Exit 82 (NJ 37).
-  When they lived in Mays Landing, you might say lived at ACX Exit 17 (NJ 50; actually they lived a few miles away just off County 559).
-  And when they lived in Absecon, the case could be made that they lived at ACX Exit 9 (County 646) or GSP Exit 40 (US 30*; they lived just off County 651).
 
But they never though of themselves as living "at an exit" when they lived in New Jersey.

*Exit 40 is southbound only (unless if you're northbound, you pick your way through the Atlantic Service Plaza until you're heading sb, then get off at Exit 40).

ixnay

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2021, 05:30:04 PM
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?

It's mainly attributed to the NJ Turnpike.  For the Parkway, there's a certain attachment to Exit 0 for Cape May, but very little Exit number attachment elsewhere. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 16, 2021, 05:40:21 PM
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 and it was different NB or SB - Exit 14 SB but Exit 11 (or maybe 10) NB (no obvious good way to/from the south where we lived - it was go 10 miles east to the GSP, 10 miles west to I-287, or a slow slog on suburban streets to shorten the miles but not time to either one).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on February 16, 2021, 06:10:20 PM
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
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.

*or appropriate/applicable abbreviation

As far as the MUTCD is concerned; just revise the term control city to control point in the manual.

Problem solved.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on February 16, 2021, 06:38:44 PM
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

The power of the NJTA strikes again...

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on February 16, 2021, 06:52:20 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2021, 08:49:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 16, 2021, 10:30:37 PM
"What exit" does have a secondary use on the Parkway. People in Holmdel or Matawan-Aberdeen are Exit 117. I've seen that one in particular. It may depend on the town. LBI is Exit 63 very strongly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 17, 2021, 01:11:35 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/rNQgxfTKZvNmjih47
Since when are there five exits on the Newark Bay Extension?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 17, 2021, 05:24:54 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/rNQgxfTKZvNmjih47
Since when are there five exits on the Newark Bay Extension?

1
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6880421,-74.1003407,3a,75y,152.68h,79.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZGbQvoBUgz0cdiyblQ1wVA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

2
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7009415,-74.0685704,3a,75y,47.6h,89.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg0BPOPNpVe4mzaG5FsXicw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

3
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7067453,-74.0609457,3a,75y,56.58h,87.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTLJ_TmRuGC0copYvLI8unw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

4 and 5
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7148455,-74.0550055,3a,75y,352.58h,85.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZpxoQytlN1B9fDGl7Y50Fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 17, 2021, 12:07:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 17, 2021, 01:22:38 PM
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.

The NJTA considers anything exiting off its system as "an exit", so the mainline going onto 12th street is an exit for this purpose.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on February 17, 2021, 03:06:26 PM
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.

Be advised that coming off the DelMemBr, I would utilize the "last exit before toll" and head east on US 40 towards the shore (when they lived in Mays Landing, later Absecon).  The only time I visted them in Toms River, I never used any toll roads then either, but rather I-295 to NJ  70 east to NJ 37 east.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 07, 2021, 07:19:58 PM
I just found this article on life in New Jersey (which I later learned was from 2015), and yes, they mentioned the Turnpike:

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/new-york/new-jersey/things-you-don-t-understand-about-new-jersey-thrillist-nyc

One quote on the list;
Quote
11. The Turnpike is not for the weak
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.
Is it normal for people from outside of New Jersey not to be intimidated by any of these things?


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 07, 2021, 07:50:46 PM
I enjoyed the map.

(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/funny-new-jersey-area-map.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 07, 2021, 08:14:21 PM
I enjoyed the map.

(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/funny-new-jersey-area-map.jpg)
"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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 08, 2021, 01:23:59 PM
I enjoyed the map.

(http://www.grayflannelsuit.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/funny-new-jersey-area-map.jpg)
"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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 08, 2021, 02:46:43 PM
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.
[/quote]

Which is still fully operating.  No pandemic is gonna stop them!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 08, 2021, 05:05:40 PM
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.

Which is still fully operating.  No pandemic is gonna stop them!
[/quote]

That probably fits perfectly with the "Pretty much Alabama" description of the region (were there many COVID restrictions in Alabama? Somehow I doubt it...)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on March 08, 2021, 06:00:51 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 08, 2021, 07:08:08 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.
They've got a good amount of their population in the Happy White Families area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 08, 2021, 07:08:23 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on March 19, 2021, 09:42:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 19, 2021, 11:03:58 AM
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?

Not impossible, but extremely cost and environmentally difficult, so I'm suspecting its not likely for a long long time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 19, 2021, 11:22:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2021, 01:48:00 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 23, 2021, 06:10:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2021, 07:01:02 PM
Fatal crash on the Delaware Memorial Bridge this afternoon, going into the evening, right around the NJ/DE border on the bridge.  In the past, to help traffic to get stuck at the bridge, they'll encourage people to exit at Exit 4, then take one of the other bridges to get back to 95.  Now since 95 is connected, they can encouraging traffic to exit at Exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 23, 2021, 07:54:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 23, 2021, 09:56:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2021, 11:18:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 24, 2021, 12:07:20 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2021, 07:35:05 AM
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.

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.

The PTC is already on board with rehabbing/replacing the connector bridge.

https://www.patpconstruction.com/paturnpikei95/delaware-river-bridge.aspx

The last 2 paragraphs in that link are current, and references the fracture and the re-evaluation of the project.
 I would suspect they are looking at a full replacement for both directions now, rather than an EB addition and WB rehab of the current span
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 24, 2021, 03:54:38 PM
Cross-posted from the I-95/PA Turnpike Interchange thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11707.2850):

I don't believe that anybody has yet commented on such; but on a recent weekend trip, I noticed that the NJTA finally got around to placing I-95 shields on its southbound overhead pull-through signs at Exit 8A.  Such must've happened within this year because such were not done when I last drove there just after last Christmas.  I believe such completes the through-sign updates in relation to the connection opening over 2 years ago.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 24, 2021, 08:50:56 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2021, 03:12:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 25, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
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 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).
Exactly.  I do not get why they use Newburgh for one road and not the other.
If using Newburgh on 84, use it on 87, OR on 84, just use Scranton.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 25, 2021, 08:30:45 PM
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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 26, 2021, 07:25:08 AM
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?
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.
Do you agree Philadelphia should be the control city on the NJTP south?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 26, 2021, 10:47:41 AM
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?
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.
Do you agree Philadelphia should be the control city on the NJTP south?

No.  It should be Baltimore.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2021, 09:03:50 PM
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".)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 26, 2021, 09:24:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2021, 11:14:45 PM
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.

Mount Pocono
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 26, 2021, 11:19:49 PM
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.

The only "major" city even sort of close to I-80 in eastern PA is Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. That's probably the best option (especially since I-80/I-380 is the best route to/from Scranton and I-380 branches off directly to Scranton with exactly that purpose in mind). Beyond Scranton, Williamsport could be used thanks to I-180, and then there really is nothing until Youngstown.

As far as the turnpike... I'm pretty sure that if we built all these roads simultaneously today, with no state boundaries considered, 95/NJTP would be signed "Philadelphia" southbound until 6, and "New York" northbound from that point. Because that's the two major cities they connect. But state boundaries and history make this much more murky than it should be.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on March 26, 2021, 11:34:14 PM
Hazleton...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 27, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 27, 2021, 12:57:14 AM
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.

From 8A, with no traffic, 3 routes are almost exactly the same length, so traffic would dictate how you'd get to Trenton if you used GPS/phone directions.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.342728,-74.4692685/Trenton,+New+Jersey/@40.2678014,-74.6875243,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c143482d3dbbb9:0xcf16567f895cd7bc!2m2!1d-74.759717!2d40.2205824!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1616378400!3e0

From 9, with no traffic, US 1 is the clear winner, though the edge isn't great.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.4703468,-74.4086723/Trenton,+New+Jersey/@40.327222,-74.58131,11.5z/data=!4m13!4m12!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c143482d3dbbb9:0xcf16567f895cd7bc!2m2!1d-74.759717!2d40.2205824!2m3!6e1!7e2!8j1616378400!3e0

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.

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.

I had thought that perhaps "Cleveland" would be more appropriate for 80 westbound, but its SO far... then again, if we used MDTA rules (which ignore Wilmington and Philly in favor of New York), then that's exactly what NJDOT should sign for 80 westbound... Cleveland.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 27, 2021, 12:40:38 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on March 27, 2021, 12:52:31 PM
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.

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).
If ISTHA had control...
80 WB: Pennsylvania
80 EB: New York
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ketchup99 on March 27, 2021, 10:19:42 PM
If I ran the New Jersey Turnpike, its control cities would be:
Northbound: New York City up to the Lincoln Tunnel exit, The Bronx north of there (at the split, sign Manhattan on the exit for 495 and Bronx on the Turnpike)
Southbound: Newark to I-280, Philadelphia to Exit 6, Baltimore from there

As for I-80 in PA, I'm not sure why it needs to be a city along the route. State College, Williamsport, and Scranton would all be perfectly workable. Personally, I'd not mind having a primary control city (e.g. Sharon, State College, Willilamsport, Scranton, Stroudsburg) and also a secondary one (New York EB, Ohio WB) the whole way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on March 27, 2021, 10:53:29 PM
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.

That is as far as I am willing to go right now . . .  :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on March 29, 2021, 06:13:33 PM
FWIW, and I believe I mentioned similar either several pages back on this thread or in another related-thread, the use of Trenton for I-95 and/or NJTP signage is justified because of it being NJ's Capital & such comes within 20 miles of the actual I-95/NJTP corridor. 

From the north, one encounters the Trenton area prior to approaching Philadelphia. 

From Philly via I-95 northbound, such is still the most direct way to the Trenton area despite I-95 itself no longer being in close proximity to the actual city.  Even in its pre-Sept. 2018 alignment and/or had the Somerset Freeway been built, I-95 never actually goes through nor enters Trenton.  One would simply follow I-95 northbound from Philly to I-295 (formerly I-95) to the US 1 northbound interchange near Langhorne to access the city.

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.
Interestingly, the northbound pull-through sign at Exit 14 (I-78) lists Geo. Washington Bridge.

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. 

One has to wonder if the reasoning for such signage may have been due to either I-195/NJ 29 not yet being fully completed at the time the new ramp was built or nobody bothered to check that a new direct-highway connection to Trenton from the NJTP existed/was completed.

While the southbound GSP Exit 129 signage recently replaced Camden with Philadelphia; the northbound GSP Exit 129 signage and the I-95/NJTP southbound signage beyond the toll plaza still list Trenton.  The much earlier (70s vintage) sign for the latter also listed Trenton as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 02, 2021, 09:36:59 PM
Does anyone know if the truckers lounge with the showers at Vince Lombardi is coming back? Or is that gone forever?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 07, 2021, 09:54:33 PM
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?
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.
Do you agree Philadelphia should be the control city on the NJTP south?

No.  It should be Baltimore.
That is asinine.

-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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2021, 12:23:16 AM
That is asinine.
Be nice.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on April 09, 2021, 09:00:22 AM

-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).

I think the Philadelphia - Baltimore scheme makes the most sense. Use Philadelphia for the portion of the southbound Turnpike that is also I-95, and sign the split for I-95 South Philadelphia and Turnpike South Baltimore.

Also, I am not a fan of Paterson as a control city for westbound I-80, but I can't think of a better choice. Parsippany? Netcong? Allamuchy Township? MUTCD would suggest Delaware Water Gap, but you need to get to Youngstown or Cleveland before you reach a meaningful city along I-80.

Meanwhile, the devilish control cities would be:
NJ Turnpike South to Newark (Delaware)
I-80 West to Jersey Shore (Pennsylvania)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 09, 2021, 09:06:28 AM

-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).

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 09, 2021, 09:20:58 AM

-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).

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on April 09, 2021, 09:23:18 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 09, 2021, 09:30:06 AM

-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).

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.

That's fair. Baltimore does have merit, for sure. I was just sayin'.

Maybe the turnpike could switch entirely to using "Philadelphia/Baltimore" south of the 80 junction.  I'd be fine with that if MDTA would then switch to using "Philadelphia/New York" along I-95 in Maryland ;)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 09, 2021, 09:31:22 AM

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.

Absolutely.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on April 09, 2021, 10:47:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on April 09, 2021, 11:40:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on April 09, 2021, 03:06:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on April 09, 2021, 10:13:10 PM
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 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,
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 10, 2021, 01:43:27 AM
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 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,
It is. We're debating the merits of what's signed vs. what could be.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on April 10, 2021, 04:43:01 AM
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 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,
It is. We're debating the merits of what's signed vs. what could be.
Sounds like it's more appropriate for the Control Cities thread.  It's speculation and opinion more than based upon any real proposal.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TheGrassGuy on April 10, 2021, 08:00:56 AM
The old interchange between the Turnpike and the Parkway, predating I-287 and NJ-440 and numbered 10 instead of 11. (https://www.flickr.com/photos/brewbooks/4593377278)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 14, 2021, 06:19:39 PM
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 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,

Baltimore is a topic similar to I-76 should be the ACE.  People have to play this one out just like the I-76 extension.  Telling them to move on is like preaching to the choir.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 26, 2021, 09:00:49 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 26, 2021, 09:02:24 AM
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?

I recall in the 2000s how in Central Jersey it would always be jammed; amazing how great the NJTP is now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 26, 2021, 09:09:58 AM

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 26, 2021, 01:10:17 PM
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?

Yes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2021, 01:43:33 PM

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.
Just make I-75 South Miami south of Tampa and call it a day, vice versa with Tampa out of Miami.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 26, 2021, 09:19:05 PM
Aren't the control cities on Interstates supposed to be major cities? You can drive on the I-405 northbound in Los Angeles and see Sacramento as the control city, which is hundreds of miles away.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 26, 2021, 09:35:47 PM
The southbound NJ Turnpike control cities should be Philadelphia when on I-95 and Baltimore south of there. No Trenton, no Wilmington. NYC should always be signed going north.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2021, 01:59:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 07:48:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2021, 09:30:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 09:50:29 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2021, 11:23:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2021, 02:43:48 PM
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.

But Wilmington isn't the capital of Delaware...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 03:50:33 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 27, 2021, 04:03:43 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 04:05:54 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 27, 2021, 04:10:47 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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?

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 04:11:26 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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?
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 04:13:01 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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?

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
And I agree with that. Control Cities on major routes like the NJ Turnpike should be large, nationally know cities.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2021, 05:54:00 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 27, 2021, 09:59:35 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:01:41 PM
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.
Going south, Wilmington is a backtrack.

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?

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.
Poor Dover doesn't even have an Interstate.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on April 27, 2021, 10:32:18 PM
It's a pity this thread is being cluttered up with this control city baloney.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 27, 2021, 10:43:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 28, 2021, 02:44:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 07:59:32 AM
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.
I've noticed a lot of quite energetic new users lately... reminds me of 2017 when I first joined.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 28, 2021, 11:00:39 PM

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 11:01:44 PM

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.
But most traffic is going to Baltimore/Washington.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 28, 2021, 11:37:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 28, 2021, 11:46:20 PM
Wilmington is basically a Philly exburb. Sign in SB out of Philly and that's it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 29, 2021, 12:54:58 AM
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'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 29, 2021, 02:58:27 AM
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?

Maryland thumbs its nose at Delaware  :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 09:42:34 AM
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'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.
They should use Philadelphia.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 29, 2021, 10:49:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 03:14:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 29, 2021, 03:36:01 PM
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?

Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 04:11:12 PM
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?

Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
I'm surprised Camden is a dump and right across from Philladelphia.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on April 29, 2021, 04:29:51 PM
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.
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.

Maryland's overlooking Wilmington and even Philly on its I-95 northbound signage likely dates back to a time when both the upper section of I-95 through Wilmington & I-495 either didn't yet exist nor were fully-completed.

That said & IMHO, Wilmington should be used as a northbound I-95 control city north of Baltimore.
_____________________________________________
We now return to our regularly-scheduled New Jersey Turnpike thread; now already in progress.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2021, 05:51:21 PM
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?

Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
I'm surprised Camden is a dump and right across from Philladelphia.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 05:55:03 PM
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?

Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
I'm surprised Camden is a dump and right across from Philladelphia.

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'm not surprised that Camden is a dump, I'm surprised that they use it on signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on April 29, 2021, 05:59:59 PM
I think it's worth repeating:  Wilmington. Is. Not. The. Capital. Of. Delaware.

Never has been.  New Castle was until 1777 when Dover took over the role.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2021, 06:00:21 PM
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'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.
They should use Philadelphia.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 06:09:21 PM
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'd say it should be! States are very bad at using the next control city.
They should use Philadelphia.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2021, 06:26:43 PM
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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 06:29:22 PM
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.
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2021, 06:47:26 PM
...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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on April 29, 2021, 06:49:05 PM
...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!
Well using Wilmington/Philadelphia is good as it has a smaller closer by city and a larger more distant one.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on May 02, 2021, 09:08:41 PM
Saw some interesting signage coming into NJ on the PA Turnpike Extension (I was detoured from exiting onto US 1 because of an accident, so the alternate route was via US 130).  Because of AET on the PA Turnpike, the NJTA now has a sign that says "NJ Turnpike: E-ZPass or Cash ONLY".  In addition, with the expansion to two E-ZPass Express lanes at the toll plaza, the signage now says "Toll Plaza Bypass" for E-ZPass customers.  I thought the word "bypass" was an interesting choice of wording.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2021, 10:11:32 PM
The "Toll Plaza Bypass" language is standard for NJTA. Its used at Garden State Parkway plazas.

https://goo.gl/maps/R8Xgb8jDx6L69kha9
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2021, 12:33:20 AM
I see there is an Exit 19W now on the western spur.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 03, 2021, 08:42:26 AM
I see there is an Exit 19W now on the western spur.

Yes
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/2020-07-14_08_19_46_View_south_along_Interstate_95W_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike_Western_Spur%29_at_Exit_19W_%28Meadowlands_Complex%2C_American_Dream%29_in_Carlstadt%2C_Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2021, 09:24:39 AM
What is the brown out on the sign covering up?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 03, 2021, 10:34:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2021, 11:55:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 04, 2021, 12:06:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2021, 12:08:19 AM
Figures. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 04, 2021, 12:41:09 AM
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.
Well it was free to motorists until opened full time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on May 04, 2021, 10:39:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 04, 2021, 05:42:49 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2021, 06:46:21 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?

https://maps.app.goo.gl/ySgkVPGkQnr4sw6XA
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 04, 2021, 07:10:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 04, 2021, 07:42:01 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?

“Good scenery”  and “New Jersey Turnpike”  are not phrases usually used in the same sentence. Some prominent examples of the Turnpike’s “scenery”  are in the opening to Sopranos, and are a major factor in many out-of-staters negative view of New Jersey.

That said, the lower Hackensack River Bridge on the Eastern Spur has some expansive views of Manhattan, and the Newark Bay Extension views of the city aren’t too shabby, either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2021, 08:09:40 PM
Not from Woodbridge to Newark. Mostly industrial and oil refineries with warehouse sprawl. Yes some parts have great views of NYC, but I-80 west of Netcong has the best views of a NJ freeway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 04, 2021, 08:10:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2021, 08:40:05 PM
In your opinion, what is the best scenery on the New Jersey Turnpike?

Depends on your definition of scenery. I find driving the NJT between Elizabeth and the GW Bridge to be the most interesting stretch of road in the Northeast. There is so much to see including Newark Airport, Port Newark, the Skyway, Downtown Newark, the view from the Passaic and Hackensack River Bridges, Secaucus Rail Station Complex, Meadowlands, and yes, the NYC skyline.

But if you're talking about natural scenery, obviously you'd prefer the southern end of the Turnpike. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2021, 08:49:49 AM
The Bayonne Bridge always was nice to see before the new roadway especially.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 09:21:05 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 05, 2021, 09:27:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 09:28:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: webny99 on May 05, 2021, 10:07:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 10:12:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on May 05, 2021, 10:21:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: webny99 on May 05, 2021, 10:24:45 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 10:39:52 AM
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.

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.
Camden isn't super important. That's like Indiana signing Gary on the Indiana Toll Road and I-65.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2021, 01:51:17 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 05, 2021, 01:52:34 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 09, 2021, 02:46:43 AM
Moving away from the ever continuing but frankly pointless control cities arguments (fact: the Turnpike Authority has always valued signing NJ's major cities, but only going southbound. I have thoughts about how they could be better, too, but that's not going to affect how they're signed or will continue to be signed)...

Drove the Turnpike between 9 and 4 today on the way to see family. Here are some observations from me:

This (https://goo.gl/maps/ZfYdrKgEbjuFxjvH8) is a peach of a mileage sign. I wish the Authority would use these in more places and in both directions (for example, going northbound, would be nice to see mileage to saw Trenton, New Brunswick, and Newark).

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.

That also leads to an interesting development: MUTCD signage spotted at both interchanges. At 5, the overhead structures both northbound (https://goo.gl/maps/856vazn8Z69SwzXeA) and southbound (https://goo.gl/maps/Va5g4Q34njvDpFti7) have been torn down, and there are 1/4 mile ground mount signs for the exit in the Turnpike's mostly-MUTCD style. Both gantries date from I would guess the early 1970s, so they likely were reaching or reached the end of their useful lives and needed replacement. RIP classic Turnpike arrows. So far, the gore point overheads are still there, but I'm guessing their days are numbered since there are gore point exit signs actually on the ground in the gores. Will guess they'll eventually be replaced with mostly-MUTCD signs with arrows as has happened from 9 northward. None of the other advanced signage (which was replaced ~2010-11ish timeframe) has been replaced, at least so far.

At 4, at least southbound, this structure is still up (https://goo.gl/maps/tha4h54yFvjYyHGHA), but I won't be surprised if its days are numbered too. There's a ground mount 1/4 mile advance sign near this one, so I won't be surprised if this structure is replaced. I would still think the Authority would want an overhead sign for the lane drop, as is their standard, but no idea there.

I did find the Authority's Capital Improvement plan for 2021-25 (https://www.njta.com/media/5833/2021-03-03-2021-capital-improvement-program-updated-with-highlighted-note.pdf) on their website and of note is that there is money programmed in this year for sign structure replacement. I'll be curious where they do other signage replacements. I also wonder if the "classic" signage that was done for the 6-9 widening is on the endangered species list. All of those structures are new along that stretch, so it would not be out of the realm of possibility for the Authority to just replace panels with mostly-MUTCD versions instead. Not sure about plans south of 4, but given that they will be doing the phased widening all the way down to the southern end, I would think that signage replacements if they were to happen on that stretch, would come as part of those projects.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2021, 10:19:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2021, 10:49:27 AM
Sign at 43.72 is not brown rust, so it is old. Turnpike started in early 80s with rusted gantries. 

The 4 overheads need destinations on them as the large Exit 4 says nothing. At one time exit numbers were all you needed in NJ on both Parkway and Turnpike, but now things changed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on May 10, 2021, 09:45:22 AM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 10, 2021, 10:22:40 AM
can 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on May 10, 2021, 10:25:37 AM
can 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.
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 roadways
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 10, 2021, 10:45:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2021, 03:05:04 PM
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.

You mis-understood. This lighting project went to bid and was approved prior to Fiscal Year 2021. It's not part of any portion of the 2021-2025 capital plan.

See PDF page 10 of https://www.njta.com/media/5468/minutes-bm-7-28-2020.pdf . This pertains to an extension of the original contract, but details in brief the project at the interchanges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2021, 06:30:19 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 10, 2021, 07:19:12 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2021, 08:18:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2021, 09:29:25 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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*.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 10, 2021, 09:32:03 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2021, 09:35:24 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 10, 2021, 09:49:41 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on May 10, 2021, 09:59:48 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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.
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.

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).

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2021, 10:26:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 10, 2021, 10:32:43 PM
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.

The problem with tapered acceleration lanes is that they suggest a single merge point, versus a parallel lane where you can merge as soon as you have the gap. You have more merge freedom in a parallel lane versus a tapered lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2021, 10:37:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on May 10, 2021, 10:42:20 PM
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

And yes, I always knew driving, that ISTHA’s Entrance Ramps/Acceleration Lanes joining the Tollways are different than IDOT’s - I just didn’t know the fancy terminology of tapered vs parallel
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2021, 11:15:58 PM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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.

You're right...I worked the Turnpike. In a toll booth. I can tell a whole bunch of stories about people that came thru the toll plaza. How that translates into that I'm all supportive of all things Turnpike though, that's you continuing to throwing wild accusations without any proof.

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.  I've encouraged people here to go to public meetings...I can't recall one person who actually has done so.

If you notice, I didn't say you were wrong. I asked for your proof, which you could be unable to peovise as "most" and "average" would be 2 different amounts, unless the average happened to be the mode, which happened to be most.

You then decided to nickname me, change your to to "our" opinion, cite 2 other people that also have absolutely no proof and then admit you haven't even seen an accident at an onramp, all non-sequtiors to distract from the fact that you still never justified anything other than its personal opinion.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 11, 2021, 08:03:29 AM
can anyone explain how the Merge lanes on the Tpke acually work being that there like 400 feet long
They 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2021, 09:26:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 11, 2021, 10:30:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2021, 11:49:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 11, 2021, 12:14:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on May 11, 2021, 01:14:08 PM
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.
People who say they're done when they're not are silly people.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 11, 2021, 01:26:50 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the NJ Turnpike needs more exits?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 11, 2021, 01:53:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2021, 02:14:05 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the NJ Turnpike needs more exits?

The original idea of these turnpikes, which came before the interstate system, was to provide long haul driving options. You see it in the PA Turnpike as well. It was figured local roads would be utilized for shorter distances. Over the years, people got used to driving on interstates even if it was for just a few miles.

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. Especially in conjunction with that along with a widened Turnpike between Exits 1 & 4, I would love to see one or two sets of ramps that would motorists to connect directly with 295 to bypass congestion, especially in the Burlington/Camden County areas.

If I were to add more, placing one on NJ 45 and 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.

I just read today that a new Chipotle restaurant is going to be built on NJ 168 between I-295 (Exit 28) and the Turnpike (Exit 3), about a 0.75 mile distance with 1 lane per direction and no room for expansion. That's already sent people in a tizzy commenting about all the congestion on 168 and at those interchanges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 11, 2021, 06:01:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 11, 2021, 08:53:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 11, 2021, 08:55:54 PM
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.

The spacing from Woodbridge north is pretty decent. It gets pretty sparse south of there. One would think that as we continue to move towards all-electronic trolling, some extra ramps could be built fairly easily, but I'm not aware of any such plans. The PA Turnpike did that in one or perhaps a few instances (I can only think of one off the top of my head), and this was long before all-electronic tolling was this close to reality.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on May 11, 2021, 09:57:45 PM
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.

I think the greatest use of this besides the AC Expressway access would be for PHL and Sports Complex traffic coming from North Jersey (and from south-of-Philly to North Jersey/NYC traffic), but would be limited by the wonky access between I-76 and I-95.

Quote from: jeffandnicole
If 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: jeffandnicole
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.

eh - I get the distinct impression that 8A is most useful for all the warehouses and other shipping-related facilities in the area. heading east from there is mostly back-roading, and to the west you have US 130 or US 1 for your Turnpike access needs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2021, 11:49:20 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole
If 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on May 12, 2021, 12:33:55 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole
If 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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 12, 2021, 01:11:04 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2021, 08:53:18 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole
If 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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 12, 2021, 06:03:34 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole
If 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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 24, 2021, 04:41:43 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 24, 2021, 04:49:48 PM
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?

Yes, just southbound, from 7A to 5. Camden is primary except at 6, where Wilmington is also signed.
It is so stupid how the NJTP just refuses to use Philly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 24, 2021, 04:50:24 PM
Northbound, Cherry Hill, by exit 4, what is going on there in terms of construction and when will it be complete?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 24, 2021, 11:25:17 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 12:04:15 AM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2021, 09:10:39 AM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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?

There's a noticeable number of Delaware tags around the warehouses and distribution centers that have been built in the Logan/ Swedesboro/ Pedricktown area.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 26, 2021, 11:09:42 AM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2021, 12:56:57 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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.
Did people just not want to settle there?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 26, 2021, 07:35:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2021, 08:49:55 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2021, 09:32:43 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 26, 2021, 10:26:02 PM
Gloucester County voted for Biden.

Woodstown is in Salem County, which voted for Trump.
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.

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 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?

The turnpike ROW hasn’t been disturbed much in about 70 years south of Exit 4, so you have 70 years worth of tree growth to hide the suburbs beyond.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2021, 10:38:56 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on May 27, 2021, 08:50:22 AM
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

Yes, northbound things start to get interesting beyond the mature trees, once you cross the Salem Co./Gloucester Co. line aka Oldmans Creek.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 27, 2021, 08:54:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2021, 08:55:32 PM
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.
Philly is not as big/important?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 27, 2021, 09:00:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 27, 2021, 09:34:56 PM
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.
Yes, like Dover.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 27, 2021, 11:30:24 PM
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.
Farm protection and lack of crossings.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 28, 2021, 02:10:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 28, 2021, 06:33:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 28, 2021, 07:12:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 29, 2021, 08:52:23 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 29, 2021, 08:53:37 PM
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.

Oh please Suffolk, Chesey, and even VA Beach are hardly cities.
The only real cities in Hampton Roads are Norfolk and Hampton.
The rest are really counties that have city government.

VA Beach is really Princess Anne County.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 29, 2021, 10:47:54 PM
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).

Since you know so much about South Jersey real estate, I'll concede.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 29, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ketchup99 on May 30, 2021, 01:10:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 30, 2021, 01:13:36 AM
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.
TBH background noise doesn't really bother me.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 02:41:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on May 30, 2021, 08:07:52 AM


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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 30, 2021, 08:49:47 AM


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.

The area you describe is in many ways like NJ near Philly. But, we're talking Burlington County, not Salem County.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 30, 2021, 12:40:19 PM


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.

You are also describing the counties in Maryland that adjoin the District of Columbia.  Montgomery County has the Agricultural Reserve, which takes up about a third of the land area of the county, and Prince George's County has the Rural Tier, which takes up less but is still rather large. Baltimore County (adjoins Baltimore City but the two are not legally connected) has the URDL (urban rural demarcation line).  Subdivisions and water and sewer service are generally not allowed outside of the URDL.  But like the two counties adjoining D.C., Baltimore County can do absolutely nothing to prevent "leapfrog" development, mostly into the townships of York County, Pennsylvania, which has become a de facto suburb of Baltimore.

The farming here is mostly horses and sod, a few vineyards and a few dairy farms - but little farming as can be found in these three Maryland counties when compared to counties a little further out and on the Eastern Shore.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fmendes on June 01, 2021, 11:09:27 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 12, 2021, 11:10:08 PM
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.
Are you serious?
Do you not the difference between population vs population density?
SMH.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 18, 2021, 03:01:19 AM
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.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/2021-06-17_11_17_12_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_26.jpg/800px-2021-06-17_11_17_12_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_26.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on June 18, 2021, 09:27:30 AM
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.

Similarly, in the case of jughandles and channelized turn lanes, usually the state will maintain the jughandle ramp itself if it comes off the state highway but if the ramp comes off a local road, the local entity may officially maintain the ramp.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 18, 2021, 09:35:05 AM
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.

Not per this (which is taken from the overpass for the I-95 thru lanes, so is viewing towards the merge with I-95, but still before):
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8649874,-74.0107681,3a,75y,100.52h,84.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg4Synn8_T7KbiPkeS0-_cQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The reverse view suggests the change here comes under the overpass, not at the gore point.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8649853,-74.0109953,3a,75y,272.66h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9jfSNHMPh-hFsJqL4W1_mw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Also, on the local lanes east bound, the change happens just after the exit for 95 south.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8643823,-74.0136153,3a,75y,99.33h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEScWrWGG25xKSCyz1JGDvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on June 18, 2021, 09:44:06 AM
The oddest part is what I had considered the outer roadway on I-95 south of that interchange still has NJDOT striping until you get to the US 46 interchange.  It then changes here: https://goo.gl/maps/iGH881t57PtVHbCJ6

I guess that's still considered as a part of the ramp from I-80 to I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2021, 09:49:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 18, 2021, 10:08:35 AM
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.

I actually have a picture of that too, as it happens...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/2021-05-21_09_44_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_01.jpg/800px-2021-05-21_09_44_53_will_rename_and_categorize_soon_01.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jmacswimmer on June 18, 2021, 10:18:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2021, 01:35:13 PM
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.)

Yep.  NJDOT will assist with snowplowing down to to that Exit 1 (Rt. 49) off ramp, but I think the rest of the roadwork in that area is the NJTA's responsibility.

US 40 also overlaps with the NJ Turnpike for about a while as well, but at the gore points it becomes NJDOT's responsibility.

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.

I'm sure there's some resolution somewhere that the DRBA gave the NJTA the authority to pave that short stretch!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on June 18, 2021, 02:10:48 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: shadyjay on June 18, 2021, 06:17:57 PM
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)

That one I can see, seeing the gantry previously held signs that were clearly NY-designed.  But swing around to Exit 2 itself, and there's another NY style gantry:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9999141,-73.6533924,3a,75y,63.8h,84.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6DK4Q7WINUdsIkZLzhcCsQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en

There also is, a few miles south of the I-287 interchange, a ConnDOT cruciform holding up a ConnDOT VMS. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: civilmaher on June 19, 2021, 10:48:41 AM
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)

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 19, 2021, 11:23:50 AM
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)

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's interesting is that the line striping suggests that DRBA grabbed a bit of NJTA space west of the 130/49 overpass, since the east/northbound lanes are DRBA striping up to the overpass even though that diagram lists it as NJTA jurisdiction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 25, 2021, 10:35:42 PM
Why does the Turnpike Authority close down lanes on weekend nights?  Tonight the southbound car lanes are closed.  A few weeks ago they had them shut down northbound on a Sunday night and cars entering the Turnpike at Exit 11 were backed up through the toll plaza and onto the Parkway itself.

I appreciate that maintenance has to be performed but closing down lanes on a Friday or Sunday night in the Summertime is not logical.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 26, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
What time do those closures begin?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 26, 2021, 11:02:26 PM
What time do those closures begin?

The closures started about 8:00 pm.

I saw the effects of the northbound closure firsthand.  I was driving southbound from the Parkway through Exit11 around nine o'clock.  You wouldn't believe what the northbound backup looked like through the toll plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2021, 08:39:50 PM
I would have to agree that 8pm is way too early to start those closures on weekend evenings. And if the back-ups are as bad as you say, I'm surprised the Turnpike Authority doesn't know better than to do that during weekend peak traffic periods. 12 Midnight might be a more reasonable time to close lanes on weekends.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 14, 2021, 03:36:47 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on July 17, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
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)
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 17, 2021, 10:25:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on July 18, 2021, 01:59:08 PM
Looks like new light fixtures are put up at exit 5. They still have to remove the old ones.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 18, 2021, 02:44:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on July 18, 2021, 02:50:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 18, 2021, 04:20:47 PM
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 18, 2021, 04:22:51 PM
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?"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 18, 2021, 11:33:07 PM
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.

Also, a move to full AET for both the Turnpike and Parkway is part of their long range capital plan for this decade.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 18, 2021, 11:42:15 PM
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.

Well, they DID finally give up their "custom" signage to go with standard in recent years, so I wouldn't rule anything out.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 18, 2021, 11:43:23 PM
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)
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

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 19, 2021, 01:52:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: paul02474 on July 19, 2021, 07:11:58 PM
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?"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: theroadwayone on July 19, 2021, 10:42:33 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 19, 2021, 11:07:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jp the roadgeek on July 19, 2021, 11:31:31 PM
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). 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 20, 2021, 09:41:06 AM
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). 

My personal preference is to retain the NJTP interchange numbers from 1 to 18 (including 6A at Florence) because they serve their purpose well and are widely known by frequent turnpike users and by at least some visitors, and renumber from 18 to the GWB using the turnpike exit numbering system (to include adding an exit number for I-80 W).  Added bonus - renumbering north of 18 is probably a lot less expensive than changing them from 1 to 18.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on July 20, 2021, 11:04:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 20, 2021, 11:33:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 20, 2021, 11:37:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 20, 2021, 11:43:18 AM
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.

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 20, 2021, 11:52:55 AM
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)

Having the order of things on the western route be Exit 16W, Plaza 18W, Exit 17W (one-sided) would be consistent with the eastern route where it was the combined Exit 16 (later 16E) / Plaza 18 (later 18E) in the double-wide plaza followed by Exit 17 (one-sided). And years earlier, the joint 16/18 plaza didn't exist with 16 and 17 being somewhat normal exits (although I believe one of them was one-sided) and then a plaza 18 just south of the end of road at US46. So I agree 19W should be 17W.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on July 20, 2021, 11:59:54 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on July 20, 2021, 12:11:36 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 20, 2021, 01:02:19 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 20, 2021, 04:58:43 PM
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.



The pricing does tend to be a bit inconsistent.  Here's the entire toll schedule in PDF form: https://www.njta.com/media/5550/njta_tpk_c1sched-2020.pdf .  You'll notice there's no change in toll, in most cases, regardless if you're exiting at 13 or 13A, which are 1 mile apart.

Some of the inconsistencies arrive from when the Turnpike was a baby, and rates were low.  If I recall (and feel free to correct me here), tolls were based on a fare of 1 cent for every mile South of Exit 9, and 3 cents for every mile north of Exit 9, and tolls had to be rounded to the nearest 5 cents.  A little extra was added on for short distance travels (such as going from Exit 3 to Exit 4).   As tolls increased, usually as a percentage of the previous rates, the rounding effect exaggerated some of the toll rate differences.  The Turnpike never went back to fix some of these rounding errors. 

Using the Exit 13/13A example above, back when Exit 13A opened, the difference was so small it probably rounded out to the same amount.  Today, it would be around a 30 cent difference if they redid the calculation.

Will the Turnpike fix this when they go ETC?  If other agencies are used as an example, probably not. 

If someone wants to provide the Turnpike with a full schedule of fares for every class of vehicle during the next public comment period when they propose raising tolls again, maybe you'll grab their eyes and ears enough to have them take a second look. And then they'll ignore it anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 21, 2021, 08:32:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: plain on July 21, 2021, 09:23:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 21, 2021, 10:27:21 PM
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.
Fair point 😂
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 23, 2021, 10:58:29 PM
It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 23, 2021, 11:48:03 PM
It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2021, 12:12:01 AM
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.
Fair point 😂

Did they still have the temporary electronic speed limit signs in use; the type normally used in construction zones?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:24:08 AM
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.
Fair point 😂

Did they still have the temporary electronic speed limit signs in use; the type normally used in construction zones?
Yes, but theyve been there at least a year now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 24, 2021, 12:40:58 AM
It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
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:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2021, 03:38:59 AM
It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
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:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 26, 2021, 04:07:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2021, 07:34:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 26, 2021, 08:03:29 PM
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.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 26, 2021, 08:23:20 PM
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.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)

Both states may do this shortsighted practice but it's dumb. I never understood Pennsylvania signing US 1 North in the Langhorne area for Morrisville instead of Trenton in some places.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 26, 2021, 09:53:01 PM
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.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)

Being how many people complain about the control cities being bridges leading out of the state, or Wilmington on the NJ Turnpike, not a close comparison.

Hell, there's enough people on here that want NJ to sign control cities that practically change every exit or two!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2021, 11:53:03 PM
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.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)
I-287 does not go to Albany.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 12:10:44 AM
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.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)

Don’t forget about Easton now on I-78.  Only in a couple of places do you see Phillipsburg on signs.  Then New York City now replaced Newark in some places on I-78 east.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 27, 2021, 12:11:16 AM
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.
And NJ doesn’t do likewise in many cases? (Mahwah is definitely the worst offender here)
I-287 does not go to Albany.
White Plains would be most appropriate, I think.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2021, 12:59:18 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2021, 01:04:39 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 07:57:08 PM
I see that the Indiana Toll Road copies the NJ Turnpike in regards to lane stripping.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2021, 08:17:56 PM
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.

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.

Been down the road with letters back in the early 2000s.  They are stubborn to keep as it is until the NJTA goes mileage based, which we all know will never happen.  In fact the day Nancy Pelosi says one nice thing about Trump will happen first before the Authority renumbers its exits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on July 28, 2021, 10:44:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 28, 2021, 12:44:18 PM
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.

Define "all the toll roads". NYSTA doesn't. MDTA doesn't. SJTA doesn't. And the GSP, which is now under NJTA jurisdiction, doesn't.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2021, 02:28:21 PM
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 it's not even 12 feet. 12 feet is about the length of a typical skip line. The NJ Turnpike uses 25 foot lengths for their lines.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kurumi on July 28, 2021, 02:28:40 PM
This also seems to be the GSP thread, so:

https://twitter.com/GovMurphy/status/1420121299226087427

And (not original, someone else thought of this): at the Bon Jovi service center, whoooah, you're halfway there!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 28, 2021, 06:00:49 PM
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. 

Not saying I’m a fan of renaming after all areas and wish they would name one after one specific, but interesting fact how NJ has changed.   In the eighties we had our share of those we disliked but we also had respect for those around us who did like them, so we accepted the names. 

IMO people alive shouldn’t have things named after them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 28, 2021, 06:51:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 28, 2021, 09:16:47 PM
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 .
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on July 28, 2021, 09:57:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 29, 2021, 01:24:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 29, 2021, 01:29:03 AM
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'm pretty sure all the turnpike rest areas were named for people who had already died at the time of their opening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on July 29, 2021, 09:50:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2021, 02:15:12 PM
Everyone knows Vince Lombardi.  Everyone.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 29, 2021, 07:39:06 PM
I don't.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on July 29, 2021, 07:54:15 PM
I don't.

I suspect he was being sarcastic. I don't know who Larry Doby is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 29, 2021, 09:40:31 PM
Larry Doby was the son of a semi-pro baseball player and horse groomer in South Carolina. He moved to Paterson when he was 14 and joined the Newark Eagles of the Negro Leagues in 1942. In 1947, Bill Veeck, then owner of the Cleveland Indians, wanted an African-American player on his team, signed him to a contract, becoming the first American League African-American player (Robinson with the Dodgers was MLB and not the first technically.). Dude was a beast, belting 273 home runs in his career. Dude's a Hall of Famer and for good reason.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2021, 02:38:15 PM
I see that the Indiana Toll Road copies the NJ Turnpike in regards to lane stripping.

Who’s doing the stripping? That’s not a service I had previously heard of on most toll roads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 31, 2021, 08:53:05 PM
I think he's talking about the length of the white lane lines and just spelled striping wrong.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 31, 2021, 10:11:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2021, 01:09:55 AM
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 (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on August 01, 2021, 02:55:19 PM
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’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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2021, 10:44:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 02, 2021, 08:18:08 AM
I don't.

I suspect he was being sarcastic. I don't know who Larry Doby is.

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/doby-larry
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 02, 2021, 08:19:00 AM
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. 


Except during most of his active film career.

ixnay
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on August 02, 2021, 01:00:39 PM
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’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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on August 02, 2021, 01:02:42 PM
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’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.

I remember the discussion, too. The typo rule was put in less than a month before I joined, and the discussion about funny typos was definitely when I was active.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 02, 2021, 05:40:29 PM
If a typo is legitimately funny, that's fine. "Stripping" instead of "striping" is common enough to be boring after awhile.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 02, 2021, 05:56:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2021, 11:38:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 03, 2021, 07:02:50 AM
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.
Precisely my point:  Portraying the subjective as objective makes for mushy moderation practices.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 06, 2021, 05:20:20 PM
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)
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

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.

Spell check and Se Timon whatever that means.  It’s Section, but if some self aware computer device is going to correct me, use words that makes sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 14, 2021, 07:47:42 PM
It really makes no sense how the NJTP only uses the 'Philadelphia' as a direction for the exit 6 sign.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from 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.
Even after the SB NJTP passes Trenton, they use 'Camden' and not 'Philadelphia' it makes no sense.
NJTP doesn't go to Pennsylvania, so Philly is an exit from it.
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:

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.
Exactly.
Exactly
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on August 23, 2021, 11:03:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 23, 2021, 11:56:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2021, 01:49:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ekt8750 on August 23, 2021, 02:26:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: plain on August 23, 2021, 03:13:03 PM
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?

Not so sure about that one.

Now, will you find such signage on the airport grounds? Sure. On freeways or even regular surface roads outside the airport grounds? Not so much.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 23, 2021, 06:37:25 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 23, 2021, 08:27:19 PM
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).

Didn’t the old signs for 13A used to be all green?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman on August 24, 2021, 12:05:31 AM
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?

Should be white on green.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 24, 2021, 12:24:18 AM
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).

Didn’t the old signs for 13A used to be all green?
Yes, and NJTA has never used the logo.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 24, 2021, 03:17:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 24, 2021, 10:09:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2021, 11:27:36 PM
Originally it was white on green, but the PANYNJ had signs that were white on black with a white arrow within a black circle as for crossings into NY.

Then Mid Eighties they changed them for the EWR logo which them became customary on large guides.

The Turnpike never changed them but continued using Newark Airport as well as Airport in the gore of the SB split of Cars and Truck Bus lanes before the cattle chute was built as the Car Lanes had no Exit 14 SB.

Why the Brown borders. Who knows.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 25, 2021, 02:09:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 25, 2021, 11:21:16 AM
White on brown is also used for "Six Flags" on a sign approaching Exit 7A.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 25, 2021, 04:48:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 25, 2021, 09:35:34 PM
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.
I suggest you pay a visit to EWR and see the new signs that are up!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 25, 2021, 09:45:59 PM
Also Virginia uses brown guides for Kings Dominion on I-95 and Busch Gardens on I-64.

GSV does show some of them at the terminals as Alps mentioned.

At least EWR has better signage than ACY (on the Parkway that is.) They were using airport shields on independent ground mounted posts, unless the recent 38-38A to 38 A & B changed that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on August 26, 2021, 08:32:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on August 26, 2021, 08:38:11 AM
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.

Also used in many other places:  PNC Bank Arts Center on GSP; Wolf Trap for Performing Arts on Dulles Toll Road in VA....(these do seem to be all cultural)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 26, 2021, 11:42:26 PM
Brown is for "Recreational and Cultural Interest" guide signs, which generally includes parks and historical attractions, but easily can stretch into cultural places like PNC even though those signs should likely be white on green. The old ones were white on blue, but got replaced with the current ones and the exit lost its exit number.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 27, 2021, 12:57:40 AM
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).

Didn’t the old signs for 13A used to be all green?
Yes, and NJTA has never used the logo.

The Turnpike hasn’t, but it is on parkway signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2021, 10:54:32 PM
The original NB Exit 142 guides used to sign the airport in white on blue.  In fact the GSP was the only agency that recognized EWR as an international airport as NJDOT and NJTA would always leave out the International word.

Though, that is quite common as FDOT does with Tampa International and just signs Tampa Airport instead.  And other cities I have seen do it as well.  NYC does with JFK on the Van Wyck and the Belt Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 02:15:21 AM
Why isn't there an exit 17?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on August 28, 2021, 07:25:11 AM
There is (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.789783,-74.0476291,3a,37.7y,234.22h,97.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syjnG9FS-woA_CvkYh9rgqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 10:48:57 AM
Right, on both the E and W spurs?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2021, 10:50:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 28, 2021, 11:21:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 28, 2021, 09:57:21 PM
Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(
(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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on August 28, 2021, 09:59:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 28, 2021, 10:32:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 28, 2021, 10:49:22 PM
Why isn't there an exit 17?

There is

Right, 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 by the toll booth reconfiguration 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) 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on August 29, 2021, 02:04:53 AM
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.
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.

Taking peak travel, rush hour, traffic volumes, etc. travel into account? That’s pointless!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on August 29, 2021, 02:20:57 AM
Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(
(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.)
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 29, 2021, 02:22:21 AM
Why isn't there an exit 17?

There is

Right, 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 29, 2021, 08:40:10 AM
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.

We'll just have to disagree about this. Your view is toll plazas should be numbered by where they physically are. My view is toll plaza should be numbered for the exit it serves. Not that there is any consistency between roads. And in most cases, it makes no substantial difference but it does in this case due to the half-interchanges on both the eastern and western routes between the terminal toll plaza and the end of the road.

As for confusion from no Exit 17 northbound, I very much doubt the average driver is confused. Since mileage based numbering is predominant, missing numbers is normal. It would take a driver to realize the Turnpike is sequentially numbered and then that there is a missing number and you give the average driver way too much credit when you think they notice such details. Plus most of the traffic is every day traffic who knows the road and doesn't pay all that much attention to exit numbers or what exactly the signs say (example: when you drive locally, do you actively look at every sign to find your exit or turn every time or do you just know where it is with no need to actually look at signs?).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 01:05:38 PM
So when are they planning to start the widening? Also, I feel like this project is getting a lot less attention than it should. The NJTP is arguably the most critical chokepoint for commerce in the United States and expanding it should have far reaching impacts.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 30, 2021, 02:43:22 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2021, 03:04:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 05:47:44 PM
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.

Actually, I was referring to the whole capital project plan that will widen parts of the Turnpike and Parkway even in built up urban areas in Northern New Jersey
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on August 30, 2021, 07:10:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on August 30, 2021, 07:19:49 PM
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.
That toll increase is paying for a lot more than just widening in South Jersey
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on August 30, 2021, 07:31:30 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 30, 2021, 08:38:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 30, 2021, 09:52:29 PM
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.

So, just let traffic continue to build and congest daily because we're afraid of replacing some bridges...bridges that are over 70 years old?

Not that I'm always looking, but I'm not seeing any evidence of congestion on the Turnpike in this area all the time.  If there's congestion, it's probably directly related to active road work, and for relatively short periods of time.

BTW, the North-South Freeway's overpass was already widened around 1997 as part of the Route 42 widening from 295 to 55, so that doesn't need to be replaced.  The NJ 73 overpass was widened; the NJ 45 & 48 overpasses were widened, among others.  By the time this project gets to construction, approximately 25% of the overpasses would've already been widened.

The biggest headache will probably be the NJ 70 overpass.  But, we will all manage, and we'll be better off for it in a few years.

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.

During normal times, between NJ 42 and NJ 70, there are backups during both rush hours in both directions fairly often.  And I-295 backs up from NJ 38 to NJ 42 during many afternoon rush hours.  That's 14 miles.

Even though there's currently 10 lanes total between the two roads, it's a heavily travelled corridor.  Not only does the Turnpike need an extra lane, I-295 could easily use an extra lane in the area as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2021, 12:21:59 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 31, 2021, 12:34:27 AM
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.
Wow, so 35-45 mph warrants widening?
I drive this road all the time, as I do 95.
I can tell you it is FINE aside from the peak of peak.
I mean, can I cruise at 80?
No, but I am usually around 70 mph which is free flowing.

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.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.

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.
By that logic the road should be 20 lanes wide, and Wegmans should have 1 square miles of parking spots.

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?

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.
Disagree completely.
The 6-9 widening has been a godsend, and it most definitely has not put a choke point in SJ.
You people should drive I-95 in MD/VA, you are complaining about nothing.

Traffic volume drops so much at exit 6.

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.
So am I, I think it is the wrong move.
It should 4 lanes from exit 4 to 6
3 lanes from 3-2.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 31, 2021, 12:37:16 AM
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.
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.
Yea, so you rehab them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 31, 2021, 12:37:44 AM
Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(
(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.)
Can you PLEASE tell me the traffic volumes and the choke points?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on August 31, 2021, 02:39:09 AM
^

Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed :(
(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.)
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.

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.

And as for the I-95 comparisons… I drove I-95 south of DC all the time in the past… it warrants widening just as much as the NJTP does.

The volumes on the NJTP warrant at least 3 lanes in each direction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 31, 2021, 06:57:36 AM



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.
By that logic the road should be 20 lanes wide, and Wegmans should have 1 square miles of parking spots.

Not sure about why Wegmans would need a huge lot.  Parking's never a problem, Wednesday before Thanksgiving or not.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 31, 2021, 08:26:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2021, 01:00:30 PM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 31, 2021, 01:22:31 PM
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.

However, progress too is a thing that we have to deal with more cars on the road as well.  The main reason.  The Turnpike is long overdue for widening even back in the 80's though not a standstill back then I believe.  However, before the  Great Piece of Sh@t (GPS) people would have figured out to switch to I-295 at Exit 4 as a result of being frustrated to sit in traffic.  Nowadays, the GPS is right, and if you get stuck in traffic it brings awareness to the two party system and people just blame the opposing party for their predictiment or worse yet blame Obama or Trump or Murphy/ Christie etc.  So people consider traffic as a norm and no longer realize that there are other options.

Anyhow, if the road warrants widening then so be it.  I have seen plenty in Florida where it takes decades to widen the road to what it is.  Meanwhile, greedy developers  build and county commissioners allow for them to do it despite them knowing damn well the roads cannot handle it at the present time and both NJ and NY should be a muse for them to see what development does. 

I-4 in Orlando needed the Ultimate Project back in 1985!  Then it started in 2015 some 30 years after.  Now what is needed today will have to wait till 2065 to get done.  Plus simple fixes could remedy some of this.  I-4 in Champions Gate and Celebration should have ramp meters like in California plus just one auxillary lane between SR 417 and CR 532 would help some.

So, yes build the six lane and be proactive for future widening too by widening bridges for future expansion now.  Just as the PATCO Woodcrest Station when building their underpass beneath the NJ Turnpike left a widened bridge for when the 1-4 widening does ever take place.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on August 31, 2021, 01:23:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 31, 2021, 03:33:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 31, 2021, 03:36:04 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on August 31, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

If you're referring to a route that the GPS tells cars to follow when it's congested, those cars are being taken off the main road, making the main road less congested.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2021, 04:49:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on August 31, 2021, 06:58:17 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 31, 2021, 09:06:40 PM
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.
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on August 31, 2021, 09:29:57 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on August 31, 2021, 09:42:26 PM
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.

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.

I use the preinstalled maps ap on my cell. For the most part it does ok. Occasionally I’ll divert, like when it tells me to take the car lanes at rush hour in the peak direction… truck lanes usually work better at those times, but it doesn’t know that.

It does routinely advise me to take the outer tubes on the Ft McHenry Tunnel, which I also generally ignore.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on August 31, 2021, 09:42:35 PM
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.

Favoring the shorter route is good for overall traffic flow. A road that is one lane in a specific direction can get about 2200 vehicles per hour; if it takes you along roads with less than 10000 AADT and no signals, it's taking cars off the Interstate and even sometimes major arterials and putting it on roads that won't back up, clearing out the congested roads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 31, 2021, 09:52:32 PM
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.)

As I was writing my comment, and looking around with Google, and looking around some more, and looking around again, I started wondering if rebuilding this 1 mile stretch of highway would be more pricey than the entire remaining 10 miles from 1 to 2. There really is a lot going on there.

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.

If you notice this a few times, check your settings.  I had set mine one time to default to shortest route, and it saved me about 1,500 feet but cost me 15 minutes of time.

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.

I've known people that want to keep moving, so they'll get off the highway to take side roads.  Not only does it take them longer, but even with congestion on the highway they're generally moving 30 mph.  On the side roads, they're moving 25 mph...when they're not stopped at stop signs and traffic lights.  Their "moving" cost them quite a bit of time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 31, 2021, 11:38:46 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on September 01, 2021, 05:57:09 AM
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.

Apparently not.  I have done some informal observations of drivers on DC-295 southbound (a routing that these "dumb" GPS units route people over instead of I-95) that is normally severely congested (so traffic is moving nowhere near the posted limit of 50 MPH), and most of the out-of-state cars (not D.C., not Maryland, not Virginia) appear to have "dumb" GPS units on the dashboards.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2021, 06:26:04 AM
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. 

Last time I came up 95 in the Carolinas, my GPS wanted to put me on some small 2 lane road. Turned out there was a crash several miles up.  And I knew that because the alternative route it put me on took me parallel to 95 where I could see the crash...and the people standing outside their cars because the highway was closed!

So, it's important to know how the GPS works.  If it's working correctly, it'll put you on those odd roadways.  The Interstate may be the faster route...normally...but most people won't know the difference unless they ignore the GPS.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 06:38:29 AM
GPS discussion needs its own thread.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on September 01, 2021, 10:47:39 AM

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. 

Nope. Not when it takes you off the road on to the frontage road, through a long traffic light, and right back on beyond the jam. Had we hit the light perfectly, it would have been slightly faster but since we didn't and I could see the progress of the traffic we just left, it ended up a couple of minutes slower.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2021, 11:53:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on September 01, 2021, 11:59:55 AM
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.

OTOH, and without a nav app (years ago), was in the inners and signs were warning of construction delays ahead. Used the next service area to cross to the outers. And then kept going but never seeing any delays on the inners so it cost me 30 seconds. :-(
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 01, 2021, 12:11:04 PM
 They forgot to shut the sign off probably after a previous delay.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 01, 2021, 08:16:14 PM
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.
I mean, you could hang a Uey at the toll plaza without a curb couldn't you? Or is 12 "special"?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 01, 2021, 11:32:14 PM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2021, 11:52:22 PM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
MANY more (like having the NJTP be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4).

You don't say.

Did you provide this comment to the NJ Turnpike Authority during their Capital Plan Public Comment period last year? Being you've posted this about 2 dozen times here, it seems important enough you could've made an official comment to them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 02, 2021, 12:28:25 AM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on September 02, 2021, 01:15:34 AM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 02, 2021, 10:13:56 AM
Can we put this thing behind us. Obviously you can’t change each other’s minds over what should receive top priority, so why continue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 02, 2021, 03:59:49 PM
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.
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 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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 02, 2021, 04:47:17 PM
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.
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 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).

Mine does more often reroute me these days than I remember, but usually when I get to a major junction where I have reasonable alternates, I'll rerun the route just to make sure nothing significant changed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 02, 2021, 09:08:52 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 02, 2021, 09:44:20 PM
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).

It usually picks up on unexpected congestion as well, but not sure how far in advance it tries to guess it will last.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 12, 2021, 10:26:26 PM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
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.
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 12, 2021, 11:23:33 PM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on September 12, 2021, 11:25:42 PM
You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.
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.
There are many other priorities besides having the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 2 south.
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.
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.
Or what?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 12, 2021, 11:56:43 PM
Or I'm gonna be handing out warnings like candy. STOP talking about this and get back to other topics.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on September 14, 2021, 08:34:52 AM
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.
MA uses green for Six Flags New England.

CT uses brown for the same park, albeit on a small aluminum sign on I-91 N that just says "Amusement Park | Exit 47W".  Me thinks the town of Suffield does not want park traffic using CT 159.
CT uses brown for Lake Compounce and Quassy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 22, 2021, 01:42:35 PM
Next two service areas on the Turnpike closing for renovation (https://www.njta.com/newsroom/woodrow-wilson-molly-pitcher-closing-for-renovations)

Quote
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.

Not sure if they will both be full knockdown and rebuilds, or just gut and renos. Molly Pitcher was completely rebuilt in the early 1990s which is why the buildiong looks different than any of the other not yet replaced service areas. Woodrow Wilson was one of the old ones that got the facelift in the early 2000s.

Of note is that Applegreen is now the food concession vendor that will handle the restaurant options in the service areas. Did HMS Host sell their concessions for the NJTA's service areas at some point and I missed that, or did they get out of this market segment completely?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on September 22, 2021, 02:06:16 PM
From https://www.nj.com/news/2021/05/company-that-runs-turnpike-parkway-service-areas-to-be-sold-for-375m.html

Quote
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 22, 2021, 02:52:16 PM
From https://www.nj.com/news/2021/05/company-that-runs-turnpike-parkway-service-areas-to-be-sold-for-375m.html

Quote
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.



OK, thanks. I did miss this story.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on September 23, 2021, 08:46:00 PM
How feasible would it be to introduce variable pricing across the turnpike?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 23, 2021, 09:45:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on September 23, 2021, 09:59:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 23, 2021, 11:43:02 PM
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.
I don't know what you're talking about. They know the volumes. They know where things are congested.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J Route Z on September 30, 2021, 11:56:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 01, 2021, 12:05:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 01, 2021, 12:36:00 AM
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.
Projects need to be designed...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2021, 01:19:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 01, 2021, 02:26:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2021, 11:24:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2021, 04:07:07 PM
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.

Then again, recent past experience of rehabbing bridges in the region haven't worked out as cost-effectively as first thought.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 01, 2021, 09:02:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2021, 10:11:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 04, 2021, 10:13:55 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/xXA3nAaYpP8AnG2L9
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.
It’s also in contradiction to what is used on the mainline in this area, which is either GWB or nothing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 04, 2021, 10:17:23 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/xXA3nAaYpP8AnG2L9
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.
It’s also in contradiction to what is used on the mainline in this area, which is either GWB or nothing.

Exactly.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 04, 2021, 11:54:40 AM
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.

Not guaranteed.  There are several ramps - and intersections - one could have entered I-78 before this point without having been in NYC.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 04, 2021, 08:31:10 PM
What would you guys have them sign the NJT northbound at this location? Maybe Teaneck or Fort Lee?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on October 04, 2021, 10:23:34 PM
What would you guys have them sign the NJT northbound at this location? Maybe Teaneck or Fort Lee?

Paterson
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 04, 2021, 10:30:48 PM
The Turnpike doesn't go to Paterson.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on October 04, 2021, 10:42:08 PM
New York is fine. Everybody knows that it’s an indicator of direction of the road that is easily recognizable. Don’t overthink it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on October 04, 2021, 10:58:22 PM
Egads, are we really discussing control cities again in this thread?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 04, 2021, 11:25:36 PM
What would you guys have them sign the NJT northbound at this location? Maybe Teaneck or Fort Lee?
Fort Lee is used at 19W
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 05, 2021, 02:41:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 11, 2021, 08:34:57 PM
On a different subject, does anyone know the current status of the Thomas Edison Service Area? (In Woodbridge, southbound at MP 92.9) Looking at the NJTA website, the list of service areas indicates that it's open, but the map doesn't even show a service area at that location, except for the one on the northbound side. Anyone know which is correct? I'm surprised at such an inconsistency on the Turnpike Authority's website.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on October 11, 2021, 09:08:12 PM

The MUTCD screwed up everything saying it’s a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.

You're not the only person who believes this, but I wonder why this belief is so widespread. The MUTCD does not say that bridges and tunnels should/must not be used on guide signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: zachary_amaryllis on October 11, 2021, 10:44:15 PM
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.
TBH background noise doesn't really bother me.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on October 11, 2021, 11:21:54 PM
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.
TBH background noise doesn't really bother me.
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.


I am in the flight path of our local airport and about ½ mile from a fairly busy cross state railroad.  Like you, I can sleep through the noise, but dreams about watching trains go by happens more times than not most nights.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on October 19, 2021, 05:36:05 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 19, 2021, 10:22:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 19, 2021, 10:33:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on October 20, 2021, 11:15:35 AM
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.

Right.  My thinking is that when you are far away, the appropriate control should be "New York".  As you get closer, especially when you pass through places that are decision points to different parts of New York, then they should be differentiated to the extent practical.

With regards to NJ, there are certain decision points like 95/287/440 where you could get to New York in two directions.  Since one leads to Manhattan and one leads to Staten Island, it is fitting to sign "New York" on the path to Manhattan.  Elsewhere, there are decision points between the three Manhattan crossings.  There, especially if you are relatively close to the crossings, it is more appropriate to distinguish between Lower Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan, and Upper Manhattan.  But once a decision point passes, you can revert to using "New York" until you reach the crossing.

I-80 EB (with one exception) basically defaults traffic onto I-95 NB toward the GWB.  New York is an appropriate control over the entire stretch in NJ and it doesn't need to say "Upper Manhattan" instead.  This is true even though the GWB is a bit far from many of the NYC landmarks in Midtown and Downtown.  It is the main crossing into New York, as it has more lanes than the tunnels and is fed by full interstate quality highways, as opposed to NJ-495 and the traffic lights on Jersey City's 12th street.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on October 20, 2021, 12:23:18 PM

[/quote]

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
[/quote]

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 20, 2021, 12:45:19 PM


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
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]



Not Staten Island though. To use the GWB for that is way out.  :bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 20, 2021, 05:42:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 22, 2021, 11:32:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 22, 2021, 11:51:28 AM
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.

That's tough. Midtown *and* Upper Manhattan would be best I think. You can do that also on I-95 northbound at that point if you use Lower Manhattan in lieu of Holland Tunnel.

The truth is that a lot of signage has become almost "hereditary". People expect to see signs saying a certain thing just because that's how its always been.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 22, 2021, 12:20:16 PM
Quote
Quote

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:

Not just Staten Island. The same principle applies to large parts of Brooklyn and various parts of Queens. My mother's parents lived in Bay Ridge, a few blocks from the Verrazano. It'd be crazy to take the GW to go there (especially coming from the south, as we were). Same would apply to Coney Island. My aunts now live in Roxbury and Breezy Point. Going over the GW doesn't help much with getting there (even if you take the Van Wyck) because you wind up too far to the northeast–the Verrazano to the Belt Parkway to Flatbush Avenue is by far the faster route.

(I tried to fix your garbled quote tags and the above was the best I could easily do right now.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on October 22, 2021, 12:35:24 PM
Just use "Big Apple"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2021, 02:09:40 PM
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.

That would apply *after* you get on the Turnpike though.  The other option would be to take the Turnpike/95 South, which would also be using more localized points, not "New York". 

This is pretty much the case entering a highway in any city.  If I enter the Interstate from Center City, and the next 3 exits down are still within the city, the exit signs are going to provide a local destination, not repeat the city's name several times, and there won't be any pull-thru signage showing the control city of the city you're already in.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on October 22, 2021, 05:52:22 PM
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.

With the NJTP, it is a little clearer.  Since it is the easternmost N-S expressway that is west of the Ny-NJ state line, it becomes the de facto route of connection between the crossings.  If you are headed on I-78, continuing straight will lead you to the Holland Tunnel for Lower Manhattan.  And if you want to reach other parts of NYC, you can transfer either north or south on the NJTP mainline to reach a different crossing.

From I-78, I-95's SB control should be either Trenton or Philly.  But supplemental guide signs should guide Brooklyn and Staten Island traffic to I-95 south.  Likewise, I-95 north's control should be Upper Manhattan, with guide signs for Midtown Manhatthan and Bronx to use I-95 north as well.

Some of these thoughts could become even more imporatant, to the extent that congestion pricing comes about.  If your goal is midtown, which will be in the congested zone, you do not want to take GWB to Manhattan and then a parkway or street south, because then you will face a double toll.  You will rather take the Lincoln Tunnel.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 22, 2021, 07:23:56 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on October 23, 2021, 08:59:19 PM
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).

This is a fair point.  The control cities that are used on the big overhead signs should be limited to listing no more than two destinations.

From NJ, the main roads that lead into NYC are: I-95 NB, US 1&9 NB, I-287 EB/NJ 440 NB, I-278 EB, US 22 EB, I-78 EB, I-280 EB, US 46 EB, NJ-3 EB/ NJ-495 EB, I-80 EB, NJ-208SB/NJ-4 EB, and Palisades Parkway (PIP) SB.  To the extent that any of these roads lead only to one of the tunnels/bridges, then the road simply leads to New York.  But to the extent that any of the roads leads to a decision point between the crossings, then it is appropriate to list a more specific control at the decision point, but possibly continuing to use the more generic New York control past the decsision point.

As our thread is discussing the NJTP, it is appropriate to analyze the situation of I-95 NB.  Certainly, south of I-287/NJ 440, the control of New York is best.  The first decision point is at I-287/NJ 440.  The EB control here should list Staten Island, but the NB control could still be New York.  I would say similar at the I-278 interchange.  Supplemental signage (on a roadside low sign, not overhead) could mention Brooklyn for those exits as well.

Once you get to the I-78 interchange, then I don't believe it is appropriate to use New York as the northbound control.  Some parts of New York like the financial district are best approached through the Holland Tunnel and some parts are better approached through the Lincoln or GWB further north.  A better distinguishing point is Lower Manhattan vs. Midtown & Upper Manhattan.  But once you continue beyong that decision point, New York, again becomes appropriate until the next decision point, which is the interchange for NJ-495.  Midtown Manhattan vs. Upper Manhattan & Bronx.  Then, it would probably be OK to keep "Upper Manhattan & Bronx" as the control until the stream of traffic from I-80 joins in.  At that point, "New York City" once again becomes the appropriate control all the way to the bridge.

The controls need to have "New York" need to guide people to New York.  And in my mind that means Manhattan.  At the appropriate decsion points between the Holland/Lincoln/GWB, the controls can be specific to guide you to the right parts of Manhattan, but once those decision points are passed, the guide signs should again lead you to New York until you reach the crossing.

Some of this would need to be adjusted for congestion pricing.  At the current time, I don't believe there needs to be any supplemental signage guiding I-80 traffic onto I-95 south to the Lincoln Tunnel.  Midtown bound traffic on I-80 (once past US 46) could still take the GWB and then go south on either HHP or Harlem River Drive.  With the new tolling though, it would be better to recommend that Midtown and Lower Manhattan traffic use I-95 south to reach either Lincoln or Holland to avoid the high congestion pricing toll.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 23, 2021, 09:15:34 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 27, 2021, 09:24:23 PM
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. 

I have seen many panels with three (especially common in Virginia) and even four lines which seem to work well for me.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 27, 2021, 09:51:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 27, 2021, 09:58:43 PM
The guidelines in the MUTCD section that I cited above are designed for easiest readability at interstate highway speed which was probably presumed to be around 65mph. The idea being to not overload the driver's ability to read at that speed. My guess is that the issue is less critical on airport approach roads with somewhat lower speeds. Though I agree that ten names on a sign would be hard to read.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 27, 2021, 11:10:21 PM
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.

Just because they are doing it, doesn't mean they're doing it well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on October 28, 2021, 05:54:21 PM
I think with airlines it is not usually a problem because people expect there to be an airline list at some point, and if it's alphabetical then it's easy for a lot of drivers to pick out if their airline is there or not.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2021, 06:14:04 PM
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.

The Control City for I-95 North from WB 495, where many have come from the Lincoln Tunnel, is the George Washington Bridge.  https://goo.gl/maps/xwXnQd9zBB3PwaJeA  And this would be even closer than I-78.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 28, 2021, 10:50:30 PM
Go back to Turnpike North again like previously. 😁
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 01:45:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 09, 2021, 01:57:03 PM
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.

No, that’s deliberate since it’s beyond the ticket system.

Plus, it’s not “really”  the turnpike, it’s the Bergen-Passaic Expressway from the I-80 junction to the bridge 😈
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 09, 2021, 10:41:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2021, 11:57:20 PM
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.   

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2021, 12:19:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 10, 2021, 02:23:59 AM
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.   

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.

Not quite. The US 40 segment has always been part of the turnpike and was built by the authority. Neither is the case north of US 46.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 10, 2021, 02:27:23 AM
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.

The 46 to 80 segment used to be NJDOT, so I presume it isn’t official turnpike, hence the exit numbers for Challenger Road NB and US 46 heading SB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 10, 2021, 06:27:44 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 10, 2021, 12:28:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on November 10, 2021, 01:45:08 PM
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.
All but the outer roadway southbound, where the I-80 local/express ramps come together -- that is still NJDOT's.

I think, for the reason you (and others) state, the Turnpike marker is omitted upon leaving the ticket/toll system, but also in other portals as well, i.e. EB at 14C, WB at 6A, NB at 18E/18W.  I am sure there are some exceptions left, though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2021, 01:55:53 PM
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.



Kansas has the same situation with its turnpike as NJ.  The KTA maintains all of I-70 to either the I-670 split or the MO Line.  Yet like I-95, the section beyond the ticket system resumes its exit numbers before it joined the Turnpike at Topeka (though in hypothetical for I-95 now due to the cancelled Somerset Freeway) as the Kansas Turnpikes own mileage from Oklahoma has control over I-70 mileage between Topeka and Bonner Springs then changes back to its own.

If the Somerset was indeed built though, both would definitely share a common situation.  However, KTA also don’t sign the free part of the Kansas Turnpike as such either.  So the first answer scenario in post 4223 does seem plausible.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 10, 2021, 02:15:09 PM
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.

There's a lot of junk along NJ 140 for sure. The Turnpike or DOT authorized it, and like many projects contractors may have done the actual work, and, well, the work may not always be the best.

There's also stuff like
https://maps.app.goo.gl/L5hmsPaBGQmfd9fu5 where it should really say "TO", not "Use".  And on the ramp for 140 West to 295 South,
https://maps.app.goo.gl/qmNYdo44RyQUdyJA7 is posted here, which omits the fact the ramp is for 295 South. I think the sign was really intended for this gore point on 140 East: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zJtuwMKTZ6v6i6kJ9 .

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2021, 06:46:20 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2021, 12:07:42 AM
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.

While a lot of people don't look at signs when they're familiar with the area, they are certainly going to view them when trying to get back to the road they need.  Even though the NJ Tpk is within a mile of its terminus here, the signage is still important, especially as there's no direct ramp onto the Turnpike Southbound in this area.  The signage gets the job done as is, but can be greatly improved.  The worst area was the ramp from 140 East to 551 South - at one point no signage was at that gore point, and people naturally assumed it was a ramp to get to 295 South.  Certainly had the appearance of one.

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).

I think the I-95 shields at Exit 6 probably help a great deal in encouraging those that want to follow 95 to exit there.  I can't say for sure, but compared to the past where 95 signage all but disappeared by Exit 10 going south, it's a much better signed route.

On the Northbound side within Delaware, following the signs for the NJ Turnpike still remains an very popular option.  As it's extremely clear here which way 95 goes, I surmise that most of those taking the NJ Turnpike between Delaware and Interchanges 6 - in either direction - are doing so intentionally.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2021, 10:14:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 12, 2021, 10:36:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 12, 2021, 10:38:00 AM
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.

It gets worse when a state DOT re-routes a route and people for years refer to the old way the route went as the route which just causes confusion for people who don't know the history. And sometimes, these mistakes get used by traffic reporters as well. I remember once hearing a traffic reporter say for something in my area (NW suburbs of Chicago prior to the tolling and improvement of the Elgin-O'Hare (IL-390)) that there was "a crash on Thorndale Ave. between Route 53 and Rohlwing Rd." which was a very specific location since Rohlwing Rd. had been Route 53 for the last 10+ years. (prior to that, it had been routed via what is now I-290 and I-355 and many people still continued to call those roads "53" (ironically, before the freeways were built, the original route of 53 was also Rohlwing Rd. so it was back on its original route).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 12, 2021, 02:07:40 PM
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.
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.

The I-95 gap was just one of those glitches in the matrix:  People knew how to get to where they wanted to go and mostly ignored the confusing numbering and routing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 22, 2021, 07:22:37 PM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 23, 2021, 03:07:14 PM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160

UGH. They're using "Plaza bypass" here. That's not correct verbiage. It seems to be NJTA's way of signing things now, unfortunately. It will be meaningless in a few years when they finally go full ETC on the Turnpike, but I will still be annoyed until then.

Also, that should be "Toll Plaza Ahead" because you don't pay a toll at that point, you get a ticket if you're not using an E-ZPass.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 23, 2021, 03:11:36 PM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160

Link requires a login.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 23, 2021, 07:40:05 PM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160

Link requires a login.
https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: plain on November 23, 2021, 08:24:25 PM
Nice to see they're sticking with the LED arrows in the BGS. They actually look better than the ones at the southern toll plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 24, 2021, 01:14:43 AM
Why do they need the blanket gantries for the scanners? Florida uses just typical overhead sign trusses and if memory serves me correctly, so does the South Jersey Transportation Authority on the ACE at the Pleasantville Toll Plaza for ORT there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2021, 10:43:57 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2021, 04:48:50 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 10, 2021, 04:37:26 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 10, 2021, 05:36:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 10, 2021, 05:55:21 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 10, 2021, 08:22:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 11, 2021, 04:07:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2021, 04:33:47 PM
On that last sign, they could've also added Exit 18E tabs to both the EZ Pass Only and Cash Users signage.

Having 2 interchanges combined in 1 toll plaza, along with restricted lanes (bus only, sometimes) has always been a very confusing scenario.  There won't be any MUTCD guidance to draw upon for such situations, so the NJTA improvises as best it can.

It doesn't help that GPS directions at toll plazas sucks at best, often directing everyone into the EZ Pass Only or Cash lanes.  Settings already include an option to avoid toll roads; opting for toll roads should be followed with an Electronic Toll or Cash options as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 12, 2021, 07:25:51 AM
The middle sign in Reply 4250 seems to imply that Route 3 is now accessed through Exit 18E and not Exit 16E.   Although finally better signage than the old ones( as for decades they ignored Route 495) these are  even more confusing.

Consider I work at a plaza similar to this with two different tolls charged ( one $1.50 through mainline and $1 ramp toll in one array), our toll plaza has people confused even with perfect signs there.  I am sure you have some that will go through the 18E lanes for 16E intent and through 18E traffic wind up in 16E lanes with the old signage. This new sign set up will intensify what I experience at my workplace and that of old here that is being caught off guard.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on December 12, 2021, 09:59:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 13, 2021, 12:33:38 PM
Wish they would do it in Florida.
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.

We have $100 for that, but the hierchy in DOT rather issue Unpaid Toll notices instead.  It's actually the law too to fine them 100 bucks, but the DOT ignores the law apparently.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 15, 2021, 01:21:04 PM
Two more new signs southbound. One approaching the northern mixing bowl for the Eastern and Western spurs (new style hybrid barrel/VMS signs) and then a sign approaching 16E for the new plaza alignment.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51747997672_0851a2d554_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51747997722_7d7ec2127c_c.jpg)

I'm just going to reiterate. I abhor the phrase "Plaza Bypass". The correct MUTCD way is just to show the ETC pictogram and the only and leave it at that. I am not a fan of NJTA insisting on this in the slightest. To me, it creates confusion that I don't think is warranted.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on December 15, 2021, 01:25:29 PM
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.

I completely concur. And it could cause someone to start reaching for their wallet and get distracted since the sign is telling them they need to pay there and they weren't expecting it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2021, 02:00:26 PM
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.

Which is strange that it's posted like that, as the verbiage in green is absolutely correct.

"TOLL ROAD AHEAD" or "TOLL PLAZA AHEAD" would be fine.



When I worked interchange 1, on the entry side where I would hand out tickets, occasionally I would have a car come up holding two or three dollars. There's no sign that said what the toll was, but they had that money ready!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2021, 06:08:12 PM
Also not a fan of Plaza Bypass because it implies you don't need to pay the toll if you go that way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 15, 2021, 07:35:43 PM
Also not a fan of Plaza Bypass because it implies you don't need to pay the toll if you go that way.

"Express Lanes - EZPASS ONLY - Speed Limit 55" would seem to serve their intended goal without confusion perhaps?  Not sure that's MUTCD compliant, though.

It would probably be easiest just to replicate what DelDOT does...
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6470517,-75.7483845,3a,75y,269.87h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTpWeSX0EXz1Bm1_Vko_xng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 15, 2021, 07:57:11 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51748669637_c877eaa7d1_z.jpg)

This is straight from the MUTCD. The Turnpike Authority used to do this more or less. I wish they would go back to it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 15, 2021, 08:30:31 PM
I'm surprised at NJTA. With their new emphasis on MUTCD compliance, you'd think they'd follow the simpler MUTCD recommendations re: toll plaza signing. Instead they seem to have made it more complicated and ambiguous than necessary by using their own terminology, which as some have pointed out seems to be misleading.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2021, 09:54:32 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51748669637_c877eaa7d1_z.jpg)

This is straight from the MUTCD. The Turnpike Authority used to do this more or less. I wish they would go back to it.
I'd like to survey what other agencies are doing. If they go all-electronic this goes away anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 15, 2021, 10:27:13 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 15, 2021, 10:30:26 PM
Seems like DelDOT outsmarted themselves, LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 15, 2021, 10:32:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on December 16, 2021, 11:34:19 AM
Went through the PA Extension, a lot of the newer pavement has more "normal" striping for lane painting and skip.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on December 16, 2021, 11:38:31 AM
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).

I can attest to this the Sunday after Thanksgiving.  It was faster to go through the cash lanes with E-ZPass than the congested express lanes.  A few others figured this out as well.


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.

DelDOT recognized this on SR 1.  The express lanes used to see a lane drop after the toll plazas, whereas the cash lanes created the second lane.  Now it's reversed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2021, 12:59:30 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 16, 2021, 01:04:01 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 16, 2021, 01:41:20 PM
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

They recently rebuilt a portion of Interchange 6, adding an express lane in each direction. While they did have to modify the roadway a little bit, there were no drainage inlets in the roadway to contend with, so probably made for an easier project. The barriers were lengthened considerably.  There's also 3 lanes on either side of the plaza here, so that makes for better merging/diverging as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: theroadwayone on December 18, 2021, 01:46:25 PM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160

Link requires a login.
https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 25, 2021, 08:22:29 PM
Quote from: AARoads Forum
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 25, 2021, 09:24:56 PM
Quote from: AARoads Forum
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 25, 2021, 09:54:32 PM
How are they going to add lanes over the Newark Bay Bridge?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 25, 2021, 10:25:36 PM
How are they going to add lanes over the Newark Bay Bridge?

Per https://www.njta.com/media/5832/2020_njtalongrangecapitalplan_v1-as-approved-may-2020.pdf , pdf page 40, via a new bridge.  It doesn't get more specific, but my best guess would be a new span for one direction of traffic, and the existing span will be retrofitted for the opposing traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 26, 2021, 06:37:15 AM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160

Link requires a login.
https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625
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://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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2021, 07:59:56 AM
EZ-Pass express lanes opened at 18E.
https://www.facebook.com/TurnpikeAuthority/posts/4529787643764160

Link requires a login.
https://twitter.com/NJTurnpike/status/1462756312148762625
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://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.

BTW, they have these auctions every several months, so if there's something you see worth bidding on, not a bad idea to check it out before the auction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 27, 2021, 09:20:31 AM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on December 27, 2021, 11:19:29 PM
Quote from: AARoads Forum
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.

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.
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 28, 2021, 05:18:54 PM
The NJ Turnpike has 12 lanes in each direction with dual carriage ways and 14 between Woodbridge and Elizabeth.  That to me is one better than 4-4. Plus you get three cars only lanes separate from the trucks ( 4 lanes being the outer roadway still bans trucks so cars can still pass slow moving trucks on that roadway) that other freeways do not adopt.

Having dual carriage way set up is even safer, not allowing too many lanes to choose between at once cutting out excessive weaving. Especially with young millennial drivers with insecurities who have to weave  around cars with loud sports cars with sporty features. Having the dual carriage ways limits their use of lanes to weave and show off themselves to feel powerful.

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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on December 28, 2021, 06:23:39 PM
I sometimes wonder if the cars only lanes clog up more often.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 28, 2021, 07:06:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on December 28, 2021, 08:27:48 PM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 28, 2021, 09:17:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 28, 2021, 10:19:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 29, 2021, 12:44:54 AM
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.

My general rule of thumb is that during daytime periods when there are a lot of trucks out, I'll stick to the inner roadway. Other times, I'll stick to the outer. You mix with the trucks, but they generally stay out of the left lane and even if they veer in there, they get back over very quickly, so the left lane stays open to pass slower cars, versus being in the inner roadway where some out of state driver who has no idea how it all works, drives in the left lane 5 mph below the speed limit and causes waves of slowness to build behind since no one can pass other slow drivers in the right or middle lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 29, 2021, 01:33:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2021, 09:02:21 AM
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.

That sign you're referring to was and still is on the mainline in the dual-dual roadway.

Just North of Interchange 9:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2VcPujgjRUx1LuL17
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on January 04, 2022, 10:05:18 PM
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.

Here is an drive thru of the new ORT toll plaza I captured from the perspective of exiting onto 16 E from a recent trip I took (2021-12-29):



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.

It appears they may have updated the first signs to add NJ Route 3 to the 18 E sign between to what was posted in reply 4248 (10 Dec 2021):
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51737205692_7d7340b1f6_c.jpg)

...and my trip to Manhattan (basketball trip) on the 29th of December, 2021:
(https://i.ibb.co/5v8kk3C/IMG-3678.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gwTdd8Q)



I could be wrong, but I think this sign I saw as well...
(https://i.ibb.co/p2HRSL3/IMG-3680.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BLhr9Cg)

...may be misleading to a driver continuing north on I-95/NJTP, as the left 2 lanes actually lead to the ORT lanes, and the right lane has access to the cash lanes, Lincoln Tunnel XBL, NJ Route 3, and NJ Route 495 East as shown in these two photos:
(https://i.ibb.co/v3cZgKD/IMG-3681.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VgL2rP3)
(https://i.ibb.co/smFb9M6/IMG-3682.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p03bj9R)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 04, 2022, 11:40:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 04, 2022, 11:57:44 PM
So you have to pay extra to exit for Paterson Plank Road. The tolls for that ramp and Route 495 are now different rates?

I don’t think the NJTA would stoop that low.  Yeah they do when you enter the Turnpike South from the Sports Complex, have you pay the 18W rate cause the ramp merges from before the plaza. Most people who arrived at the event at the Complex i am sure exited 16W at the lower rate that they are returning from, but thats really not as low as this.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 05, 2022, 05:56:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 05, 2022, 10:08:02 PM
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.

Looks like there's a fresh GSV capture as of December 2021. You can see (https://goo.gl/maps/7vq8cmuxHFimPTKJ7) that they've erected a jersey barrier past the toll plaza so that you have to have gone through the 18E cash lanes to get to PPR/Rt 3. So, yes, this is a toll increase for that exit.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on January 05, 2022, 10:17:07 PM
The NJTA is looking at demolishing the former Marist High Schoo (https://hudsonreporter.com/2022/01/05/former-marist-high-school-eyed-by-njta-as-part-of-new-newark-bay-bridge-project/)l for the expansion of the Newark Bay Bridge
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 05, 2022, 10:17:55 PM
I'm a little surprised the NJTA is pulling a scam like that on drivers heading for Route 3. For many years the Route 3 exit was part of Exit 16E.

The old signs back in the day said: Exit 16, Lincoln Tunnel, NJ 3, Secaucus.

And way before 1964, Route 3, Secaucus was Exit 17 in both directions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 05, 2022, 10:21:21 PM
This is all disappointing but not surprising. Gives me even more reason to shunpike when I'm in NJ...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 06, 2022, 12:20:12 PM
This is all disappointing but not surprising. Gives me even more reason to shunpike when I'm in NJ...

Because of an exit you weren't going to use anyway?  If you were already shunpiking, would leaving access to this ramp from 16E encouraged you to pay tolls to unrelated destinations?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on January 06, 2022, 05:02:21 PM
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/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on January 06, 2022, 05:10:34 PM
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?

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 06, 2022, 06:01:32 PM
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

It would cost a few million to build another EZ Pass interchange. It jnvolves much more infrastructure than you mentioned.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 06, 2022, 08:58:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on January 06, 2022, 10:31:27 PM
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?

Exactly! But people want to play dumb about it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 07, 2022, 12:55:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 07, 2022, 09:56:09 AM
The Turnpike always gouged at Exit 13A too. The toll SB is the same as Exit 13 and NB both 13A and 14 pay the same. That, though, was done in 1981 when the ramp opened so it wasn’t a drastic measure to an existing situation.

Then again SB Exit 5 pays less than SB Exit 6, although that has to do with the Extension mileage.

Anyway these both have been always standing issues, but this is a drastic change..  I bet you will see a surge in users at Exits 15X and 16W now with this crap.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 07, 2022, 10:00:38 AM
Are southbound entries at the County Ave. ramp still considered 16E? That would be a bit weird.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 07, 2022, 11:24:12 AM
I think so. No weaving involved.  Maybe the Town Council will hold a public meeting on the issue. We can only hope.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 07, 2022, 12:44:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2022, 01:23:56 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on January 07, 2022, 04:52:21 PM
Does anyone have traffic counts for different Turnpike interchanges?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 07, 2022, 05:59:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 07, 2022, 10:41:33 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 07, 2022, 10:56:50 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on January 07, 2022, 11:24:51 PM
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.

Not every agency in the Northeast yet (I'm looking at you, Maine Turnpike...)

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.

In all seriousness, I wonder if the AET gantries would look like this, as shown here* (https://i.ibb.co/TB5mZrK/Screenshot-2022-01-07-at-23-07-26.png). Then again, I think the placement of the AET gantries could be simplified once the 16 E / 18 E interchange is reconfigured to just 2, one for 18 E and one for the entirety of the 16 E exits.
*Typo in the image, I meant XBL not XNL.

When the NJTP goes AET, will they retain the distance based tolling like they do today, by put the gantries on the interchange entrances/exits (like parts of the NY Thruway, correct me if I'm wrong), or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by put gantries on the mainline instead and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion? I imagine the latter may be difficult to do with the Newark Bay and Pennsylvania Turnpike Extensions in play here.

EDIT 2022-01-08: Corrected the fact the Mass Pike is still a distance based system just in a different way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2022, 11:28:02 PM
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?
I don't think there is anything publicly available. Google gave me one study that at least has some info:
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pdf/njtrstudypart2.pdf
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Jim on January 08, 2022, 07:33:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2022, 09:33:13 AM

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.

*Some* agencies are doing it. The DRJTPC, DRPA, DRBA and others are not.

It's probably going to be longer than you think. While it's in the 10-year program, it is not in their current five-year construction schedule. Once it appears, the project timeline is scheduled to be about five years, so we won't see it any sooner than the latter part of the 2020's, approaching the 2030's.

The Turnpike Authority may take a step back and see how other agencies are dealing with the issue of missing funds. While the PTC has been trying to downplay their AET losses by claiming percentage-wise it's in line with other toll losses, that's still $100 million dollars that was never collected.

The PA Turnpike annual toll revenue is over $1.2 Billion. The NJ Turnpike Authority's toll revenue is over $2 Billion. Playing the percentage game, that would be over $200 million that could go uncollected. No doubt the NJTA will see how other toll agencies can ultimately recoup a satisfactory portion of that lost revenue.

E-ZPass usage on the NJTA toll roads is about 89%-90%, versus PA Turnpike usage reported to be about 86%, and it's estimated that have of the toll-by-plate travelers never paid.  If about half of the NJTA toll-by-plate travelers didn't pay, the losses, percentage-wise, wouldn't be as bad as the PA Turnpike, but would be higher in dollar value. It's a significant issue that needs to be looked into.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on January 08, 2022, 09:38:37 AM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2022, 10:33:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2022, 11:36:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2022, 11:59:17 AM
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.

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on January 08, 2022, 12:20:12 PM
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.

A lot of the new toll gantries on the Mass Pike are next to some facility they already have such as state police barracks, DOT garages, service areas. There was thought as to the locations along the highway. At the interchanges, the buildings were torn down in the process. The only building I think that still remains is the one for the toll plaza from the Mass Pike Eastbound to Rt 128 (old exit 14). It must have been repurposed as everything was torn down and cleaned up.

Besides not being flat rate, there is now no tolls from West Springfield to Ludlow and again between Routes 290 and 122. Tolls were added in for the Newton exits. Previously you could go between Route 16 and Newton Corner without a toll and now there is one with the overhead tolling. As for EZ Pass it is treated as a ticket system with reporting your first and last gantries and the toll between them.

As for paying for it all, if I remember correctly back in the late 90s Governor Whitman said that the toll evaders would pay for the EZ pass installation and system when it was first being rolled out. Then it turned out that every man, woman, child, and newborn baby in the state had to cheat on a toll 20 times each or something ridiculous. Its been a few years, although I think it was something along those lines. There were a few different "scams" back then along with the emissions inspection disaster when they switched the whole testing routine and the equipment didn't work right. I mean not that there are other scams before and since in NJ. Taking a short detour down Memory Lane
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 08, 2022, 12:27:20 PM
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.

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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 08, 2022, 12:38:38 PM
If the toll gantry is placed between each exit gap, a flat rate won’t increase the rate. Think of the mainline I-476 toll between Keyser Avenue and the PA 315 exchange on the NE Extension. Those between Wyoming Valley and  Clarks Summit whether straight through or one exit only paid the same cash rate.  Those continuing to Clark’s Summit paid extra at former endpoint toll plaza, but if you got off at Keyser for gas and re entered the roadway, the toll was the same.  Each barrier charged for miles traveled between each interchange as would a ticket system would.

The issue with the NJ Turnpike is, they penalize you for re entering the Turnpike to get off and back on with an extra toll. That may play into factor when conversation.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 08, 2022, 12:45:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 08, 2022, 06:33:22 PM
Disruptions to traffic when installing gantries/removing toll plazas definitely does factor into gantry locations.  Such is the reason why the Thruway is not entirely a virtual ticket system and has fixed-price gantries in some spots of the former ticket system (which is really annoying for billing, as they don't put them all together into a single charge like MA does).  Work zone traffic configuration is also the reason why the toll crossing the Tappan Zee is now on the Rockland side of the river instead of the Westchester side (such was intended to be temporary until the Thruway was in its final traffic configuration, but then they decided it was simpler to keep the toll there rather than install yet another gantry).

Regarding the New Jersey Turnpike, it's worth noting that the 18E gantries are wide enough for three lanes (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7770414,-74.058259,3a,20.7y,20.11h,92.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Yi8r9_Qat0EBn7FV3ETnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  They might be considering keeping them after an AET conversion, though I wonder how hard removing that curb and barrier would be.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 08, 2022, 11:51:44 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 13, 2022, 02:47:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 13, 2022, 12:40:09 PM
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.

It's an unusual situation. This has a case for an x95 or a 95x.

When giving directions, how do you tell someone to take 95 to 15E or 16W? How would that be described in normal route terms?

Just another unique situation that really doesn't come into play elsewhere. Even if someone disagrees with a route number, at least there's a route number to follow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 13, 2022, 12:57:23 PM
Even though I'm not really a fan of suffixed interstates, this is really the perfect place for them.  Arguably the southern portion of Turnpike too.  Since Texas is insisting on bringing them back, may as well use them to resolve some numbering abnormalities on the NJ Turnpike!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jmacswimmer on January 13, 2022, 01:11:28 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 13, 2022, 11:11:43 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 13, 2022, 11:17:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on January 13, 2022, 11:51:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 13, 2022, 11:57:28 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 14, 2022, 07:42:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 14, 2022, 08:34:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on January 14, 2022, 09:25:41 PM
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.

Unfortunately I did not get any pictures of this when I was down there, but coming back from NYC to Woodbridge Twp via the Eastern Spur/Alignment on 29 Dec 2021, I saw these two signs that were also replaced as well, reflected in the latest GSV update. I don't know if the Western Spur/Alignment signs at this location were replaced as well. The I-95 North at US Route 46 exit was also replaced as well. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8430286,-74.0179452,3a,30.4y,72.2h,88.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srm6Ft0Cpu-fFeX0MCw3cCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (GSV doesn't show them as up, but they were installed on the gantry and not activated sometime at the end of December).

Warning for diverge ahead in ½ mile (0.8 km) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7305126,-74.1261122,3a,75y,226.85h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB84AzIq4bFFVJj9mO-c7yg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 14, 2022, 10:45:33 PM
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)

So what's interesting here...those new signs show both "Cars Only" and "Trucks, Buses (& Cars)" as white on green, similar to exit or guidance signage.  But south of Interchange 6, the "Cars Only" sign is black on white, which is regulatory, and designed to lawfully exclude trucks & buses from entering the inner roadway. https://goo.gl/maps/joE6tr1ENNzKJtNa6  In fact, a very quick sample seems to show this is the only location where black on white signage was used when only cars can use the inner roadway.

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...


Not for nothing, but you can literally see the construction going on for the new signage at these locations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2022, 01:02:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 15, 2022, 01:20:53 PM
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.

That is totally not at all what I said. I acknowledged that NJTA may indeed call them alignments internally.  However, as far as publicly, the press releases speak for themselves.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Scott5114 on January 15, 2022, 04:32:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2022, 05:34:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 15, 2022, 05:53:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2022, 06:18:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 15, 2022, 07:20:05 PM
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:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on January 15, 2022, 07:29:24 PM
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:

Maybe NJDOT's Straight Line Diagrams?
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on January 15, 2022, 08:21:56 PM
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*
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 15, 2022, 10:31:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2022, 11:22:06 PM
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.

I've seen where a speed limit sign goes missing, and in the next SLD the speed limit carries on from the previously signed limit.  Someone in the area must think the speed limit changed and reported it to on the corrections/suggestion form, and the limit was updated without any research.

I think, without looking at it, they report the NJ 55 limit inaccurately coming off of 42 as 55 mph, even though it's properly signed as 65 mph.

(Just a few examples of inaccuracies I've seen in my general area)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 16, 2022, 03:08:50 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 16, 2022, 07:32:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2022, 02:18:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 06:02:59 AM
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 think it also depends on which NJDOT region. NJDOT central doesn't sign the two shields together like NJDOT north does, but of course, NJDOT central only has a short section of 1/9 in Woodbridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 17, 2022, 09:46:48 AM
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.

Quote
Plus when are they ever going to shield Tonelle Avenue and properly sign the US 46 interchange in Palisades Park.

As soon as Trenton can afford the Slomin's Shield... oh, wait, we're discussing highway route shields... [blush]
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on January 17, 2022, 09:56:57 AM
roadman65 would be appalled by the Interstate shields in St. Louis that have as many as four numbers on a single sign. Google Maps app isn’t giving me a Street View link, so you'll have to click into Street View yourself to see it:

https://goo.gl/maps/4jDsrFYkLGNQPwU77
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 09:58:14 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jp the roadgeek on January 17, 2022, 10:21:27 AM
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

Because Canadians driving through the area kept asking where the beer was. :bigass:

I'll see myself out...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 17, 2022, 10:35:25 AM
The NJTA signs Exit 15E as US 1 and US 9. Same for Exit 14.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on January 17, 2022, 10:57:53 AM
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.
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 example
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 11:36:46 AM
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.
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 example

This is the largest sign with 1&9 I know of presently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7465328,-74.1004979,3a,75y,254.95h,88.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spHHQhVR40ZRGmjrlQ6TgCw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 11:38:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 17, 2022, 12:05:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 12:28:51 PM
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.

Its interesting how some of the new signs have added routes, but the Turnpike mostly omits county routes from the mainline, except right past the Exit 1 plaza at the 140/540 exit. 541 would be great at Exit 5, at minimum. GSP doesn't have this issue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on January 17, 2022, 01:16:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 01:48:06 PM
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…
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: artmalk on January 17, 2022, 04:05:09 PM
Every NYC traffic report ends with, "Turnpike Extension better than 1&9."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 17, 2022, 04:09:40 PM
Every NYC traffic report ends with, "Turnpike Extension better than 1&9."

We're referring specifically to the signs with the ampersand versus those with the dash, not verbal usage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 17, 2022, 05:22:56 PM
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…

That I believe. Anyone on here (and elsewhere) who said because it looked like 139 or 169 normally did so without any actual justification for such.

Every NYC traffic report ends with, "Turnpike Extension better than 1&9."

They say "one ampersand nine"?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Scott5114 on January 17, 2022, 07:55:35 PM
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.

I don't think there's a single instance of 56-412 signage in New Mexico that has them on separate shields. Most of them are two lines, with the 56 over the 412, but there is at least one instance of "56/412", on one line with the slash, with the shield stretched to ludicrous width.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on January 17, 2022, 08:01:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2022, 08:04:31 PM
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.

NJTA is not NJDOT. NJTA will always do its own thing for signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 18, 2022, 12:01:15 AM
Yeah and in this case we can have separate shields for the two different US routes, due to NJTA not following suit with the 1-9 combined shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2022, 09:23:23 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.html

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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 20, 2022, 08:18:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on January 20, 2022, 08:32:14 AM
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?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3558/3770350483_08e1a2500d_d.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 20, 2022, 08:54:52 AM
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?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3558/3770350483_08e1a2500d_d.jpg)
There’s so much wrong with that assembly lol
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on January 20, 2022, 12:46:49 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.html

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)
Sounds 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 20, 2022, 01:21:32 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.html

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)
Sounds 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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on January 20, 2022, 06:09:16 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.html

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)
Sounds 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?

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.
Yes being tied to a specific project and horizon is a huge difference. NJTA is not gonna make PA's mistake.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on January 20, 2022, 07:54:49 PM
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?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/3558/3770350483_08e1a2500d_d.jpg)
There’s so much wrong with that assembly lol

Sure is!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cl94 on January 21, 2022, 03:31:38 PM
https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/nj-turnpike-negotiates-paying-81m-a-year-for-new-rail-tunnel-loan.html

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)
Sounds 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?

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.
Yes being tied to a specific project and horizon is a huge difference. NJTA is not gonna make PA's mistake.

Another key here is that the Turnpike and Northeast Corridor serve the same regions. Using toll revenue to fund other transportation improvements along the same corridor is very different from funneling toll revenue from far away into transit systems that have nothing in common, like PA wanted to do with tolling I-80 to fund urban transit. The Gateway project will have direct and positive impacts on the Turnpike system and the corridor the Turnpike serves. I have no problem with using toll revenue to fund something along the corridor that will benefit the regional transportation network.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on February 03, 2022, 12:25:18 AM
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?


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 03, 2022, 12:35:32 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2022, 09:17:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 03, 2022, 05:45:19 PM
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.
2 minutes if you've got Maryland plates.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on February 26, 2022, 04:43:33 PM
So around MM78 on the NJTP there is an abandoned paved roadway within the ROW.  What’s up with that stretch?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 26, 2022, 04:49:24 PM
So around MM78 on the NJTP there is an abandoned paved roadway within the ROW.  What’s up with that stretch?

I presume you mean this.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Middlesex+County,+NJ/@40.4178886,-74.445808,287m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c3dca9b565b9e1:0xfbff002a91109cd1!8m2!3d40.4111363!4d-74.3587473

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4157456,-74.4463404,3a,75y,56.52h,89.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWYbHEeHaeZUjfqFy3xWRHg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DWYbHEeHaeZUjfqFy3xWRHg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D221.21819%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

I'm guessing a realignment involved with roadway widening at some point, but someone else may have more details. Looks like it now used for something else, perhaps testing paint or paving, practice painting?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on February 26, 2022, 05:03:54 PM
That was the original carriageway. Recall that what the Turnpike Authority refers to as the "dual-dual" system (what most drivers refer to as the "car lanes" and the "truck lanes," even though that’s not strictly accurate) used to terminate, or begin, further to the north. When I was a kid that system's southbound end/northbound beginning was just south of Exit 9, which is north of the location seen in those two links. When they extended the system south to just below Exit 8A sometime in the 1980s, they wanted to preserve access to the service area for traffic on either carriageway and so built the flyover ramps; those, in turns resulted in the abandonment of the pavement between those ramps. I assume the reason for doing it that way has to do with right-of-way issues as to what exactly the Turnpike Authority owned (because it’s always easier to proceed within what they have than to go through the eminent domain process).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 26, 2022, 08:26:31 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 26, 2022, 11:15:43 PM
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?

Not familiar with anything like that up there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 27, 2022, 02:03:03 AM
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?
Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on February 27, 2022, 05:19:42 PM
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?
Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 27, 2022, 08:14:08 PM
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?
Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.

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. 
Right, that's about all there's room for, not testing police cars.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 27, 2022, 08:17:00 PM
I seem to remember training, not testing cars. Like simulating doing car stops, arrests, handling simulated accidents, stuff like that, if I remember right.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 27, 2022, 09:41:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 27, 2022, 09:51:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 27, 2022, 11:07:50 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 28, 2022, 07:57:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on February 28, 2022, 08:23:27 PM
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?
Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on February 28, 2022, 08:25:56 PM
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?
Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.

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.

Ummm....
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4191637,-74.4442921,3a,75y,130.66h,77.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH5VHoLQbhJgyz6wM1DUU8w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on February 28, 2022, 08:32:56 PM
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

OK, then! I sit corrected…
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 28, 2022, 09:03:36 PM
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.

Oh, yeah, *that* won't cause a distraction...

The police do training all the time, but they wouldn't normally do it in a difficult to access 1/3 mile of highway, where even simulated incidents would be fairly restricted to a small area.

NJ does offer plenty of training for emergency responders at several locations statewide, many of which are at training facilities. Here's one general site showing upcoming trainings: https://nj.gov/njoem/training/schedule.shtml . I've seen a manual online as well regarding how to respond to and set up traffic control at incidents, although I didn't see it now after a brief search.  To sum that up - they try to get the incident out of the travel lanes as quickly as possible, but if they can't, they will set up a closure on one side of the roadway to keep traffic from going by on both sides of the incident.

If NJDOT, NJSP, NJTA or other agencies/authorities wanted to provide significant training on the roadway, Sunday mornings are an opportune time to conduct such training as traffic volumes are generally at their lightest and police need is low.  The Turnpike could have an entire roadway closed in the dual-dual section without affecting traffic flow until at least 10am many Sundays.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 06, 2022, 05:57:38 PM
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?
Um no... it's mostly taken up by overpasses. Not much you can do on it.

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.
So it was deliberately kept up for testing, and has been, for decades?  If so I guess they do maintenance.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 12:29:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 26, 2022, 12:54:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 12:59:48 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 26, 2022, 01:22:41 AM
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).

Both roads can have a lot of trucks. Personally, I will let my phone gps gauge traffic as I approach and decide for me. But as a rule, weekday rush hours are worse on 295 while weekend days are worse on the turnpike. Friday pm rush is often bad on both, but northbound will be better on the turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BlueOutback7 on March 26, 2022, 08:16:52 AM
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 have done both. The Turnpike is a good option if you don’t want to deal with the construction in Bellmawr regarding the 295/76/42 mess. It bypasses both Trenton and Camden and is usually what I use. Be warned though that it does get expensive especially if you don’t have EZPass. Before I got one in my own car, it cost me 10 bucks to get off at Exit 7A (I-195) To avoid the trucks, I’d recommend using the cars only lane so you don’t have to deal with that slog.

I-295 is a good choice because there’s no toll. The downside is that it is that main artery for commuters and gets fairly busy down by Bellmawr as stated above.

That being said, I recommend the Turnpike just because it’s a bit less stressful. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 26, 2022, 09:07:45 AM
I’ve done both as well, and it does depend on the time of day. In general, I prefer staying on the Turnpike just for simplicity and continuity, though the southern end can get tricky on weekends. As for the car/truck lanes, I have found based on my own experience that the truckers in the truck lanes are better behaved than the cars in the cars only lanes. That could vary, of course, depending on the time of day.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on March 26, 2022, 09:28:30 AM
I usually just stay on the Turnpike.  South of PA Turnpike, I have rarely had a real traffic issue (relatively speaking).  Tune into the travel alerts.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2022, 09:33:01 AM
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'll start with this:  You are way overthinking this, because it's easy to overthink it.  It's rare to have 2 highways right next to each other to provide you options.  What I wrote below is extensive...

I'll also give you some food for thought, based on your assumptions:  The Turnpike can get congested in the Philly area. Very congested.  There is a LOT of trucks on the Turnpike.  Just yesterday, a crash had traffic delayed on the Turnpike between Interchanges 3 & 4.  It looked like the Turnpike was a truck-only route with all the trucks stuck in that jam. 

You mentioned the speed limit in your response.  295 has a 55 mph speed limit only between Exits 28 & 34.  In my travels, I've determined that as long as you keep it at 74 mph or below, you're fine.  That said, at the speed limit, the difference in time compared to the 65 mph zone on the Turnpike would be about 59 seconds lost.  But...the Turnpike has a 55 mph construction zone between Exits 3 & 4 for a mile or so.  Plus, depending where you enter and exit the Turnpike, you may encounter more local roads and traffic lights.  The point here will be...don't let that 55 mph limit factor in, because guaranteed you'll gain or lose time elsewhere on your route.

The first question posed is the most important question: What day and time.  I'll break down the common traffic patterns and issues here...

I-295:

Monday thru Thursday: Traffic is generally light to moderate in both directions of 295 until 1pm, then after 6:30pm.  The morning rush hour is lighter than it traditionally has been due to people working from home.  There's been a few slowdowns during the morning rush with sun glare, but I don't think this will be an issue in the summer when people are on vacation and work traffic is lighter anyway.  Between 1pm and 6:30pm, traffic is heavier, especially on 295 South.  It'll be heaviest earliest after Exit 28 (NJ 168) as you approach Exit 26 (I-76/NJ 42) and the 295/76/42 construction projects.  At its worst, it'll jam from Exit 36 (NJ 73) or even Exit 40 (NJ 38) down to Exit 26, which will add about 15 - 20 minutes travel time. While there's fewer people working in the office, there's a lot more people out and about shopping and doing other errands, so the afternoon rush hour's congestion is very similar to pre-pandemic congestion.

Friday:  Same as above, but extend the afternoon rush hour a bit.  To be conservative, consider the Friday rush hour from 11:00am to 7:00pm, mainly due to shore traffic and early weekend getaway traffic.  Yes, it can get heavy before lunch.

Saturday and Sunday:  I-295 traffic generally isn't too bad until you get close to the 295/76/42 interchange.  Unlike the weekdays, the weekends features a lot of traffic involving vacationing families and road-trippers that aren't used to the area, which can be confusing, and they tend to drive slower than commuters who drive the highway 5 days a week. 

The NJ Turnpike:

Monday thru Thursday:  Traffic is very light in the morning both directions, however as mentioned earlier, there's probably more truck traffic than you thought taking this road, if that matters to you.  In the afternoon traffic is heavier, but other than that one construction zone where they're replacing an overpass, there hasn't seemed to be any congestion along this stretch most days.  Where that construction zone it, it's usually just a reduction in speed without any real loss of time.

Friday:  Morning is fine, but afternoon traffic, like on 295, sees a lot of weekend getaway traffic.  There can be a LOT of congestion on the Turnpike South approaching Interchange 4, where it narrows from 3 lanes to 2.  And then it will continue to be congested thru much of the 8 miles between Interchanges 4 & 3, where enough traffic tends to leave the Turnpike to allow congestion to decrease.

Saturday and Sunday:  Similar to Friday, traffic in the morning is usually free-flowing, but by late morning and thru the afternoon, there is a lot of vacationing traffic, and there can be an amazing amount of congestion, especially in the section of highway with 2 lanes per direction.

It sounds like you'll be going straight from 295 or the Turnpike to NJ 42 and the AC Expressway.  If that assumption is true, then factor in how you're doing that route. Taking 295 will be a direct connection to 42.  Taking the Turnpike will involve driving on NJ 168 North or South, along with possible other roads, depending on your exact routing to 42.  They will be slower than simply taking 295 to 42. 

So, after reading all of that:  there's a lot of variables here in play.  Don't overthink it.  As mentioned, your best bet is probably to use GPS and let it route you the best way depending on the exact time you're traveling.  If you can, get an EZ Pass before your trip - it should save you money in the long run.  And if toll money is a big concern, set your GPS to avoid toll roads - you may be surprised the time lost isn't really all that significant.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on March 26, 2022, 02:39:07 PM
I avoid the truck lanes on the Turnpike on weekdays before 5:00 pm but use them at all other times.  They are usually less congested than the car lanes then.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 02:43:24 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2022, 02:57:25 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 03:03:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2022, 03:58:37 PM
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?

It appears they allow a 20 mph leeway in many 55 mph zones on highways, so 74 and under in a 55 is usually safe.  More often than not, the limiting factor is heavy traffic on the road preventing overly fast speeds anyway.  The only place I've commonly seen a state trooper in that stretch is at a u-turn area about a mile south of Exit 34, and even then it seems like they're on the lookout for truckers for some reason.  I watched one get pulled over that was in the right lane and definitely not the fastest guy on the road.

Obviously, there's nothing official to the above, and your mileage may vary.  But this is generally what I've observed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 04:03:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 26, 2022, 04:05:17 PM
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?

Been discussed many times.  No one has interest in doing so, and it still leaves a bunch of missing moves between two interstate highways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on March 26, 2022, 04:44:44 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 26, 2022, 11:14:36 PM
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

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on March 26, 2022, 11:27:36 PM
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

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.
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 deposit
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 30, 2022, 11:46:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2022, 09:30:00 AM
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.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: dzheng35 on March 31, 2022, 09:48:18 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BlueOutback7 on March 31, 2022, 10:06:56 AM
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?

Because the general public is used to how it is already. Sure it could be I-695 or I-895 if it had to, but everyone knows it as the Turnpike. It could get confusing for people. Let’s be honest, even the I-95 section isn’t even referred to as I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 01:17:57 PM
I would choose the Interstate 695 designation for Exits 1-6 on the New Jersey Turnpike. Of course, I would also renumber the turnpike's exits to mileage-based, and I know hell will freeze over before either of those things happen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 31, 2022, 04:46:54 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 31, 2022, 05:14:36 PM
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?

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.

I can see it even confusing people… going from 95 to 295 to 895 back to 95. Certainly the NJTA would absolutely like it to stay as-is for that reason.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on March 31, 2022, 05:22:35 PM
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?

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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2022, 06:05:17 PM
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?

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?
Yes.
Regarding Interstates, the northern portion is I-95 because the parallel highway was never built. The NJTA presumably isn't interested in designating more Interstates - it won't really affect how their roadway is used and just adds another shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 31, 2022, 06:28:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BlueOutback7 on March 31, 2022, 06:31:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 31, 2022, 06:35:48 PM
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.

True, so if we went back in time to the start of the system, knowing that I-95 would end up where it is now, and wanted to make an interstate along NJ 700, we'd assign 295 the current 295 in DE and the southern Turnpike in NJ (current 700), and assign 695 to the current 295 from its junction with the turnpike north to the Trenton area.

But the cost of changing signs, mile markers, and the added confusion that such a change would cause in the present day will probably never let that happen, so it is what it is.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 31, 2022, 06:40:24 PM
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.

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 Interstate quality from I-195 down to Cape May.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 31, 2022, 09:03:33 PM
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.

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.
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2022, 09:58:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2022, 10:09:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 31, 2022, 11:27:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 01, 2022, 11:19:25 PM
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.


Just because North Carolina is going hog wild with renumbering existing freeways, doesn’t mean that NJ will. In fact they don’t want to go through the time and effort to hold meetings, apply to AASHTO, and spend money on shields. Heck they still won’t apply to AASHTO to first get approval for realigning US 322 in Mullica Hill and they still haven’t applied to get US 9 realigned to The Parkway now that Beesleys Point Bridge is gone for good and will never be replaced.  Plus, I don’t think AASHTO knows that US 206 Bypass exists in Hillsborough Township.  The last application sent in was for the US 206 alignment change at Netcong in the early seventies. Since then (unless the aforementioned bypass was submitted, that I highly doubt) no new applications were submitted to the feds.

If they won’t submit the paperwork on those why would they here.  NJ is very fuddy duddy when it comes to roads. IMO opinion I think Route 24 should be an x78, but that won’t happen either even though it connects two interstate routes on both ends.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on April 01, 2022, 11:29:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 02, 2022, 12:02:26 AM
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.
Arizona, where there are zero 3dis despite the wealth of freeways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 02, 2022, 11:34:39 AM
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.

Yes by all means US 101 should become I-3 someday, but I don’t expect it. I won’t suggest it even on fictional highways either.  IMO I would like to actually see NJTA apply for a designation, but I’m fine as they don’t.  People know from years of the split in I-95 that the the non publicly known numbered freeway is a loop of I-95 by now and know it’s the de facto bypass of Philly for I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 02, 2022, 01:59:40 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 03, 2022, 02:05:26 AM
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. 
Your first statement isn't quite true. Original 95 at some point was conceived as a completely separate roadway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 03, 2022, 03:09:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 03, 2022, 03:16:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 03, 2022, 03:26:11 PM
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.

True. But the total time, from start to finish, including the missing link in NJ/PA was much longer.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on April 03, 2022, 07:59:48 PM
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. 
Your first statement isn't quite true. Original 95 at some point was conceived as a completely separate roadway.
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 03, 2022, 08:26:23 PM
<img src="http://www.raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/I-95Corridor_1964.jpg">
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 03, 2022, 10:02:19 PM
It was going to blast right thru the City of Newark and its adjacent urban communities the same way I-280 did? What a mess that would have been..........
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 04, 2022, 12:05:03 AM
Looks like it would have went through Clark if originally proposed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BlueOutback7 on April 04, 2022, 08:32:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 04, 2022, 08:42:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 04, 2022, 11:40:11 PM
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.
Hard to tell, because AFAIK the Turnpike routing was only ever conceptual in nature, whereas NJ 75 was fully designed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 10, 2022, 11:22:56 PM
I always felt IF the Feds were involved from the start with the planning on highways in NJ, we would never have gotten I-295 and the NJTP.  They would have made it one road.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 02, 2022, 01:18:23 AM
Drove on the PHMTE on my way to PA today, and I've noticed some interesting things.

1. They reconfigured the Exit 6 toll plaza to finally have two E-ZPass express lanes, which is a nice change.
2. As a result of this, they've put up that frustrating new style of signage that calls it a toll plaza bypass (https://goo.gl/maps/GfBz3NsrZ67GRpo89), which is confusing. It still makes it sound like a driver can avoid paying a toll by going that way, even though that is clearly not the case. Honestly, I don't know why the NJTA has gotten wordy with these. Their older signage for express E-ZPass lanes was very much more in line with the accepted MUTCD way of signing such things. Hell, it probably was influential in developing the standards.
3. All the WB signs for the 130 exit now have "Via Toll Plaza" banners (https://goo.gl/maps/TNN96afoA2QMXjWr7) atop them. NJTA wants motorists to use the standard toll lanes rather than try to merge over after the express E-ZPass lanes to take the ramp.
4. This stretch of roadway has been repaved, and the lane markers are standard issue MUTCD lane markers, not the Turnpike's usual thicker and longer lane markers. Makes me wonder if this was a contractor error, or if they may start to retire the longer/thicker skip lines as they move forward with paving projects in the future.
5. This sign (https://goo.gl/maps/kPSnNF34mC6vuvHSA), which is clearly done by the PTC has a very badly peeling 13 shield.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 02, 2022, 07:36:31 PM
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.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 02, 2022, 10:34:47 PM
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.

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. 
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 02, 2022, 11:02:09 PM
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.

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. 
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.

So odd that they did it that way even though its a new thing for both roads since the merger.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on May 02, 2022, 11:28:30 PM

5. This sign (https://goo.gl/maps/kPSnNF34mC6vuvHSA), which is clearly done by the PTC has a very badly peeling 13 shield.

Other than Clearview, and the pealing shield, it has fully rounded corners and NJTP mounts; maybe it was done as an homage to PA Tpk signage... but I would argue the recent installs (even Clearview) look (and have held-up) better than that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: theroadwayone on May 03, 2022, 03:44:34 AM
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.

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. 
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.

So odd that they did it that way even though its a new thing for both roads since the merger.
The GSV footage from late last year shows Exits 1 and 18W as having "Express E-ZPass" lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2022, 09:48:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 03, 2022, 12:23:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on May 03, 2022, 12:42:26 PM
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2022, 01:02:33 PM
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.


Exactly. That is why when the Exit 88 project was introduced on the Parkway website, the engineers who wrote the project details used Service Road addition to the combining of Exits 88 and 89  to describe the c/d roadway to connect the two interchanges to make them one.

I initially thought the NJTA was going to have a local access road similar to Texas run on both sides of the Parkway. Then when I saw that it was a c/d roadway being built I figured out engineers at NJTA have never heard of Collector Distributor being used in vocabulary.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2022, 01:07:15 PM
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.)

While I won't go as far as to say it's regional terminology like calling everything "Route (number)", there is a lot of people in the state, including official people from NJDOT, that will refer to mileposts as "number over number".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2022, 01:11:03 PM
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.)

That lingo was from cb radio days. Users of Citizen Band Radios in New Jersey would refer to 135.9 on the Parkway is one thirty five over 9 because the way the NJTA used to write the tenth mile markers with the 135 on top in one color and nine in reverse color on the bottom on their markers.

The former NJHA did so too.  That caught on nation wide on the CB and made it to the DC Area I’m sure.

1
3
5
_
9
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 03, 2022, 05:21:28 PM
The NJSP uses number-over-number on radio call outs as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2022, 07:08:58 PM
Back before the MM 16 on I-287 got moved back, the State Police had a speed trap at the former just south of I-78.  Everone on the CB would refer to the milepost as the “16 Yard Sticker”  for some unknown reason.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 20, 2022, 02:39:42 PM
Why doesn't the NJTP like doing a 4 lane design?
I think between exit 6 and 4 that would be best.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 20, 2022, 03:06:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 20, 2022, 03:22:12 PM
He asked this last year, i seem to recall.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 20, 2022, 03:30:15 PM
He asked this last year, i seem to recall.

And I (and others) probably replied with the same response lol.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2022, 05:17:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 21, 2022, 12:32:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 21, 2022, 09:55:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 21, 2022, 10:53:11 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 21, 2022, 11:03:04 AM
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.
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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 21, 2022, 01:34:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2022, 02:13:49 PM
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 discounted toll was approved in February, starting in March or April ( https://www.njta.com/media/6545/minutes-bm-02-22-2022.pdf , Page 21 of the PDF ). It only applies if your EZ Pass account address is in one of 9 specific municipalities and contains one of 20 specific Zip codes, as shown on Page 29 of that PDF link.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2022, 02:37:26 PM
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.

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): 

Quote
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...

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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 21, 2022, 02:47:53 PM
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.

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): 

Quote
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...

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!
That would be the time to do it, during the widening. 🤞
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on May 21, 2022, 03:28:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 21, 2022, 03:56:33 PM
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.

I think it's extremely practical to tie it in with 55.  I also think it can be tied in with the new missing moves ramps between 295 & 42 to provide an easy bypass around the 295 corridor from NJ 42/I-76 to NJ 73.  The geography is quite flat; just trees and waterways...where there isn't buildings and houses.

The biggest factor/issue will be the wetlands and river thru the area.  IMO the interchange can be built with direct ramps rather than trumpet ramps thru a central toll plaza.  The ramps can be built mostly elevated to reduce the impact on the wetlands.  Frankly, for NIMBYs looking for a reason to cry about it, they can latch onto the issue of the two parks in the area being too close to potential new ramps - a park in Deptford (the Deptford Sports Complex) and in Runnemede (David L. Venella Memorial Park / Green Acres Park).  These can be easily moved and rebuilt as part of the complex, but people will find a way to use them to prevent something that ultimately will improve their lives and commutes in the region.

It may be a stretch to see if a ramp system could include the missing moves ramps from 42 North to 55 South and 55 North to 42 South, a movement that now involves cutting thru Deptford via Deptford Center Road.  But I think every other connection is possible here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 21, 2022, 09:50:15 PM
If ramps were installed to directly connect the Turnpike with I-295, say around Woodcrest, they would relieve excess traffic on the Turnpike south of there.  Then the Turnpike would only have to be widened from Exit 4 down to that point.  They would save a ton of money.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2022, 12:01:10 AM
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.

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): 

Quote
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...

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!
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 (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 22, 2022, 08:36:48 PM
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.
Disagree.
Going from 6 lanes to 3 is a big drop, it is not congested per say but the volume and flow would be much improved with 4 lanes.

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.
That is not the same as being 4-4.

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.
There isn't an obvious need from south of Exit 4, especially exit 3.
I like how the NJTP looks more like the Merrit Parkway in the southern portion and don't see a need to ruin it, but I do see a need for it to be 4-4 to exit 4.

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.

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.
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.

Exit 3 and south is fine at 2 lanes, I am always free flowing.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 22, 2022, 08:37:50 PM
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?
Who?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2022, 08:38:52 PM
^ Regardless of your opinion, the Turnpike is going to get expanded to 6 lanes south of Exit 4. Sorry to burst your bubble  :poke:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2022, 10:45:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on May 31, 2022, 09:55:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 01, 2022, 12:39:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 17, 2022, 10:48:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2022, 12:03:41 AM
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.


What?

Maybe they were getting ready to work on that ramp from Exit 11.  Or they were in the process of closing the outer roadway and the few cars you saw were the few remaining cars that got thru on the outer roadway before it was closed.

As for this morning, maybe there was another incident on the outer roadway.  Oh, wait, yeah, there was.  https://midjersey.news/2022/06/17/serious-crash-on-new-jersey-turnpike-in-bordentown-township-under-investigation/ . 

Quoted from that article:

Quote
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.

Your poor little self stuck in traffic on the inner roadway was because there had been a truck on fire on the outer roadway.  God forbid the "incompetent" NJTA shut down the outer roadway because of a truck fire.  Guess you should've been completely stopped on that outer roadway that was shut down, rather than delayed on the open roadway.

I'll gladly take the *competent* organization called the NJTA over your unknown knowledge of site-unseen issues anyday.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2022, 08:05:41 AM
I think we can live without exit numbers not being I-95 mile based as much as we are living with I-70 having an indirect and out of the way connection ( even though on both sides of Breezewood you pass through the same grade separation over a mile apart) with the the PA Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on June 18, 2022, 09:43:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2022, 10:12:24 AM
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.


Something happened to you on the Turnpike? Speeding ticket maybe?

The service plazas are being fully rehabbed, inlcuding the fueling ststion areas. The closest open plazas are within 20 miles of the closed plazas - under a tank of gas for most.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on June 18, 2022, 05:10:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 19, 2022, 07:28:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 19, 2022, 07:38:26 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on June 19, 2022, 09:15:35 AM
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.

Well, seeing as how that’s a major reason for restrooms…

:bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 19, 2022, 10:16:02 AM
Plumbing and such. ADA ramps etc. More stalls. More eco friendly.

Plus they get old.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 19, 2022, 01:20:43 PM
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.

The NJTA contracts are basically the same thing. The operator is doing the work in exchange for an extension on their concession agreement. Some of them have kept their fuel stations operating during shutdown but not all. The NJTA will also not close consecutive service areas in the same vein.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on June 19, 2022, 07:56:43 PM
^ On the Thruway, the building operator and the fuel operator are not the same.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 21, 2022, 09:08:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on June 21, 2022, 10:00:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 22, 2022, 07:33:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on June 22, 2022, 11:20:48 AM
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.

the complexities of our healthcare system are way outside the scope of this conversation.

your average corporate building is owned by one company, operated by another (building management), and then leased by one or more tenants.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 31, 2022, 07:37:32 PM
https://www.njtat100523.com/contact-us

Contact the NJTA about the 83-88 project if you want to address concerns.

https://americanbridge.fandom.com/wiki/Basilone_Bridge
The toll for the Basilone Bridge can’t be correct here.  The bridge is not a separate entity of the Turnpike.   Plus I doubt it’s $4.50 between Exits 9-10.  Though, slightly possible, but considering it was $ 0.15 in the late seventies to go from 9-11, I doubt that much of a hike in forty years.

Edit: https://www.njta.com/toll-calculator

That article is wrong.  The NJTA shows $1.25 from 9-10.

That’s 733.33% in forty plus years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on August 31, 2022, 11:54:27 PM
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.

The PA doesn't even manage most of it. Terminal A is operated by a concession company (who will also operate the new Terminal A when it's completed), C is completely run by United. Only B is managed by the PA these days.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 07, 2022, 09:07:20 PM
So what is going with construction on the NB turnpike at MMs:  74, 78, 86, and just before exit 18?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 07, 2022, 10:46:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2022, 08:36:42 AM
Recently, a 'virtual room' was created for the upcoming Interchange 1 - 4 project.  With a setting of a nice, airy exhibit hall, the room currently shows some basic info such as a general flyover, project goals and a view then (1950s) and now (2020s) pictures.

https://aecomviz.com/NJTA1-4CEP-2022/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 17, 2022, 08:50:05 AM
The flyover video erroneously shows an I-95 shield on this section.   :no:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on September 17, 2022, 11:54:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2022, 12:23:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 17, 2022, 03:47:03 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2022, 06:19:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 17, 2022, 06:38:12 PM
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.

But yeah, the backups southbound at exit 4 have become semi routine, so widening is called for regardless.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2022, 06:43:03 PM
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.

Oh. Ha. At least I got that off my chest! LOL

Yes...that will certainly help the overall traffic flow in the entire region. I believe it is something they are considering, based on what has been published on the Turnpike's website over the past year (although an interchange at 42 is not specifically referenced, so they could be looking at other interchange options also).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 18, 2022, 01:24:18 AM
*has to keep his mouth shut but has answers to SO MANY TOPICS brought up in the last 24 hours*
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 18, 2022, 06:57:29 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:33:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 19, 2022, 07:33:54 AM
Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 19, 2022, 07:56:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on September 19, 2022, 10:41:02 AM
Anybody else notice SB before exit 7A the NJTP is signed as 'Philadelphia'?
Are they gradually finally adding Philly as the control city?

GSV hasn’t been updated for about a year so pics would be nice (tho I’m not really that far away so if I cared enuf…)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 29, 2022, 07:00:34 PM
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.
So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?
That 'Trenton' directional city always irritated me.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on September 30, 2022, 09:50:18 PM
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.
So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?
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.

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 30, 2022, 10:13:46 PM
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.
So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on October 01, 2022, 12:58:02 PM
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.
So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?
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.

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.

As it is installed on wooden posts, that may mean this is temporary until foundations are done for a permanent structure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 01, 2022, 02:30:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 01, 2022, 03:04:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2022, 08:06:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 02, 2022, 08:16:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2022, 11:47:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on October 02, 2022, 01:03:07 PM
Wonder when the NY Thruway Admin building will be renovated or demolished.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2022, 03:27:44 PM
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.
IIRC after Woodbridge the old parkway building was still used for administrative meetings.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 02, 2022, 05:57:40 PM
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.
yeah, i'm an idiot; 7A is I-195, of course. 537 passes under the Turnpike very close to NJ 38's overpass.

i had a brain fart and was thinking 7A provide *direct* access to Six Flags, which is on 537 via 195.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2022, 07:08:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 03, 2022, 08:26:44 PM
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.

NJTA does sign CR's on the post-plaza ramps at 10 and 8A.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on October 08, 2022, 07:24:43 PM
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.
So are they going to start doing this with all replacement signs?
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.

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.
By your logic, 95NB should list 'Newark' before NYC.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 10, 2022, 04:28:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 10, 2022, 04:55:28 PM
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.

Or the NJ Turnpike NB doesn't go to NYC (from the Delaware Memorial Bridge), nor does it go to Camden and Wilmington SB. The AC Expressway doesn't go to Camden WB. NJ 42 doesn't go to Philadelphia, Camden, or the bridges.  The GS Parkway doesn't go to Cape May. NJ 55 doesn’t go to Bellmawr and Camden. The list really goes on and on...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 11, 2022, 12:18:38 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2022, 12:20:38 AM
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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on October 11, 2022, 09:45:20 AM
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

First pic (at least it's mine :) ) is really just a faded E-ZPass logo (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7543079,-74.0721943,3a,15.1y,334.27h,98.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF_sJsCYS_5qnxIGnchWFDw!2e0!5s20190701T000000!7i16384!8i8192) (since ticket grabbing/cash payments can't be done in the E-ZPass only lanes), second is just 60 Hz mains electricity in action.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on October 11, 2022, 10:54:03 AM
The second one is the CAMERA problem, not the VMS.
I hate to say this, but I've seen that without any cameras too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 11, 2022, 01:20:03 PM
The second one is the CAMERA problem, not the VMS.
I hate to say this, but I've seen that without any cameras too.

There are occasional issues with anything electronic: VMSs, Billboards, etc. But the pic on that website is someone overanxiously wanting to contribute something, rather than taking a GOOD pic and posting it.

For what it's worth, the actual image on each of those boards are 3 white arrows pointing down; you can see them by zooming in. Otherwise, the rest of the space is black. The only other thing I've seen is 3 red Xs on those boards. On the ramp entrances, the bottom will say "AND CARS", as the flip panel above it only says TRUCKS - BUSES". On some of the tighter ramps they add a yellow warning ramp speed message:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aSYSCGFY9tmU6ppJ8 . But on any of these boards I've never seen any other one-time message.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 25, 2022, 07:30:11 PM
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)

Quote
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.”

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on October 26, 2022, 01:42:06 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on October 26, 2022, 01:44:17 PM
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)

Quote
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.”

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.

After inflation,tolls are actually falling
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 26, 2022, 03:24:00 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 04:22:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 26, 2022, 06:44:18 PM
Most of the toll is on the northern half, so 295 cutting off some of the southern end doesn't help much.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 26, 2022, 07:38:47 PM
When I lived in NJ, the tolls from Exits 9-18 were higher than from 1-9.  It’s been 30 plus years, but from the Garden State Parkway to the GWB was $1.30 and from the Garden State Parkway to the Delaware Memorial Bridge was $1.40.  Only ten cents diffeeence with the mileages being sparse from each other.

Than exiting at Exit 6 cost more than Exit 4 from all points north of Exit 6.  I’m guessing the Exit 6 toll factored in the Delaware River Bridge which at the same time PA factored in the same bridge in their former Exit 30 toll.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2022, 07:47:15 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 26, 2022, 08:14:24 PM
I’m guessing that the rates per mile jump north of Route 18 like they’ve always been.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 26, 2022, 08:59:00 PM
I’m guessing that the rates per mile jump north of Route 18 like they’ve always been.
there's an app for that
https://www.njta.com/media/6376/tpk-toll-schedule-class-1-cars.pdf
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on October 26, 2022, 09:26:03 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 27, 2022, 08:18:56 PM
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.

I'm surprised 276 is mostly 70. Doesn't seem quite built for it, especially with the missing shoulders under most overpasses.

The rebuilt section west of Harrisburg, as well as the widened section of the Northeast Extension, are more than capable of 70, however.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 27, 2022, 08:41:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 27, 2022, 08:50:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 27, 2022, 09:03:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 27, 2022, 10:46:09 PM
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.

I think parts of the turnpike north of 278 can handle it, but there are complex interchanges such as the Eastern Spur/Western Spur split and merge where lower speed limits should prevail, as well as a lot of bridge decks which are not quite ideal for a 65 mph road. Not to mention that traffic levels make it hard to justify in some sections, especially along the spurs and beyond.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 27, 2022, 11:04:25 PM
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)_/¯
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 27, 2022, 11:06:23 PM
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)_/¯

Yeah I knew that 😉
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 27, 2022, 11:16:59 PM
At 80, or 81?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2022, 04:08:20 AM
At 80, or 81?

Best guess appears to be 80.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 07:41:37 AM
It seems the truck spur is always faster for some reason
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 28, 2022, 08:13:01 AM
It seems the truck spur is always faster for some reason

On weekends, truck lanes are often faster because weekenders are scared of the trucks. Weekdays are a different story because of heavy traffic to/from Port Newark.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 08:30:15 AM
Wonder if they will ever build that 3rd lane from the Delaware Bridge to Exit 4.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 28, 2022, 11:35:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 28, 2022, 12:54:19 PM
Wonder if they will ever build that 3rd lane from the Delaware Bridge to Exit 4.

I believe 2025 is the earliest they'll be able to start construction, and then go in stages.  Timing is subject to change. They have a bit of engineering, design and ROW work to do first.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on October 28, 2022, 01:53:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 28, 2022, 04:58:59 PM

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2022, 05:07:44 PM

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
Please keep your wishes to Fictional. Reality is real.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 06:45:58 PM
I guess it's illegal to cross over from one spur to the other through gaps in the barrier. I've seen multiple cars do that, but it's probably considered "unlawful use of the median or something. It's only doable because there are shoulders on both sides of all sets of lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 28, 2022, 07:06:34 PM
You could do it through the service areas.  There is 3 of them to exit at, gently go through the area, and use the ramp leading to the other carriage way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 07:21:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 28, 2022, 09:12:59 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
Well each set of lanes goes into one of the spurs, so effectively, each spur north of Newark is[ in fact the respective truck and car lanes. They switch positions but the same exact number of lanes is conserved. This is why the whole I-95 splitting thing isn't a big deal, because there isn't any "more roadway" when it splits then when it's together. It's the same amount of I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 28, 2022, 09:34:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 28, 2022, 09:38:36 PM
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.

What roadman said. Full access is provided to both spurs at each end. The only thing you can’t do is go from one spur southbound directly to the other northbound and vice versa.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 28, 2022, 10:06:32 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on October 28, 2022, 10:10:44 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 28, 2022, 10:15:33 PM
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.

You need to look at the overhead view on Google Earth or Streetview to see a good view of the roadway configuration. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 28, 2022, 10:29:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 11:02:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 28, 2022, 11:10:56 PM
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.

Yes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 28, 2022, 11:14:17 PM
That would have deprived even more of the Turnpike of the I-95 designation though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2022, 11:58:13 PM
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. (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on October 29, 2022, 01:36:16 AM
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.

Yes, the full connectivity is there but the two major flows I described never share pavement. And to go from the western alignment to/from I-80 involves using a single lane ramp. Not the split/merge of equals in the south mixing bowl.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 29, 2022, 10:34:51 AM
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 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.

Back to the set up, you have three lanes that have a wye split with the left lane continuing to the left split while the center lane divides into the right lane of the left split or the center lane becomes the left lane of the right split with the right lane continuing into the right split.  It’s equal.  The only thing is on the inner roadway the Eastern Spur splits on the left where on the outer roadway the Eastern Spur splits to the right. 

That’s because the connection between the Eastern Spur and Car Lanes is the original 1952 Turnpike mainline where the other ramps to that complex were built when the freeway was expanded.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 29, 2022, 10:44:43 AM
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.   

It’s a cattle chute really.  However in Brick Township on another NJTA roadway at Exit 89 has the c/d roadway called a service road in their project documents when the interchange was modified.

So it’s in a name conceived by the beholder.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2022, 03:31:49 PM
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.

Is there an actual issue here, or do you just not the setup? I'm not aware of any problems with the merging of the lanes. Traffic flows nicely anytime I've gone thru here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 29, 2022, 03:45:09 PM
Agreed, it's one of the easiest merges ever. Most of the time there are so few cars in the same area that as long I am in a single lane after the merge, I don't worry about the lanes shrinking and disappearing and merging. I just stay in the middle and end up in the middle lane, unless cars force me to move.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 30, 2022, 07:33:56 AM
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. (:

Including me.  What does the NJTA call them?  Refresh my memory.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 07:59:15 AM
Spurs are really roads that branch off the main road.  The terminology is erroneous here as nether one branches off to different directions.

Yes living in NJ I know they commonly use the “ Spur” name and it’s been the way of life here and we all seem to catch the fever.

Just like calling an interstate a “Route” over the I prefix.  We call I-287 “Route 287” as well as Route 80 for I-80.  That is why the Garden State wants no duplicate route numbers on their primary routes do to no one looking at the designation as part of the calling.  Another way of life for New Jersians.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 08:22:22 AM
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. (:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2022, 10:02:10 AM
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. (:

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.
I would imagine it all gets done at the same time if or when the system goes mile based.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 05:39:04 PM
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. (:

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.

You know I never really thought of that analogy, but it does make sense. 18W is the plaza where tickets are surrendered or obtained next to the Sports Complex. 18E shares the Secaucus Plaza with 16E so in essence, they both are spurs as far as the tolling system goes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 06:14:02 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 07:24:51 PM
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

Yes, you still pay the toll if entering at 16 and going north.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 07:27:26 PM
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"

What con-artists lol

Where?  I don't remember such a sign. Can you show me on Google street view?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2022, 08:49:12 PM
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.

For cash tollpayers, all toll amounts end in 5 or 0. And if you went thru a toll without paying, they add a $50 violation fee onto the bill.

Thus, if you got an 87 cent toll letter, it didn't come from the NJ Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 08:57:50 PM
That's really weird, I could have sworn it said something like 16E or 16X. Wonder what it was.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on October 30, 2022, 09:27:12 PM
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

I'm completely confused by what you're asking. There is no 16. There's 16E and 16W. You can't enter at 16E and go north and the toll from 16W to 18W is $1.51 EZ-Pass off-peak and higher for others. So $0.87 makes no sense.

If you enter at 17 (the to/from the north complement to 16E), there's no toll entering northbound but a double-toll ($2.90 and higher) exiting southbound. Given your later reference to a "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING" sign (which is probably on the northbound entrance ramp), you appear to have 17 confused with whatever your mystery $0.87 is.

But I think I figured out your mystery $0.87. That's the tolls-by-mail toll between NY Thruway exits 16 and 17.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 09:32:26 PM
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
But I think I figured out your mystery $0.87. That's the tolls-by-mail toll between NY Thruway exits 16 and 17.

That makes much more sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 09:38:39 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 30, 2022, 09:42:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 09:44:49 PM
Although I still couldn't find the sign when I checked Google Street view earlier. Weird.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 09:46:15 PM
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.

That's because the ticket system covers only 16E and not 17.   17 is a cash toll, formerly two ways, but converted to SB only.  If the ticket system extended up north of Exit 17, then 17 would be 16E as well.

What is more confusing is the 19W thing. Yes its north of 18W, but there is no 19E on the Eastern Spur, so no need the have a W with 19.  Just like there is no E on 17, because the Western Spur has no 17 to conflict with.   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 09:52:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2022, 10:22:17 PM
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.

You're a bit confused about the NJ Turnpike.

Here's what a toll ticket looks like (the rates on this one appears to be several years old, but the ticket structure itself hasn't changed). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Jersey_Turnpike_ticket.jpg .  There's no direction printed on the ticket. When you enter the Turnpike from a ramp, you're not choosing the direction first then getting the ticket.  You get the ticket and then choose the ramp you need to take: North or South.

You could take a u-turn ramp to change course, but as mentioned since the toll ticket doesn't show a direction.  If you entered at 278, drove south, made a u-turn, then exited at any exit northbound, you'll pay the amount as shown on the ticket. Similar to above, you exit the turnpike, and the ramps merge before the toll plaza.

Also, in case you're wondering, toll takers are not paying attention to traffic coming towards them, so they're not going to watch to see what ramp you're on before you get to the toll plaza.

The only time you'll be charged the highest fare is if you make a u-turn and exit at the same plaza you entered on.  When that happens, you're charged the highest fare, not the full amount for both directions. Looking at that toll ticket I linked above, the highest fare for cars based on that entry point is $5.50, and that's what you'll be charged.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 30, 2022, 10:53:23 PM
Then why do they warn about U turns resulting in the highest toll on the ticket?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 30, 2022, 11:03:30 PM
Also if you get on at 16 E to go south and u turn in Elizabeth and return north to use the other Spur and exit at 18W, you’ll be charged highest fare as well.

The 16E ticket has No U Turns listed in the price of not only Exit 16E, but  16W, 18E, and 18W as well because there is no way to reach those exits from that entry point going one way.

Then why do they warn about U turns resulting in the highest toll on the ticket?

Because u turns are illegal.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2022, 11:53:27 PM
Then why do they warn about U turns resulting in the highest toll on the ticket?

Partially a scare tactic. There's no actual way to monitor it, unless you exit at the interchange you entered.

Of course, if a State Trooper sees you doing it, the fine and points will be much greater than the highest fare on that ticket.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 31, 2022, 08:28:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 31, 2022, 11:03:13 AM
So I guess those U turn ramps are for emergencies only, or for law enforcement only? I wasn't sure if the exit plazas are direction specific, but it they don't know which side of the entrance plaza you got on, they couldn't know what direction you headed toward the exit plaza. 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..
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 31, 2022, 11:15:50 AM
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 what happens to people who have entered the 20th century and use E-ZPass (no tickets)?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on October 31, 2022, 11:54:00 AM
So I guess those U turn ramps are for emergencies only, or for law enforcement only?

Yes, as on just about every limited access highway, the U-turn ramps and median cutouts are for emergency and law enforcement use only. If you don't know that, you shouldn't be driving.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 31, 2022, 11:58:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 31, 2022, 12:13:58 PM
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.

They have DO NOT ENTER signs at each one.😩
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on October 31, 2022, 01:11:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 31, 2022, 01:16:43 PM
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.

Tow trucks are allowed to use them as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 31, 2022, 03:26:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: zzcarp on October 31, 2022, 05:25:00 PM
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.

Looks like the 2009 (blurry) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7811556,-74.0523857,3a,75y,0.09h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_prUU2-7xb8ghBfq2smQZg!2e0!5s20090901T000000!7i3328!8i1664!5m1!1e4) and 2013 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7811471,-74.0524365,3a,75y,0.09h,86.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sE4IAJQSqm4eUq8yBv8BmaQ!2e0!5s20131001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4) through 2019  (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7811453,-74.052442,3a,75y,357.12h,81.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjZmMSRlWKpLxpyhZyOpVaw!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e4)ones have those signs. Looks like they're gone by 2020 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.781124,-74.0524416,3a,75y,8.36h,68.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCiztZTpVylLhB3lpd0scyg!2e0!5s20201101T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e4).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on October 31, 2022, 06:05:21 PM
Again it's been a while since I was on the Turnpike but I don't remember any signs.

In the Google Street View pictures, there is a "No Turns" sign at the far side of each U-Turn intersection.

Quote
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.

There probably was one for a while after they went to one-way tolling there since people would have been used to stopping to pay at that point. Eventually, most people have learned or never knew it was two-way so there's no longer a need for the sign.

(Similar to in Illinois where I lived until just very recently that almost no-one knows that I-90 used to be a ticket section from Elgin to South Beloit (until the late '60s IIRC). The only vestiges left of that is the location of the Elgin and South Beloit mainline tolls and the trumpet interchanges at US20 Marengo/Hampshire and Business US 20 in Rockford (all the other interchanges are new or have been heavily modified and are no longer trumpets).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 31, 2022, 07:11:55 PM
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"

What con-artists lol
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on October 31, 2022, 07:17:23 PM
Yet there's still a sign that says "TOLL FREE KEEP MOVING"

What con-artists lol
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.

You probably have by now, but read thru below that post, it was figured out to be NYST exit 16.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 31, 2022, 08:46:54 PM
Yes, everyone can forget what I said about the 87c because it was 99% chance that it was the NYS Thruway, because exit 16 is where the electronic tolling starts (aside from one random toll at exit 6-7). I may have confused it with the turnpike because of the authority that sent the invoice, but the toll is 87c between 16 and 17 on the thruway as someone pointed out. That other sign probably was removed within the last 2 years, it was a big yellow sign on the left side of the ramp. I must have missed the signs on the U turn areas because I never actually stopped to ever attempt a U turn, I wasn't even sure if they were roads or not at first because they were so narrow, and it looked more like a parking area for some small construction vehicles, but now I know. I wish they did have some actual safe U turn areas though, or at least ways to switch spurs if the car lanes gets too congested. Getting off the turnpike and back on is especially a pain for some reason compared to other highways, as even the local routes need more U turn areas. The one time I actually seriously got lost while driving was in the Seacaucus/Jersey City/Newark area because the layouts made it impossible to get over a lane in time, and even GPS wasn't helping much. NJ turnpike is an ideal road, but they need to fix their local interchanges!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 31, 2022, 09:53:36 PM
...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..

I was a part time toll collector on the NJ Turnpike back from 2001-2004. 

As toll collectors, we cared about two things:  Your vehicle classification (car, 2 axle truck, 5 axle truck, etc) and your toll.  We didn't look at the ticket trying to figure out how long you were on the Turnpike, we didn't watch you come off an interchange ramp.  If your toll ticket said $4.15, we cared that you paid that $4.15.  Occasionally I would get a ticket from someone that was over a time limit.  I didn't care.  $4.15 please.   If someone didn't have a toll ticket, they were charged the maximum fare.  That happened relatively often because they went thru an EZ Pass only lane to enter the Turnpike.  At the time max fare was either $5.50 or $6.45. 

The opposite is also true.  Some people believe that if you speed and make it down to the toll plaza too fast, we would somehow know.  We didn't.  Some people drive fast, then pull into a service plaza to spend some time there so they wouldn't get a ticket.  You wouldn't anyway.  Even our machines from one toll lane to the next displayed different times.

You have a vested interest in making u-turns on the road, but it's like every other highway:  U-Turns are prohibited unless very specifically signed for such.  And that signage doesn't exist on the NJ Turnpike.  There is one spot where you could make a legal u-turn:  The Vince Lombardi service plaza, north of Exits 18E/W.  This is by design, as it doubles as a park-and-ride.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on October 31, 2022, 10:50:46 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2022, 06:28:33 AM
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. But 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 01, 2022, 07:34:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 01, 2022, 08:21:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 01, 2022, 03:02:15 PM
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.

AET is coming to the Turnpike and Parkway eventually, so it will all soon be moot.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on November 01, 2022, 04:38:02 PM
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!"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 01, 2022, 04:47:14 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 01, 2022, 06:57:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 01, 2022, 07:54:06 PM
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.

*watches random NJTA worker eat the part of the sign*
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 01, 2022, 08:18:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 01, 2022, 11:32:42 PM
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?

Probably several reasons, including that they have union agreements in place for toll collection, but the biggest reason may be what's happened with the PA Turnpike collecting of money from non-EZ pass tagholders.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 02, 2022, 12:30:00 PM
What? People evading tolls?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on November 02, 2022, 12:52:05 PM
$60+ dollars in tolls just to go 130 miles and back. That's just beyond reason.

Even at $60, that's not your main cost. 260 miles × 59¢ per mile = $153 just for driving. Maybe a bit less if it's not backed up because you're driving more efficiently than most travels, but still.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 02, 2022, 03:55:09 PM
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.

I seem to recall those from my youth, especially on the "Toll Machine" lanes (NYC's old term for "Exact Change" lanes*) when they weren't open. I was born in the 1970s, so that would mean those swinging gates were around into the 1980s.

*The "Toll Machine" lanes used orange signs. At some point in the 1980s, the Verrazano had an "Exact Cash" (not "Exact Change") lane indicated with a green sign and green striping; the idea was that they would accept cash (or a token) but wouldn't give you change, so as to expedite traffic flow. Didn't always work; I remember once going through there when the toll was $7 and the guy in front of us tried to give the toll-taker a $50.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2022, 09:33:35 PM
What? People evading tolls?

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.
then go take a back road and this is unrelated to this topic so please don't post this
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 03, 2022, 12:12:34 AM
This thread is literally on the New Jersey Turnpike though?
most of what you cited is not?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2022, 01:55:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 03, 2022, 07:54:34 AM
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.

There has been places where tolls have been placed on an existing highway..  FL 528 in Orlando for one was free before 1982 at the Orlando Airport.  I-264 in Norfolk had a toll free tunnel reinstated.  The EB Verrazano Bridge in NY, got reinstated from free.   
US 301 in Delaware, through a new facility, still offers no free bypass( due to lack of ramp) for the toll unless you circumvent on Cecil County, MD backroads that we’re not originally part of US 301.

Then we’re expecting the HRBT to be tolled soon, that is been free since 1976, to pay for the bridge- tunnel expansion.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 08:12:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 03, 2022, 11:18:46 AM


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.

Maintenance costs are always ongoing and, insofar as I remember, not ever a consideration for the removal of tolls.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 03, 2022, 11:57:32 AM
I think one governor running from NJ years ago wanted to make the Parkway and the Turnpike toll free.  My cousin who works for the GSP, said his job was in jeopardy, so he, being a Rush Limbaugh cult follower, voted Democrat once in his life over this.  It proved that this candidate did mean it.

However, from a NJ resident standpoint, you should be concerned at what a burden it would become on taxpayers as now with the removal of the tolls how much the state would have to finance operations of the two roads.   Also the State Police on both Parkway and Turnpike are both funded through toll revenue.  If tolls ceased to exist, the taxpayers would flip the bill.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 12:15:08 PM
NJ literally came in as having the worst roads in the country, so I doubt that actually use that money to make repairs. The only essential funding I can see being needed is the widening between Exit 4 and Delaware.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2022, 12:54:55 PM
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.

The widening will provide capacity of 8 lanes during peak hours, 4 free general purpose lanes (existing capacity) and 4 HO/T lanes (new capacity).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2022, 01:31:59 PM
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.

I'll give you some credit here. You may be the first person to hint the NJ Turnpike should be tolled north of New York City.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2022, 06:18:25 PM
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.

Because maintenance costs money in the NYC area, but it's free elsewhere?

If you think the Turnpike has enough money pocketed for maintenance for the next 50 years, look it up in the financial statements. No doubt that should be in there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 03, 2022, 07:45:41 PM
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.

There is a Delaware thread to voice your concerns about that.

Yes, I see your point about the Turnpike tolls, but the way things are is never going to happen.  Hey I would like see groceries go back down, but  "Hey it is what it is!"

In 1989, it cost $2.70 to drive the 118 tolled miles, so us old timers here have to put up with a lot. You're not the first to notice these things.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 09:00:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2022, 10:07:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:26:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2022, 10:27:30 PM
^ Why should drivers only using the northern part of the Turnpike pay the same amount as drivers using the entire length?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 10:54:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2022, 10:58:21 PM
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?

Quote
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on November 03, 2022, 11:07:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 03, 2022, 11:10:13 PM
This is getting tedious. The turnpike is pre-interstate, when massive projects had to be financed by tolls. While its now part of the Interstate system, the rules still don't apply since it was built before then. Get over it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2022, 11:50:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 03, 2022, 11:56:47 PM
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?

Quote
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.

That's the whole idea behind congestion pricing right? If the road is a full toll road, then it either should be based on distance, or how populated the areas are, not both. The Jersey Turnpike charges you more between consecutive exits in the north than in the south, while still charging you the entire route south. It should either be a linear toll rate the entire length, or charged only in the north at a slightly higher rate, not charge us twice.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 04, 2022, 12:00:28 AM
^ There’s definitely no double charging that I’m aware of…
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 12:00:36 AM
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.

Given that it is already widened, the road can now handle the traffic, but traffic is still far worse in the north with the same number of total lanes. The Turnpike literally loses 10 lanes between exits 14 and 4, yet traffic still seems to flow faster south of 4 than north of 14, interesting how that works, so what does widening it have to do with anything then?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 12:04:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 12:06:59 AM
^ 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2022, 12:32:49 AM
^ 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.

Option A) Don't charge more in the north.
Option B) Only charge in the north.

What the fuck?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on November 04, 2022, 07:06:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 04, 2022, 07:13:59 AM



Given that it is already widened, the road can now handle the traffic...

*blinks*

Wut.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 07:52:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 04, 2022, 07:59:01 AM
This thread is completely derailed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 08:02:06 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:30:41 AM
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.

You're joking right?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:33:03 AM
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?

It could be no tolls also, that's option #3.
That option is also fine with me btw.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 08:45:25 AM
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.

You're joking right?

No I’m not. 

You don’t have to drive the Turnpike. You can go another way and despite having stop lights, if a person don’t want to pay the toll you can leave early or allot more time.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:59:20 AM
Of course I'd rather pay the toll than take triple the time lol
but it is extremely excessive. The ohio turnpike is twice as long and not as expensive.
It's literally the busiest highway in the United States. No matter what the Jersey Government says...I guarantee they have more than enough money to fund road repair by now. I would limit the entire length to either $5 or $10 the entire length, and I would divide that equally between exits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 04, 2022, 09:59:10 AM
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.

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.

You act like the Turnpike was free before.

Also, between Exits 5 and 7A, I-295 and I-195 exist as free alternatives that are interstate highways.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on November 04, 2022, 10:47:11 AM
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.

My point is up north there aren't the same alternatives and so commuters have to use the toll roads. Both the Turnpike and the parkway are running through that area. It's a sore point that they already are paying tolls for commuting and one of your proposals is to further increase that.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on November 04, 2022, 10:55:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 04, 2022, 12:57:05 PM


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.

I wonder if you messed up the chronology here.  Tolls came off the Pike long before real overruns hit the Big Dig project, I believe.  I also think the tolls came back under MassDOT.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2022, 01:23:54 PM
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.

This isn't really much of a precedent.  Tolls have come and gone from sections of numerous toll roads for numerous reasons.  If any toll agency removed tolls, it's typically not because another toll agency had also removed tolls.  Precedents that are more genuine: One way tolling and EZ Pass discounts based on residency.

It's also a dick move:  Basically, telling the entire state they feel your angst so they'll remove tolls...from where they are least likely to travel.  If anyone thinks this won't come back to bite them in the form of higher tolls on other sections, or higher fees/taxes statewide, they are much too gullible.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2022, 06:04:16 PM
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
and meanwhile nj's roads are FAR from worst in the nation please cite. they've made HUGE strides in the last several years to rebuild the worst bridges and roads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 08:39:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 04, 2022, 08:47:03 PM
I just checked the NJT toll schedule and the highest toll I see for any class-1 vehicle driving the entire length of the Turnpike is not even twenty dollars. Were you talking about forty dollars for maybe a tractor-trailer?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 04, 2022, 08:59:15 PM
I would be very surprised if they double the tolls in the course of one or two years.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1 on November 04, 2022, 09:03:38 PM
I would be very surprised if they double the tolls in the course of one or two years.

The $40 is for both directions combined, not one.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 09:12:18 PM
Yes SMH that's what I've been saying LOL you have to drive back right?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cockroachking on November 04, 2022, 09:26:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 04, 2022, 09:56:43 PM

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.
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.

If a section of the Turnpike is widened, the tolls should be increased on that section and on that section only to pay for the widening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 04, 2022, 10:20:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on November 04, 2022, 10:41:27 PM
...
Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.
Except for the fact that NJTA receives exactly $0.00 in toll tax revenue.
FTFY, I believe.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 04, 2022, 10:49:30 PM
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.

In those cases they should relocate you and pay for your new home x2. Or they could have blasted underneath the ground in a tunnel, or a very high bridge with a tunnel combo. However, I am starting to think the turnpike needs a 3rd spur in the north, as the current capacity simply isn't high enough, toll or not.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: cockroachking on November 04, 2022, 11:10:33 PM
...
Imagine paying taxes to build roads, and then being charged to use them.
Except for the fact that NJTA receives exactly $0.00 in toll tax revenue.
FTFY, I believe.
Yep, that's what I meant. Time to fire the proofreader  :sombrero:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 04, 2022, 11:25:03 PM
Hey, let's talk about something that most people aren't going to be aware of.

The NJTA has numerous insurance policies on its assets for numerous reasons.  The Turnpike is one of its assets.  Some of those insurance policies relates to business interruption.

Recall the Delaware River bridge that had a crack resulting in its shutdown for 2 months?  Since the Turnpike experienced a loss in revenue during that time period, the Turnpike submitted a claim to its insurance company (or companies).  After negotiating the loss, the net result is the Turnpike will receive approximately $15.9 million.  The claim was $17.9 million; the Turnpike has a deductible of $2 million on this policy (you thought a $500 deducible sucked!).  Even though the NJTA shares responsibility and costs of the bridge with the PTC, the writeup appears to show this is solely a reimbursement award to the NJTA. 

https://www.njta.com/media/7067/final-agenda-bm-10-25-2022-for-internet.pdf , Page 13 should you want to check it out.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 05, 2022, 03:54:59 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 06:01:52 AM
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?"

I would tell them what you said.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 09:39:23 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AvhqqxYtHDcZVRYZ8

Back on topic for a moment, is the wooden post NJ Turnpike Guide an NJTA assembly or NJDOT?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 09:58:38 AM
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?"

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2022, 10:04:07 AM

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.

Toll collectors agree with the customer to please them and get them to move on. They don't want a full on discussion. A motorist won't be pleased if the collector said "No, it's too cheap.".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2022, 10:05:04 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/AvhqqxYtHDcZVRYZ8

Back on topic for a moment, is the wooden post NJ Turnpike Goode an NJTA assembly or NJDOT?

Pretty sure this is a NJTA installation. They usually own the gore point signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 10:17:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2022, 10:29:09 AM
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.

Maybe she told you the amount of the toll?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 05, 2022, 11:43:54 AM
No it wasn't that it was some other small talk. Why would minimum age employees agree with a greedy government getting richer LOL
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 05:43:00 PM
When I was a toll collector I didn’t agree with both Orange County, FL and FDOT both having separate toll plazas real close to each other for the same route.  Many would complain about that to me, and I would empathize.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 05, 2022, 08:56:48 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 05, 2022, 09:05:15 PM
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).

The ones along 168 and 73, and the inverse ones along 322, are still there, me thinks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 10:05:56 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/TeVy9rFQhm63mBcE6
I like this sign here.


https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 05, 2022, 10:40:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2022, 11:16:00 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 06, 2022, 12:05:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 06, 2022, 06:38:54 AM
I see NJ Turnpike only issues logo signs for hotels as it don’t want to compete with its vendors at the service areas. Unlike Florida’s Turnpike who have logos for Gas and Food despite advertising against their contractors, they consider all options to make use of their own fuel and eateries.

I remember when Service Areas had only one restaurant and that was it.  No food courts as it was Marriot Food Service.  It wasn’t until Marriott decided to introduce their brands of Bobs Big Boy and Roy Rogers that changed the way eating was done on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on November 06, 2022, 09:18:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2022, 01:29:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 06, 2022, 01:31:10 PM
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.

Why? If you drive on the road, you’re contributing to wear and tear on that road.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: plain on November 06, 2022, 01:36:22 PM
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.

Yeah the FL & WV Tpks are the exceptions to this. I actually think the WV Tpk does it nowadays only because the vast majority of its interchanges are free anyway, coupled with the fact that there's only one service plaza available for southbound traffic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2022, 11:11:03 PM
Okay. Enough. Let's get back on topic here. Go start a General Highways thread about this.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 07, 2022, 10:52:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2022, 12:47:28 PM
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...


Yep. Exit 41 (Cross Keys Road) for example has 2 blue signs dedicated to food with 10 - 12 logos.

At the end of the Expressway there's blue signage as well.  Since they're intersections and not exits, they guide you when to make a left or right. https://goo.gl/maps/tfxfQK2jNTHEQhc46 & https://goo.gl/maps/FdA1P813j1EEH9it8

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on November 07, 2022, 01:17:06 PM
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. 
The project to modify the intersection (and install the signal) was an NJTA project.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on November 07, 2022, 03:20:09 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
...that's an E-ZPass lane.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on November 07, 2022, 03:44:43 PM
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.

IMO SB from 18 to 6 needs to be Philadelphia, then from 6 DEMB/Wilmington.
NB, NYC over NY, then at I-78, NYC via Holland Tunnel, at 495 NYC via Lincoln Tunnel, with the WB spur saying NYC via GWB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2022, 06:45:28 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
...that's an E-ZPass lane.

Now. But in the past, New Jersey did have toll lanes where you had to pay out the passenger-side window.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2022, 07:20:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
...that's an E-ZPass lane.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 07, 2022, 08:03:02 PM
Right side toll lanes were common at many toll plazas in the NYC area in the 1950's. I remember as a little kid sometimes watching as my Mom sitting in the right-front seat would pay out the right side window.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2022, 09:34:52 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/V6yHxtJo9BSmUqDz9
This always got me. I think if Florida had these right side toll booths, my job would have been very difficult.
...that's an E-ZPass lane.

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.

Most if not all of the original plazas had dual-sided lanes. Of all the great innovations the Jersey Turnpike brought to limited access roadways, they completely f'ed that one up.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on November 07, 2022, 10:02:24 PM
That would be incredibly annoying, this ain't England.

If you had a front-seat passenger, it was often kind of nice. People who knew what they were doing avoided those lanes if they were driving solo, so those lanes were often faster due to having shorter lines.

Like roadman65, I remember my mom paying when my dad was driving–and I remember my paying as a kid when I was in the front seat, usually because my mom was driving when my dad wasn’t with us.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2022, 10:04:13 PM
https://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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 07, 2022, 10:33:57 PM
https://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.
why have i been down there for work so many times and NEVER KNOWN THIS WAS ORIGINAL STUFF
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on November 07, 2022, 11:52:18 PM
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.

Of course, that whole interchange has since been moved to the other side of the pike.  Is there any way to get GSV imagery of a road that was up in previous years, but has since been excavated off the map?  That last half-mile or so of Milford Rd. also comes to mind.

Some Checkers drive-thru locations have the pick-up window on the passenger side.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on November 08, 2022, 01:26:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 08, 2022, 09:04:26 PM
Yeah Checkers has right side drive through windows. Of course in the hey days of travel, the Turnpike here used them while the motoring public used to have crank windows as many years ago, electric windows were for Lincoln’s, Cadillacs, or an option on sports cars if you were willing to pay extra for it and accept the added responsibility.

Now with the power windows and driver console to operate all passenger windows, it would be more welcome to use these odd lanes.

Also Disneys Magic Kingdom Parking Toll Plaza used them as well as I remember them well just as I  remember the parking fee was fifty cents in 1978.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 08, 2022, 10:12:02 PM
The Cook Out I went to had right-side drive thru, too.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2022, 11:46:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 09, 2022, 12:06:53 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on November 09, 2022, 02:31:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on November 09, 2022, 03:13:22 PM
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.

In the 1980s/90s Turnpike documents (such as the Annual Reports) they called these right-sided toll booths "off driver" lanes ("we are eliminating the off-driver lanes").  In looking at pictures of the original booths at many exits (and remembering many from the early 70s) they were everywhere  - were there fewer individual drivers back then?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on November 09, 2022, 05:13:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on November 09, 2022, 06:12:38 PM
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?

You are welcome to fire up your favorite mapping app/website and answer whatever your question is yourself.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2022, 09:27:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: DrSmith on November 11, 2022, 10:07:32 AM
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.

I was there back in 2001 for a little bit before heading to grad school. I was assigned to Interchange 1 and only worked others when they specifically needed me to move for that tour.

Almost any weekend had delays for Interchange 1 back then. At least for working, it made it constant work and the time to fly by for me from the constant activity. A radio with some tunes and go. Many Sunday evenings they would ask me to stay after for an extra 2 hours because there was still that much traffic and some delays at 10pm.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 11, 2022, 10:46:41 AM
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.

Yeah, they used to do that a LOT!  About the only time they need to do it now is when there's a severe crash between Interchange 4 and 1.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2022, 12:22:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on November 12, 2022, 02:01:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2022, 02:18:18 PM
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.
typo.  Yes 33 not 43.  Then I looked at the 43 and continued with it nor realizing when I wrote four decades.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 20, 2022, 08:23:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on December 20, 2022, 10:59:00 PM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 05, 2023, 10:14:56 AM
The aggravating part is if Gov. Christie didn't kill the ARC Tunnel, despite it being flawed in multiple ways, it's probably close to if not done by now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 05, 2023, 04:31:23 PM
Doubtful it would have been even close to being done by now given all the complications and delays the MTA has had with LIRR's Grand Central Project. Apologies for being off-topic.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 05, 2023, 04:40:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on January 05, 2023, 07:22:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on January 05, 2023, 08:41:33 PM
I've experienced that too. There is alot more volume once the road goes from 6 lanes to 4, and this difference is very noticeable, unlike when it goes from 12 to 6, which is surprising cause you'd think 295 would make up for that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: interstate73 on January 05, 2023, 10:39:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jmacswimmer on January 06, 2023, 12:52:03 PM
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?

This exact thought crossed my mind when I passed thru that interchange on the way to Metlife Stadium a couple months ago...yeah, there's no ideal solution to that one.  The best I can think of is to take advantage of some of the existing slip ramps on I-78 on either side in order to minimize weaving.

For eastbound, force all traffic not continuing onto the Newark Bay Extension to use this slip ramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7102943,-74.1809781,3a,75y,83.99h,88.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCOxtexNhPNfxldpW-AiroA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) to access the mainline turnpike. (Which is already signed that way, funnily enough). Then this onramp (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7093281,-74.159943,3a,75y,128.59h,90.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTE_YoqghC_3NMvMTpHkZYQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) would simply split the way it's already signed, and then traffic will at least already be segregated between the mainline and the extension passing thru what would be the former toll plaza area. The only missing movement I can think of in this scenario is local lanes traffic looking to continue east onto the extension, so might need to squeeze a new slip ramp in somewhere for that moment.

Another thought is that you could permanently close the onramp referenced above that joins I-78 between the local & express lanes just before the toll plaza, as traffic both on US 1-9 southbound and coming from the port could simply continue south on US 1-9 to the next entrance to I-78 eastbound just past the string of hotels. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7087158,-74.1742077,3a,75y,279.34h,89.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBds9xYe5Vs1sUv5HgTHaPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) Then with the freed-up space, you could add a slip ramp from the local lanes/turnpike mainline ramps back to the express lanes/extension in the toll plaza area.

For westbound coming off the Newark Bay Extension, the movement currently signed for US 1/9 & Newark Airport (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7051213,-74.1470977,3a,39.4y,302.06h,92.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGO5YspZi-4KzqK2z88SztA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) would become the only way to access the local lanes while the primary lanes would default onto the express lanes with no other option. Meanwhile, the 2-lane offramp from the southbound turnpike to I-78 westbound could split (maybe just after the ramp to I-78 eastbound separates, in order to prevent any additional weaving) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.708471,-74.1513317,3a,48y,257.16h,93.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfMfqqUP3AuCNUCto9P810Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?hl=en) and send 1 lane each to the local & express lanes. The only missing movement I can think of here would be from the northbound turnpike to the express lanes, which would either require an additional slip ramp elsewhere or just let it be.

Pardon the crappy doodles, but wanted to at least provide a rough visual aid to my narrative above.

Option retaining the eastbound on-ramp just before the toll plaza:
(https://i.imgur.com/9Gmnfpb.jpg)

Option removing that ramp and adding a slip ramp from local to express:
(https://i.imgur.com/9kOOc71.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2023, 05:07:18 PM
The EB I-78 Express lanes should default into the Newark Bay Extension and the local lanes the main turnpike.

Signage was originally set up to make it appear that way for years to discourage weaving at the Exit 14 Plaza.  There is the I-78 local to express crossover already to have through I-78 switch to express with Exits 56,57, and 58 have access to both local and express with the exception of the later added NJ 21 ramp that places the motorists on local only lanes. That can be fixed I’m sure.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2023, 05:25:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on January 07, 2023, 02:31:47 AM
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.

I disagree. If the plaza is removed, there's still enough distance between those three ramps merging before you get to the split for the different directions of the Turnpike. Being able to slim down to 3 or so lanes in that point is actually probably better for traffic flow and safety than the situation now. You can just reconfigure some of the ramps and lengthen the distances before they merge to better accommodate the flow of traffic safely.

14 is going to be the really hard one.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on January 08, 2023, 12:43:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 08, 2023, 01:42:13 PM
They'd likely have to do something similar to how the I-78/GSP interchange was setup with braided ramps.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MultiMillionMiler on January 08, 2023, 05:17:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on January 08, 2023, 06:04:46 PM
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.
Wrong authority...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on January 08, 2023, 07:21:01 PM
He’ll justify saying they’re  all the same 😅
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 09, 2023, 10:12:54 AM
OMG a toll hike. We're all doomed. Doomed. I mean doomed.

Wait, I'm hearing that this has happened multiple times and people stop caring within a week of the hike.

Oh. Back to your normal scheduled programming.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Scott5114 on January 15, 2023, 01:37:53 AM
Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on January 15, 2023, 05:32:48 PM
All this talk about the Exit 1-4 widening, what about the western spur widening??  It's been ignored for years it seems.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on January 16, 2023, 06:17:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 16, 2023, 11:43:40 PM
Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.

Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on January 19, 2023, 06:39:06 PM
Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.

Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
What's shouldering?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on January 19, 2023, 06:47:13 PM
Yea really, THAT should be 6 lanes well before Exit 1-3.

Regional boards aren't for shoulding.
What's shouldering?
Shoulding is "The cognitive distortion of making statements of what should be true, as opposed to reality."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Scott5114 on January 19, 2023, 09:25:43 PM
This thread is for discussing things as they exist now. It is for real things. It is for things that exist. It is for things you can go take a picture of. It is for things that are planned by the Turnpike Authority to exist in the future, that you can probably go take a picture of them in the future.

This thread is not for what you think the road should be like. It is not for fake things. It is not for things that do not exist. It is not for things that are not planned to exist. That is what the the fictional highways board is for.

If this thread does not focus on things that exist, posts and users will be removed from it until it does.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 11, 2023, 07:36:14 AM
Does the NJTA now own the former Emerada Hess Building in Woodbridge?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 11, 2023, 12:50:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 11, 2023, 01:22:02 PM
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.

Two are currently closed as they're being rebuilt from the ground up:  The Walt Whitman Service Area between Interchanges 4 & 3 Southbound, and the James Fenimore Cooper Service Area between Interchanges 4 & 5 Northbound.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 11, 2023, 01:34:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on February 11, 2023, 07:36:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2023, 12:33:01 AM
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.

And they're readying the old NJTA HQ for demolition.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 13, 2023, 10:09:29 AM
Might as well. Old NJTA HQ is on developable land in Middlesex County, which is hard to find. Not 100% sure if they can redo and clean up the ingress and egress of the facility though.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2023, 01:49:15 PM
The NJTA updated their 5 year schedule (2023-2027) for major project expenditures.  https://www.njta.com/media/7226/2023-2027_projects-summary-2023-01-10.pdf

The only one that concerns me in my area is the 1-4 widening.  It has significant money budgeted for this year, then 2026 and 2027 when over $700 million is scheduled to go out. Based on earlier schedule estimates, that outflow of cash has been pushed back a year.  Not terribly significant; the widening from 6 - 9 ultimately started a year or two later than originally planned as well. 

Referring to Adam's statement above, nothing on the schedule reflects future NJTA development on the site, but some of the items listed are generic in nature and don't specify locations, and doesn't include future projects where funding starts in or after 2028.  I would imagine it would be some time for that site to be available either way, as demolition of the existing infrastructure hasn't started.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on February 14, 2023, 05:39:04 PM
Quote
TPK Grade Separated U-Turns, MP 6.4 - 46.1
What is that, and where is the access from the car truck?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on February 14, 2023, 06:03:04 PM
Quote
TPK Grade Separated U-Turns, MP 6.4 - 46.1
What is that,
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.

Quote from: bluecountry
and where is the access from the car truck?
not sure what you're asking.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2023, 06:08:01 PM
Quote
TPK Grade Separated U-Turns, MP 6.4 - 46.1
What is that, and where is the access from the car truck?

This will be for official vehicle u-turns over or under the roadway, rather than turning in the median breaks. 

This will only in the normal 3x3 roadway south of Exit 6, not where there's 4 roadways north of Interchange 6. 

I recall seeing past plans where 2 will be built; one around Woodcrest station between Interchanges 3 & 4, and I forget offhand where the other will be constructed.  I'm not sure if this expands on that plan or not. 

I would guess that they're leaving most of the existing median breaks in; this will just provide for easier access of larger/longer vehicles to access the opposing direction, rather than making u-turns at the interchanges (which, technically, they're not supposed to do, but they do).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2023, 10:13:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2023, 10:48:56 PM
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.

(Why do I think we discussed this already?)

You're reading into what the toll takers care about too much.  They're not going to care if you got on at Exit 5 or Exit 13.  As I probably mentioned a while back, I was a toll taker, and I wasn't concerned about your tags (which I couldn't see anyway when I was standing next to your car window.  I could see your inspection sticker, but again, I didn't care.  The more pleasant you were with me with your excuse, the more likely I'll cut you a break.

Yes, you'll get charged the maximum fare if you make a u-turn.  That's if the State Troopers aren't hiding up there looking at traffic.  Then you'll be stuck with a $200 ticket for making an illegal u-turn.  Then you'll still need to re-enter the roadway, and you'll still have to fight your way back into traffic, and will still have to pay the maximum fare at the toll plaza.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 15, 2023, 04:05:57 PM
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.

The ticket prints the entry plaza.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 15, 2023, 04:29:16 PM
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.

Correct, if you made an illegal u-turn.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: CtrlAltDel on February 28, 2023, 07:21:34 PM
Does anyone know what this is in the middle of the ramps at exit 9?

(https://i.imgur.com/LtUr5RT.png) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4761712,-74.4087476,312m/data=!3m1!1e3)

It seems somewhat maintenancy and somewhat abandoned, so I was curious.


Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 07:24:02 PM
The old Turnpike Headquarters before they moved to Woodbridge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: CtrlAltDel on March 01, 2023, 03:20:14 PM
The old Turnpike Headquarters before they moved to Woodbridge.

Now I know. Thanks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 08, 2023, 08:12:46 PM
What's with the work by exit 10?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2023, 07:43:46 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: elsmere241 on March 09, 2023, 09:37:36 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 09, 2023, 10:09:13 AM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 09, 2023, 11:01:28 AM
Quote
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.

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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2023, 01:16:04 PM
Quote
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.

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...

Based on how that article was starting, I thought the paper scouted out the few people that don't want any highway expansion ever. Overall, the project has been generally supported by most who care about it, which doesn't happen often in these parts.

For the most part most people don't care about it since the Turnpike just cuts thru the area with good access crossing it, but without the congestion from interchanges every few miles. Once the NJTA starts to widen it, people are going to be temporarily irritated when the overpasses they use daily will be closed or narrowed while they are reconstructed. Some people are going to have to deal with the inconvenience of the construction directly who live close by. And some who live in developments that back up to the Turnpike will be more personally affected; most will probably get a sound barrier, and deal with the eventual plusses and minuses of them.

As for a new interchange, that may be getting some political attention this time since 168, 42, 55 and 295 traffic is getting unbearable, and the Turnpike at least has an ear and eye open on the idea. But while it will improve life for some, there are others that may possibly live in the shadows of a new interchange so they'll be against it.  If anything, they are in a no-win situation...those specific people currently have to battle the traffic on 168 due to the current interchange, and will be in favor for a new interchange until they realize how close it'll be to their homes, and realize they don't want that either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 09, 2023, 05:24:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2023, 09:43:37 PM
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.

When Interstates were originally built, they couldn't connect directly to a tolled highway.  Also, in this case, NJ 168 was close enough to NJ 42 that they figured it didn't matter all that much, and the original Turnpike generally had exits many miles away from each other. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on March 09, 2023, 09:52:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 09, 2023, 09:56:07 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 09, 2023, 10:05:14 PM
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?

Exit 11 was roughly where it is now but it only connected the Turnpike to US 9 and was named Woodbridge - The Amboys. Exit 10 was a limited interchange between the Turnpike and the G.S. Parkway. The Parkway was built a few years after the NJT. I don't know if originally there was no Exit 10 or if it connected to some other road.

When the dual NJT roadways were built in the early 1970's, Interchanges 10 and 11 were combined into the new larger Interchange 11 that exists today. And when I-287 was built around the same time, its interchange with the Turnpike became the new Exit 10.

All very cool highway history!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2023, 10:15:31 PM
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?

So this shows the exit numbers were fairly close.  https://external-preview.redd.it/pqkFowWtBy-PH0TcviA5tJpGSMrn5Qv9asmsTwXBp5E.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=b67dbd8fafbf998325687784e44734657c5eb92e

But it's a bit confusing and doesn't truly match up with history.  Someone claimed this was 1950 per the handwritten date at the top.  Yet the Turnpike opened in November 1951. 

It shows the Garden State Parkway was Exit 10...but there is no road at Exit 10.  The original exit connected with CR 514 (at least what is now known as CR 514).  The Garden State Parkway started construction in 1952 and opened in 1954.  So there's a bit of confusion as to how the first few years of the Turnpike actually existed.

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.

In this theory, the distance between NJ 42 and NJ 168 is about 2 miles.  At roughly 1 cent per mile back in the 1950's and 60's, the Turnpike was missing out on 2 cents per traveler going south, and gaining 2 cents per traveler going north.  The AC Expressway opened in 1964.

The original routing of I-95 in NJ would've followed I-287 for a few miles before branching off.  The NJ Turnpike created the interchange to allow for this movement to occur.

For the PA Turnpike travelers going towards the East would get off several miles sooner onto Rt. 1 to connect to I-95.  Travelers coming from NJ would get off on US 13.

Also in this theory, why would the PA Turnpike not only make a large connection with I-76, but continue the designation of I-76 off the Turnpike towards Philly?  Why wouldn't the entire PA Turnpike just remain I-76 to keep traffic on the Turnpike?

For these reasons, the theory that the Turnpikes did everything they could to keep motorists on their roads really doesn't make much sense. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on March 09, 2023, 10:27:40 PM
That part of the Parkway was the state-constructed part dating back to the late 1940s/1950 (the part between 129 and Vauxhall Road that can never be tolled) so the original interchange 10 should have connected the two freeways at the time of its opening.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 09, 2023, 10:28:05 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 09, 2023, 11:02:50 PM
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. 

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on March 09, 2023, 11:16:40 PM
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.

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.
See how I-87 and I-84 didn't have a direct connection until a few years ago...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: elsmere241 on March 10, 2023, 09:31:25 AM
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.

I remember when I-176 ended at a stop sign.

I also remember that until the early 1980s, 76 followed the stub that would become the Vine Street Expressway, and 676 followed the Schyulkill over the Walt Whitman Bridge.  The exit numbers in 1983 still reflected this.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on March 10, 2023, 09:41:15 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: elsmere241 on March 10, 2023, 09:46:10 AM
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?

I want to say around 1996 they either started or finished construction on the connector.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jmacswimmer on March 10, 2023, 11:33:09 AM
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.

Brushing up on the timing of things, it looks like the PA Turnpike extension from Carlisle to Valley Forge opened in late 1950, and for 4 years transitioned directly into the Schuylkill until late 1954 when the Turnpike was extended the rest of the way to New Jersey. I had been thinking that I-80S was first designated sometime during that Turnpike-directly-into-Schuylkill timeframe and then simply remained on the Schuylkill by inertia, but it appears I-80S (and I-280) wasn't designated until 1958 so that tosses out that theory. But regardless, I think the timing of those events helps explain why I-76 has always had a direct connection onto the Schuylkill, and I also always assumed it wasn't a coincidence that 3 of the interstates that always directly interchanged with the Turnpike are grandfathered onto substandard routes (I-76/Schuylkill at Valley Forge, I-83 at Harrisburg West, and I-70 at New Stanton).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on March 10, 2023, 06:03:49 PM
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?

it's temporary construction signage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 13, 2023, 11:55:21 AM
What's with the construction at exit 10, is that for the car/truck to car ramp?

Also, yeh I can't believe the NJTP would widen from exit 1 to 4 but NOT get a direct connect to Route 42 and 295 at exit 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 12:39:55 PM
There is high demand for widening between Exit 1 and 4. I-295 provides a freeway routing for the movements to/from NJ-42 and I-76, especially with the new flyovers being built.

Although - it appears there might be a future for a direct connection with the Turnpike as well, alongside the upcoming (and very much needed) 6 lane widening project.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 13, 2023, 01:54:44 PM
Bellmawr, NJ is in the crosshairs of any expansion:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwik8__RvNn9AhXTEVkFHSoNCU8QFnoECBIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquirer.com%2Ftransportation%2Fnew-jersey-turnpike-exit-3-bellmawr-runnemede-haddon-20230309.html&usg=AOvVaw1cbpfeP67Wx-dddgSNGbDP
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 13, 2023, 02:08:47 PM
Great article. It’s about time voices are carried out.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 02:27:06 PM
^
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on March 13, 2023, 03:03:41 PM
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 and I-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.)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on March 13, 2023, 03:30:01 PM
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 and I-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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: artmalk on March 13, 2023, 07:39:58 PM
(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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 13, 2023, 08:53:09 PM
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 and I-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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 13, 2023, 10:06:38 PM
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).

"A few years ago" = 1994.  That interchange is now nearly 30 years old.

For what it's worth, NJDOT hasn't wanted travelers taking Rt. 42 to I-295 South, and I-295 North to Rt. 42 south either.  They are only now working on that connection.  There's no signage on either highway's mainline that even hints at what path to take to get around the missing connections.

The NJ Turnpike at least shows the travel times for both 295 and the NJ Turnpike on their mainline VMS boards approaching Interchange 4.  It's almost always going to be longer via 295 because of the time on Rt. 73, plus the lower speed limit on 295 for 9 of those miles, but I have seen it on my limited travels on the Turnpike where it shows the same time for either option when there's issues on the Turnpike.

While the NJ Turnpike has never signed I-295 specifically on the mainline, it's never hidden its identity either. Whenver there's a significant issue on the Turnpike, 295 is the main detour.  When the SB Turnpike used to suffer from 10+ mile long traffic jams at the old, undersized Interchange 1, the Turnpike consistently closed its roadway at Interchange 4 to force traffic over to 295 South.  Rarely did travelers repeat that route on their own to save themselves money.

And of course, the Turnpike and 295 goes both ways.  Travelers crossing into NJ could easily take 295 North saving themselves money until they decide to switch over to the Turnpike.  Whatever excuses anyway wants to come up with for why travelers don't use 295 North are just as valid going Southbound as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 13, 2023, 11:22:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 14, 2023, 05:23:53 AM
(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.

There is a now a direct connection between the NY Thruway and I-87, although it is relatively recent (2009). Not sure about why I-87 and I-90 are the way they are.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2023, 06:36:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2023, 06:47:34 AM
What was the original plan for Route 90?  Wasn’t it to exchange with Exit 4 of the Turnpike? Or was it to end at I-295 north of the NJ 73 cloverleaf?

If the former been built, Central Philly would have had a direct freeway from the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on March 14, 2023, 06:53:25 AM
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.

There's no reason for that extension and the ROW takings would be prohibitive.

The only improvements mulled by NYSDOT I can think of are somehow widening the ramp from I-87 SB to the Thruway (probably some major environmental concerns due to its location) and NY 85 being extended north to Central Ave.  Neither have gotten past jist mulling, though, insofar as I know.

ETA: This discussion should be moved out of the NJT thread and put into the Thruway thread.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 14, 2023, 06:57:16 AM
The extension has plenty of merit as it also was a grander plan to once be proposed to Exit 23. However the redundant side by side freeways and Thruway revenue loss got that cancelled.

Now we can continue on the Thruway thread as we’re being MMM here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on March 14, 2023, 07:25:51 AM
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/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 14, 2023, 09:04:53 AM
An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/
If you want fewer single-vehicle trips on the Turnpike, then build a HSR line. I don't know what to tell you.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: BrianP on March 14, 2023, 10:54:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 14, 2023, 11:47:47 AM
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/

Isn't a boondoggle something that won't pay for itself? Pretty sure the turnpike widenings do exactly that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2023, 05:41:42 PM
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.


So this sign existed, but there was never signage on 295 itself.  NJDOT at one point discussed putting signage on 295, and discussed whether to direct traffic using via I-76, US 130, or even CR 534 thru Woodbury, but they ultimately decided not to sign anything (which is such a NJDOT thing to do - spend thousands of hours of time and countless designs to ultimately never putting up several hundred dollars worth of signs).

The signs on the I-76 WB ramp for Exit 1C and the onramp from Market Street WB to I-76 EB still exist to guide motorists, but that's the only signage that still exists for the missing moves.

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/

They will disapprove of any widening project, even though they try very hard to not point out that the projects do seem very likely they will reduce congestion for quite some time.  The group also doesn't really have much in the way of alternatives - especially for the Turnpike's Interchange 1 - 4 widening.  It's one thing to be against a project that would benefit commuting traffic where mass transit alternatives may assist in taking traffic off the road.  But in the Turnpike's case, there's already a well-known train line called Amtrak that is in the very close vicinity of the general traffic movement that has already improved service in the area. And there's a cheaper alternative of SEPTA and NJ Transit that also duplicates that very same movement.  If they were to build another train line very close to the NJ Turnpike Corridor, it won't assist in any way with the normal traffic movement and be way, way costlier than a roadway expansion.  So whatever group this is, they're kinda stuck in that they don't have a great alternative to fight the project with.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 14, 2023, 08:54:42 PM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 14, 2023, 11:00:13 PM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2023, 12:39:26 AM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

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.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on March 15, 2023, 06:53:55 AM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

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.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 15, 2023, 10:27:06 AM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

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.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.
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.
Bingo.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RobbieL2415 on March 15, 2023, 01:24:26 PM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
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.).

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2023, 01:55:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on March 15, 2023, 03:45:52 PM
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.

For those who DO have the option of mass transit, it's not great.

When I worked in Boston, I drove 20 minutes to the Commuter Rail station for a 1h15m train ride to South Station, followed by a 5-10 minute walk to work.  But the MBTA Worcester Line is actually owned by CSX, which means freight trains get priority, and often we would sit on a siding for up to a half hour if a freight train came through.  Fortunately, about 80% of the company employees took the same train, so if I was late, so was my boss, my scrum master, the CEO, et cetera.

Currently I live in the Manayunk neighborhood of Philadelphia and work in King of Prussia.  I usually drive to work (1) over the Green Lane Bridge, constructed in 1929 and woefully inadequate to today's traffic demands -- traffic is often backed up almost all the way to my house, and (2) using the Schuylkill Expressway, 'nuff said.

At the moment my car is being repaired, so I have two mass transit options:

The better option is SEPTA busses, specifically Route 61 to Route 125.  There's often a long wait at the transfer station, plus the busses get stuck in the same rush hour traffic on the Schuylkill that I do as an individual driver.  I can't take the 124 as it doesn't have a stop close enough to my work.  The 125 comes about every 45 minutes during rush hour and is usually jam-packed.  Often, busses are cancelled for no discernable reason (gorgeous weather with no traffic?  Bus still cancelled).  Returning home, the 125 is often cancelled, and the 61 often does not show up at Wissahickon Transfer Center, forcing me to take the #27 bus, which means a longer walk home from the bus stop.

Another option is taking the SEPTA Manayunk/Norristown line train from Manayunk Station to Norristown Transfer Center, then hopping on the SEPTA Route 99 bus.  Although I like the train a lot better, this option is more expensive fare-wise, plus it still involves a bus, and the closest 99 stop to my work is about a 25 minute walk (almost a mile).

While I'm happy that mass transit is an option (where I used to live, it wasn't), I still thank my lucky stars that I am finally having my car repaired by Tuesday of next week.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: wanderer2575 on March 15, 2023, 04:34:40 PM
From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
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.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
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.).

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.

Also, however much one opposed the construction of a highway/rail/whatever, there is nothing to be gained by being a martyr and refusing to use it once it exists.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2023, 05:15:07 PM
Sprawl control is the best but we know that won't happen. $$$ is from careless development from not carefully considering building homes where there is adequate work for the demographics that will purchase your homes or even build it near light rail access. Cut back on strip malls and fast food  as we have too much of that.

Won't happen.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 15, 2023, 05:24:54 PM
^^^^ I’m sure glad you aren’t in control
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2023, 05:43:59 PM
It is what brings traffic and makes people most miserable.^^^^
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 15, 2023, 06:09:47 PM
It’s a funny thing, the way people like some things but  don’t like the side effects… there’s side effects to every alternative, and fact of the matter is, there’s a reason why sprawl exists, traffic is bad, roads bring more traffic, public transit doesn’t work, etc… Americans want big houses on leafy lots where traffic and taxes are low and their jobs are nearby so they can drive their car back and forth as they please. When they can’t get all those (which is most of the time), they pick the options they most desire and suck up the rest…
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 15, 2023, 06:51:14 PM
Ultimately, you choose where you live.  You choose where you work. 

I know it's not easy to get a complete package where one can live close to work, have a car if they so choose, have an affordable place to live, live comfortably, enjoy a job that pays a salary they're comfortable with, and every other variable that goes along with one's desires.

Sprawl is also part of life.  Without sprawl, everyone will live in skyscrapers in the city.  And sprawl will still exist - it will just be going up, not out.

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. 

So, unless people stop giving birth, moving out of their parents house, moving into the country, moving around, and otherwise transplanting elsewhere, building will continue to happen.  It ain't gonna stop.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on March 16, 2023, 10:48:34 AM
Ultimately, you choose where you live.  You choose where you work. 

Yes and no.  If, when I was laid off in 2018, I chose to get a job in the area I lived in, I would have been unemployed for a lot longer.  Since I chose to take a job in the Philly area, I had to also "choose" to live in the Philly area.

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. 

Oh, my neighborhood Facebook group is full of this.  "Look at these apartments being built with inadequate parking."  I very often comment with something along the lines of, "Yeah, I mean, it's as if you live in a major city or something."  This tends to piss them off.  "Oh whine whine whine this used to be a safe neighborhood and suburban in quality."  It's STILL a safe neighborhood, and despite being in Philly, is STILL somewhat suburban.  If you want your detached SFHs and your lawns and your driveways, go move to the suburbs.  I won't stop you.

"Henry Avenue blah blah blah.  Ridge Avenue blah blah blah.  Green Lane Bridge blah blah blah."  I don't see what the problem is with Henry OR Ridge.  I'll give you that the Green Lane Bridge is woefully inadequate for the traffic capacity it carries, having been built in 1929 and being one lane in either direction that drivers MAKE into two lanes in either direction.  But there's not much that can be done about that unless PennDOT/Philly Streets Department/Lower Marion Township wants to build a second, parallel bridge across the Schuylkill.

Anyhow, this is off-topic, having nothing to do with the NJTP, so I'll shut up now.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on March 16, 2023, 11:13:50 AM
It’s in a city’s/county’s/state’s best interest to only build enough to make congestion tolerable. They don’t want to spend more money on roads than they have to, because income is based more heavily on density.

NJTA is a bit different since income is based more directly on traffic volume.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 18, 2023, 02:35:41 PM
Sprawl though does need to be curbed though. Look at WY, for example. You will never see its population grow due to the rural areas never developing.

I’m not totally against development, but unplanned development I am against. Poinciana, FL, for example, is one that was built in the sticks and had no jobs available nearby. It was ( and still is) a bedroom community for Orlando over 25 miles away. However it’s grown so much as it’s sprawled out from its original core, more people have to commute to Orlando and now going through Kissimmee is a traffic nightmare because you must pass through it to get to and from Poinciana.  The other alternative is SR 535 in the Disney Area which also is maxed out due to both increased tourist as well as Poinciana residents commuting.

Just build in strategically placed parcels and allow right of way for potential future transit lines and build along it to entice folks to eventually move there if they know someday a rail line can be built to the city they work at.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on March 20, 2023, 08:07:37 PM
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 and I-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.

Unofficially, the Ohio Turnpike's first direct link to an interstate was I-280 in Toledo.    However, in the mid 50s, that was only a state route (OH-120 or OH-420) at the time.  Then when the route north of the turnpike was renamed I-280,  it still was an expressway with multiple at-grade crossings until the 1980s.

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.

Also was the case in the late 60's when the I-80/I-80S (I-76) swap out was completed in Youngstown via a new Exit 15 toll plaza).

The Easten terminus of I-480 (Exit 13) was always there because it was originally a non-freeway SR-14.

But it wasn't until the mid-70s when the Turnpike started making direct connections to other interstates, including  the completed I-90 West of Cleveland (Exit 8-A), I-480's Western terminus (Exit 9-A) and the southern terminus of I-680 (Exit 16-A).

I-75's (Exit 4-A) direct connection was completed in 1990, and the extended Exit 11 (SR-21) direct connection to I-77  in 1999.

The only Ohio Turnpike/freeway crossings that are still not directly-connected are I-475/US-23 in Toledo, SR-10 in North Ridgeville, and SR-11 near Youngstown.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tckma on March 21, 2023, 09:13:23 AM
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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on March 21, 2023, 06:01:16 PM
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."

For all the time I lived withing 20 minutes from the Ohio Turnpike when they used the old numbering system, I always called them exits Kbecause that what the gore signs said at the Turnpike off ramps.  Exceptions were the Eastgate and Westgate toll plazas on either end. All other exit points were also called Toll Plazas.  Maps I've seen over the years  have used either or both Exit xx or Toll Plaza.

That being said, there may have been internal references to Turnpike interchanges as "Gates" that may have leaked out into the public jargon. 

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on March 21, 2023, 06:51:18 PM
I’m to blame for this, but we are drifting away from the NJ Turnpike lately.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lepidopteran on March 22, 2023, 10:06:00 PM
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

Ohio Turnpike
    Gate 4

I don't recall the word "gate" being used on the pike itself for the exits.  But it does stand out as the first -- and only -- time I've noticed a highway exit number acknowledged at the entrance.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on March 23, 2023, 07:49:17 AM
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. 

And the remnants of the old Exit 10 (now 161) are very much in evidence per Google Sat.  And as of Oct. 2022, they needed to replace the I-80/OH Tpk. shield assembly facing northbound US 42 at the current entrance from the latter road.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: wanderer2575 on March 23, 2023, 09:23:18 AM
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:
Quote
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.

I have the book and read it many years ago.  Interesting read.  I should dust it off and read it again.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on March 23, 2023, 02:07:53 PM
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:
Quote
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.

I have the book and read it many years ago.  Interesting read.  I should dust it off and read it again.

I bought and read c2c my copy back in 1993.  I think I gave it to my local library for a used book sale sometime in this millenium.

The authors of Looking for America... likened the no photos rule to treating the Pike like a secret military installation.  The book quoted the fellow from VA as calling the NJSP "fascists" not at the time of his arrest but in his retrospect.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on March 23, 2023, 04:45:28 PM
But it does stand out as the first -- and only -- time I've noticed a highway exit number acknowledged at the entrance.

Then you haven't been at this Garden State Parkway entrance:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3912894,-74.5632147,3a,67.7y,29.85h,101.96t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssvmew3xnMKuxDg9-GRTBcw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dsvmew3xnMKuxDg9-GRTBcw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D127.50494%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

36 is the exit number on the Parkway here.  Then again, this is the only place *I* have ever seen the exit number used this way, except back when the Parkway in Cape May County had traffic lights with "Exit" numbers on the blades.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on March 23, 2023, 06:17:29 PM
But it does stand out as the first -- and only -- time I've noticed a highway exit number acknowledged at the entrance.

it happens for the highway this thread belongs to. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0269699,-74.8169949,3a,75y,316.05h,97.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4njUp_dXKF58Iyfjv7LFjg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2023, 07:19:40 PM
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:
Quote
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.

I have the book and read it many years ago.  Interesting read.  I should dust it off and read it again.

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 (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 23, 2023, 08:10:05 PM
I've read my copy of that book several times. What was troubling about the photography ban was the heavy handed attitude of the Turnpike Authority and the State Troopers in the era when the book was written. (1980's)

The authors cited another case where a woman who was standing on the Route 18 bridge over the Turnpike right by the Authority's headquarters was either ticketed or arrested for taking photos OF the Turnpike from the bridge on a state highway not on Turnpike property.

She fought the charge in court and beat them. The court ruled that the NJTA could not prohibit people from taking photos OF the Turnpike from an OFF Turnpike property location such as a state highway. The NJTA could only enforce their rules ON Turnpike property. Arguably the Turnpike Authority and the State Police should have known and respected that legality themselves to begin with. And ya have to wonder why they even thought it was worth the time and effort to ticket the lady in the first place.

But then the Turnpike Authority and its associated State Police troop were infamous in that period for not respecting the laws regarding people's civil rights. They were eventually called out by the courts which forced them to change some of their practices. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 23, 2023, 08:50:07 PM
As is often the case, people over exaggerate the photo ban on the NJ Turnpike.  It's often written that they ban all photographs on the NJ Turnpike.  As wanderer posted:  "no person shall be permitted to park, stop, stand, or travel at a slow speed".  In other words...Don't do stupid stuff to get your photo.  The ban never said no photos ever.  If you're sitting in your car and not driving jussstttt likkkeee Alllllppppssss and you get your photo, you are in the clear.  Take pictures of the scenery or lack there of?  No problem.  Take pics of your family in the car?  Go for it.  But Urban Legends are what they are, and then Al Gore invented the Internet, and added to the legend of the photo ban of the Turnpike.  But there never was, and still isn't, a photo ban on the Turnpike. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on March 27, 2023, 11:57:21 PM
I guess I have to ask again since it keeps getting deleted(why), what is going on at exit 10?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on March 29, 2023, 12:12:47 AM
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/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: D-Dey65 on March 29, 2023, 12:30:12 AM
I've taken plenty of pictures of the Turnpike, even while driving. Nobody has ever done anything to me. The only places I've driven slow in order to capture anything is in the service areas.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on March 29, 2023, 08:14:19 PM
I've done that also, especially overhead sign photos. And one time I even had the audacity to stop on the northbound shoulder and take a photo of the old Turnpike Authority Hq. before they moved to the new one. But both of us were lucky we weren't spotted by any Troopers, as we probably would have been ticketed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 02, 2023, 10:34:33 AM
Today, NJ.com has an opinion piece of the Exit 1-4 widening that discusses how the area is mostly in favor of it. The opinion piece near the end also includes an interesting link regarding a "ill-fated plan from the 1990s", featuring many contributions by those participating on these forums.

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2023/04/lots-of-options-as-turnpike-goes-wide-in-south-jersey-editorial.html

The exact link: http://www.phillyroads.com/roads/US-322_NJ/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on April 02, 2023, 05:17:10 PM
From that article:

Quote
But, 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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 02, 2023, 05:49:55 PM
From that article:

Quote
But, 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. And a cars-only exit isn't going to gain any traction nor is there any reason in the area for one.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on April 02, 2023, 05:51:46 PM
From that article:

Quote
But, 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 “to”  should have been –too–.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 02, 2023, 06:21:08 PM
From that article:

Quote
But, 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…
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 02, 2023, 10:58:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2023, 12:32:45 AM
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:

Quote
But, 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 03, 2023, 05:21:50 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 03, 2023, 11:30:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 03, 2023, 12:46:49 PM
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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on April 03, 2023, 12:57:15 PM
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."
Given that neither the Turnpike nor NJ-42 go through Woodbury, I would not see why an interchange would be built there?

They are supporting the interchange as it would be located near the city and enhance access.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 03, 2023, 08:09:05 PM
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 :|
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 03, 2023, 09:31:09 PM
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 :|

I get the feeling you've already seen a design for it, but can't tell us  :-D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on April 11, 2023, 08:51:57 PM
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:

Quote
But, 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2023, 10:11:47 PM
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:

Quote
But, 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.

I've thought of this, and other than needing a mile-long distributor roadway along the Turnpike between 168 and 42, in theory it could be done.  If manned toll lanes were still a thing the 6 lane plaza at Interchange 3 may be overwhelmed, but if they have moved to all electronic tolling, that's not an issue.

BTW, they have either permanently or partially gone with 2 EZ Pass lanes on exit at 3, using only 1 cash lane the past few times I've been thru there during non-rush hour periods.  Previously, there was 1 EZ Pass lane and 1 or 2 cash lanes (with EZ Pass being accepted as the cash lanes as well).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 19, 2023, 02:45:23 PM
Someone had mentioned this a while back, but sure enough...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/2023-04-19_13_48_50_View_south_along_Interstate_95_%28New_Jersey_Turnpike%29_at_Exit_7A_%28Interstate_195%2C_Trenton%2C_Shore_Points%29_in_Robbinsville_Township%2C_Mercer_County%2C_New_Jersey.jpg/800px-thumbnail.jpg?20230419181628)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 05:02:25 PM
^^^^You mean Philly as a pull through control over Camden?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 19, 2023, 05:03:04 PM
^^^^You mean Philly as a pull through control over Camden?

Yup
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 05:06:54 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: fwydriver405 on April 19, 2023, 05:15:16 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on April 19, 2023, 05:18:07 PM
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 19, 2023, 11:20:48 PM
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

That happened several years ago, I took a picture of that back in 2020. But the mainline change at 7A is more recent, looks like it was in 2022.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on April 20, 2023, 02:41:33 AM
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???
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2023, 09:21:08 AM
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???

Electricity isn't guaranteed.

Better to leave some static info there in case electric goes out for any number of reasons: Storms hit.  Vehicle hits electrical box. Squirrels chew power line. LED components fail. Connectivity issues from HQ.

The messages needed to be displayed are brief: usually what you see above, "Road Closed" with an X, maybe "Delays Ahead", or other brief worded messages. These signs aren't intended to inform motorists of specific issues; those would be shown on regular VMS boards.  These would also be 2 line messages at most, but usually are just one line and a symbol.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on April 20, 2023, 09:28:13 AM
I miss the old neon warning signs, even if they were long out of date.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on April 20, 2023, 10:01:17 AM
I still like the rotating boxes because I have this absurd mental image of them making a "clang" sound when they rotate–the same sound the board makes on Family Feud when they display a correct response.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on April 20, 2023, 05:00:32 PM
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)

My best guess is that they meant it to say I-80 West & To GSP but they screwed up the sign and just installed it as is
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 20, 2023, 06:18:04 PM
That would be very unlike the NJTA.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on April 20, 2023, 08:59:09 PM
^^^Still that absurd JCT US 46. :banghead:

Why is that absurd?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 20, 2023, 09:39:45 PM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on April 20, 2023, 09:55:44 PM
^^^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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 20, 2023, 10:43:55 PM
^^^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...

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on April 20, 2023, 11:07:50 PM
Noticed a bunch of NORTH 95/NJTP signs with no text but clearly room for a control city. Any idea why it is blank? Shouldnt it say "New York" on them?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 20, 2023, 11:08:13 PM
^^^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...

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.

I'm not understanding the confusion. If you take the exit for 80, you go over US 46 with no option to exit. If you stay to the right, the very next exit is for US 46.

If the interstates caused US 46 to become some old relic of the past that no one used, then maybe it makes sense to remove it from signage. But US 46 is still a really important road in that neck of the woods.

The only real comment should be why didn't they use "TO US 46" rather than "JCT US 46".  Otherwise, the signage snd its purpose to its intended audience is about as clear-cut as it gets.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 20, 2023, 11:17:07 PM
Here's an example of a more modern layout, which I think this signage should emulate...

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7130427,-78.1920764,3a,75y,90.49h,93.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_VxzzaJtATOP0Qk4m-Hx6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Left sign here would be 80 west,  middle pull-through for 95 north, right panel for 46 next right.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on April 21, 2023, 06:57:13 AM
^^^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...

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 21, 2023, 12:56:15 PM
^^^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...

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.

I didn't agree it was absurd. I just felt it could be done better.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on April 21, 2023, 01:00:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on April 21, 2023, 01:01:49 PM
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.

Definitely agree that its a hold-over - legacy signage.

Particularly considering that there's a heavy merge from right just ahead, and 46 is just beyond that merge, something indicating the rapid approach of 46 would be more appropriate, such as 46 next right.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on April 21, 2023, 03:24:30 PM
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)

My theory is that the top half of the left sign was going to reference both Local and Express I-80 west….
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on April 21, 2023, 04:54:04 PM
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???

The "hybrid" signs are NJTA's thing. They are in use in the dual-dual section to point out the choice between inner and outer roadways both on the mainline south of Exit 6 and also on the entrance ramps from 6 to 14. They are what's used now on the SB roadways at the northern mixing bowl to enter the dual dual. This is the style they prefer.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 03, 2023, 08:32:22 PM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 03, 2023, 09:14:37 PM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on May 04, 2023, 05:20:00 AM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 04, 2023, 07:26:36 AM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on May 04, 2023, 01:38:12 PM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2023, 02:15:32 PM
^^^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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2023, 06:16:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 04, 2023, 06:34:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on May 04, 2023, 07:59:55 PM
^^^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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 04, 2023, 08:06:48 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2023, 09:14:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 04, 2023, 09:39:01 PM
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 conflict of what to do about this is probably why nothing has happened after all these years, and probably won't until at least all-electronic tolling is in place, at which point the whole numbering system could be overhauled.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 04, 2023, 10:30:55 PM
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

So I must've been thinking of the mileage from Interchange 6 itself on the mainline, which would've put it about within a mile of those exit numbers.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on May 05, 2023, 12:34:57 PM
They should at least renumber the sequential exits to get rid of the "A", "X", etc exits
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on May 05, 2023, 08:20:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 05, 2023, 09:32:56 PM
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.

Makes sense, but again, since the exit (to the Turnpike) is actually the toll plaza, the ramps to 46 (and 80) aren't numbered because those are all ramp splits beyond the exit. That's also why there are no numbers posted south of the Exit 1 plaza until you join 295... those are just ramp splits as far as the turnpike is concerned, not exits (because you already exited). 

Getting back to the topic mentioned, this is why the sign says "junction 46"... it was (still is) a turnpike maintained roadway, but outside the ticket system. Only southbound has a number since the NJDOT built everything north of 46, and until 1990 or so, also maintained it.

And finally, as I mentioned before, this is a big mess which makes no sense unless you understand the full history of it. Theoretically, once the turnpike is fully electronic (and exit numbers no longer matter as much), the whole numbering system (including this mess) can be reconfigured and reset to something that makes sense in today's roadway layout.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2023, 03:06:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on May 07, 2023, 03:26:39 PM
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.

I disagree. Thruway Plaza 15 is not the same thing as Exit 15 and Turnpike plazas 18E and 18W are not the same as Exit 18. Thruway Plaza 15 was the toll plaza after which you were committed to proceeding to at least exit 15. No different than any of the other end of ticket section plazas on the the Thruway (B-3, 50, 55, and 61) as well as prior to the rearrangement in the 70s when the Spring Valley was the end of the ticket section and had the designation 14 even though Exit 14A came before Exit 14 (at that time, Exit 15 at Suffern and Exit 16 at Harriman both had normal ramp plazas (exits 14B and 15A did not exist yet). One of the drivers for the change that added the Woodbury plaza between the ramps at 16 was the amount of traffic to/from the south at Harriman that resulted in massive backups at Spring Valley on Sunday evenings as getting that Exit 16 traffic on two fixed tolls sped things up (for a number of years after truncating the ticket system, the Spring Valley plaza was a fixed toll before being mostly eliminated).

In case it's not obvious, the toll arrangement at Woodbury/Harriman is logically the same as the Turnpike at 16E/17/18E (before the Turnpike made 17 a one-way toll) and the Mass Turnpike at Rt. 128 despite different ramp, plaza, and numbering configurations.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on May 07, 2023, 03:41:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on May 07, 2023, 05:35:45 PM
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.

I definitely agree about the Mass Pike and with the old system, the mess at Allston with it being Exit 18 one direction and Exit 20 the other, each side having its own toll rate, with "Exit" 19 used for the through traffic toll between the ramps.

The NJ Turnpike has messed it up in many ways. I go back to before the western spur and back then, it seemed obvious that even though traffic going to the north end paid the 18 toll (no E then) or got the 18 ticker at the 16/18 mega-plaza, U.S. 46 was always considered Exit 18 where the Turnpike ended and all traffic went to/from U.S. 46 either east or west. But when they added the Meadowlands ramps on the western side and called it 19W, that really messed it up. So now they really can't call U.S. 46 Exit 18 since that would cause a sequence error. They really should have called it 17W as although it's north of the 18W plaza, it's not north of what is historically exit 18.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on May 07, 2023, 06:13:15 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on May 07, 2023, 07:50:10 PM
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.

As for numbers, I-90 from west to east has the plaza numbers 1 (mainline), 4, 2, 5A, 5 (mainline WB), 3 (but not the original 3), 7A, 7 (mainline EB), 6, 8, 9 (mainline), 11, 13, 16B, 14/16 (both at the same interchange, 14 is the EB exit, 16 is the WB exit, and there are no entry tolls), 10, 12, 12A, 15, 18, 18A, 17 (mainline WB), 19 (mainline EB). Odd numbers, except for 3, are the original toll locations from the late 60s after South Beloit to Elgin was converted from ticket to fixed barrier tolls (1 at South Beloit and 9 at Elgin were the original ticket section ends). 3 was the I-39 ramp which later went untolled to relieve congestion and the number was reused for the "screw you Belvidere" exit ramp tolls at Genoa Rd. (when the tollway went to one-way tolls at plazas 5 (Belvedere) and 7 (Hampshire), Belvedere (served by the Genoa Rd. interchange) was promised they wouldn't pay more as they'd pay nothing to get to Belvedere but the double-toll going away from Belvidere. But then the tollway brain-trust noticed people get a free ride to Belvedere so added exit tolls at Genoa Rd. and now people going to and then from Belvidere pay the exit toll to and the double-toll from. This is just one reason I have developed a great dislike for that agency and now more likely shunpike it when my travels take me back there).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 07, 2023, 09:21:34 PM
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??
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 08, 2023, 03:27:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2023, 08:28:08 PM

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.

A better example is entering at Interchange 7 and bypassing Interchange 6.  Exiting at Interchange 5 or 4 is cheaper than 6.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on May 08, 2023, 09:17:42 PM

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.

Only when you focus on the plaza location rather than the exit location. Plaza 18E (and 18W) cover travel to what should be signed as Exit 18 (U.S. 46) as was just being discussed in the last couple of days up thread. Plaza 17 covers travel between exits 17 and unsigned 18. Plaza 18E does not cover use of the road to its physical location but rather the road to the first point beyond where you can exit or enter which is U.S. 46. If plazas only covered travel to their physical location, the 16E and 18E tolls would be the same.

Similarly on the Thruway, you can travel between exits 15 (Suffern) and 16 (Harriman) even though you don't pass through the plaza with the number 15 (Woodbury).

The only thing I'd quibble with is NoGoodNamesAvailable saying 18E rather than just 18. In my mind, the Turnpike has plazas 18E and 18W which both cover travel between unsigned exit 18 and points south while the plaza on the 17 ramp coves travel between 17 and 18 essentially entering and exiting the ticket section at the same location (back to the Thruway, it's the same at Harriman/Woodbury which is logically the same as the Turnpike's 16E/17/18E. Turnpike's plaza 18E is logically "between the ramps" at exits 16E/17 just like Woodbury is between the ramps at Harriman (noting that unlike the Turnpike, the Thruway uses one number at Harriman). There is a direct equivalence of the plazas/gantrys at 16E/17/18E and Harriman/Woodbury:
- Turnpike plaza 18E and Thruway gantry 15-Woodbury cover entry/exit to the ticket section to/from its farthest point (U.S. 46 on the Turnpike and exit 15A on the Thruway)
- Turnpike plaza 16E and Thruway gantry 16 on the ramps to/from the north cover entry/exit to/from the ticket section from the exit where the mainline ticket plaza/gantry is between the ramps
- Turnpike plaza 17 and Thruway gantry 16 on the ramps to/from the south cover travel between that point and the end of the ticket section (U.S. 46 on the Turnpike and exit 15A on the Thruway). With this one, the Turnpike has confused things with one-way tolling at 17 but that's a recent change (for some definition of recent).

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 09, 2023, 12:18:30 AM
Yes I am honestly not familiar with the precise terminology and in my head I don’t even go by the exit numbers. To me it’s just “Fort Lee/GWB to 495”  which translates to 18E to 17, although I guess this is technically inaccurate.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 09, 2023, 12:23:44 AM
Also I hope after the Turnpike goes AET this one-way tolling nonsense goes away. The parkway in particular can be a real mess with tolls not being fair or corresponding to the distance you travel. Some long trips are free and some short trips are expensive, with weird one-way toll scenarios like at I-280 thrown in for good measure. I think they should totally rework the toll system and either add more barriers or convert to full virtual ticket system (possibly overkill).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2023, 12:50:03 AM
Keep in mind originally Exit 17 was full access between Route 3 and the toll road. The original 18 plaza was somewhere south of US 46 and later on in the game the NJTA reconfigured Exit 16 ( later 16E) and 17 into the mega interchange it is today making it one large set up and having 18 patrons surrender their tickets sooner due to there being no exits in between 16E/17.

The toll at 17, being outside the ticket system, was also the same for the previous Exit 6A in Florence that charged a cash toll for PA Turnpike patrons exiting at the former ramp to Cedar Lane that was closed in favor of the current US 130 exit, that also lacks an exit number like US 46.


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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2023, 01:15:31 AM
You know the NE Extension did something similar when the Keyser Avenue Interchange was built. To avoid a ramp toll there a mainline plaza south of Keyser Avenue was built to charge only the toll for between Exits 37 and 38 as straight through would obtain a ticket south of former Exit 37 to pay further tolls to the rest of the extension. Plus all traffic surpassing Exit 37 NB had paid tolls to that point and going to 38-39 would then pay for the remainder of their trip at Keyser Avenue and ( if continuing on to Clark’s Summit) the toll again at Clark’s Summit. 

No unfair tolls were accessed and the strategic location of the mainline near Keyser Avenue created the same effect as if Keyser Avenue was given a ticket ramp barrier toll.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 09, 2023, 02:56:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 09, 2023, 12:29:31 PM
Well Canada has its Yukon Highway 1 border entry some 25 miles into the Territory from Alaska at Beaver Creek. There are no crossings or other highways connecting in between the US and BeaverCreek so it doesn’t matter where the checkpoint is placed just like the NJTA can place the Exit 1 toll anywhere between the existing plaza and Exit 2 as it wouldn’t effect the collection process at all.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2023, 07:15:14 PM
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.

If you have a Visa/Mastercard debit card you could probably use that, although I just use the credit card option so not sure how that would work.

I'm very sure they were trying to sneak the Rt. 3 higher toll in there without much fanfare, but once the politicians got involved not only did the Turnpike have to retreat, they had to basically fork over even more money to set up the system to recognize those in specific zip codes got a unique discount.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on May 09, 2023, 10:17:42 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 10, 2023, 04:44:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ned Weasel on May 10, 2023, 07:30:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2023, 11:24:05 AM
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.

Could be an electrical issue which is keeping the sign blank (which also plays into why they use the hybrid signs and not full VMS signage).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2023, 05:32:35 PM
Does anyone here know of 1980s era toll collection of buses on the Turnpike.

The defunct Somerset Bus Company in Mountainside, NJ ran the Clark to New York ( Port Authority) bus via Cranford, Roselle, Elizabeth, and Newark before hopping on the NJ Turnpike at Exit 14 to travel the Eastern Spur to Exit 16 E and finally into Manhattan.  I couldn’t help notice that instead of paying cash at 16E the driver had a ticket similar to the toll entrance ticket all vehicles received upon entering that he surrendered with the toll price ticket.

I thought it might of been a charge card thing where the NJTA billed Somerset Bus Company later for the tolls, but then I realized that my dad used to pay the Goethals Bridge tolls for his work via a commuter ticket book that he purchased in advanced. So I’m assuming the NJTA sold prepaid toll tickets to the bus company via snail mail in which was given to the bus driver upon signing out the keys to his bus at the beginning of his shift to make money transfers simple than having a driver be reimbursed after paying the tolls out of pocket.

Was that the nature of bus tolls in the eighties? Jeff you might know even though it maybe before your time as collector.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2023, 06:13:10 PM
The only thing I recall them talking about (and this would've been them talking about past history as they recalled it in 2001) is that there was a yellow swipe card that some commuter buses had.

The ticket (under the assumption they were prepaid bus tickets) you mention may have been part of that.  When properly done, all vehicles entering the turnpike were to get a toll ticket.  Bus drivers may have received their normal toll ticket, and upon exiting surrendered that ticket along with that special ticket you're referring to.

I worked on the southern end of the Turnpike so we didn't have the special provisions they would've had up north for commuting bus traffic.  Even the Interchange 16E/18E plaza had a special EZ Pass lane before the rest of the Turnpike did just for commuting buses in the morning headed towards the XBL just to get them out of the way.  No other plaza had an EZ Pass lane, so the buses using it must've had some sort of set toll amount based on their account tag.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2023, 05:13:45 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/DAip4RBXsBox5NpW9
What information is hidden beneath the flip panels at the express/ local split on the Turnpike in Fort Lee?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 12, 2023, 07:58:29 PM
ROAD CLOSED
DO NOT ENTER
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 15, 2023, 04:19:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2023, 04:39:44 PM
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.

Never fails.  And I'm not sure what people are thinking - they must've not seen the signage; they come up to this point, and no matter what side they're on, they figure they're on the wrong side, and they must switch lanes.  I get it a little if they're on the single lane side and they want to switch to the double lane side and they knowingly, but idiotically, waited till the last second to do so, but otherwise, they'll be fine and they figure that out after the split merges back together.  At which point they think to themselves they should've signed that better...no matter how many signs were posted.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2023, 10:33:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 16, 2023, 11:06:31 PM
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.

It always is, but what is the alternative?  Close a lane or two for the long haul?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2023, 12:35:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 19, 2023, 02:58:39 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2023, 04:03:57 PM
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

Been there since at least November 2020:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23745.msg2546683#msg2546683

I know I've been able to see it from 295 in the vicinity of the Woodcrest Station exit for a few years now.  It first appeared during that early part of the pandemic so that 2020 timeframe makes sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Henry on May 19, 2023, 10:09:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 19, 2023, 10:16:31 PM
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.

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on May 22, 2023, 11:34:09 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on May 23, 2023, 02:45:07 AM
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.

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.

Didn't suggest skipping over it, but his suggestion that its the "most disrespected city in the nation" seems suspect.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 23, 2023, 10:44:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: PHLBOS on May 23, 2023, 10:54:00 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 23, 2023, 11:25:00 PM
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).

At least the Parkway prefers Newark over New York as mileage signs starting in Galloway use Newark over the Big Apple.

Yeah Newark always took a back seat to New York being so close to NYC, the nations largest city on Turnpike guides.

Even in NY, the NYTA won’t sign Newark on the Thruway for the GSP.
https://goo.gl/maps/p2qm5KKtE2NrdRAy9
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on May 24, 2023, 09:23:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on May 28, 2023, 06:53:51 AM
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.

The I-287 signs for New York City and Easton, PA were added during the widening of I-287 in the nineties. Previously it was Newark and Clinton. However US 22 on I-287 signed New York at the same time which looked odd, but New York was always signed for US 22 EB on 287 since the freeway opened. I-78 got signed in 1986 when the long awaited missing segment in Berkley Heights finally opened.  Before that it was signed Local Traffic and Mount Bethel without an I-78 shield to keep through traffic off the freeway that ended in Watchung.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 02, 2023, 01:19:26 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 02, 2023, 04:39:17 PM
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).

Correct it briefly enters Newark between Exits 144 and 145. However the exits that directly serve it are not within the City Limits. Exit 144 is in Irvington and Exit 145 is in East Orange.

Then if you count I-78, that exit ( Exit 142) is in Union, while if your coming from the south this particular interchange is the best route to use into Downtown Newark.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 11, 2023, 10:54:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 11, 2023, 11:03:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on June 11, 2023, 11:05:47 AM
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.

Probably meant Montvale.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 11, 2023, 06:09:41 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on June 11, 2023, 06:16:26 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

The reasoning for Philadelphia is not because the NJTP goes there, but because I-95 goes there since the interchange with the PA TPK was completed in 2018. The control cities along I-95 northbound heading away from Philadelphia were changed from Trenton to New York when the interchange opened in 2018.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 11, 2023, 06:18:59 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2023, 06:19:39 PM
The Garden State Parkway uses “ Philadelphia “ for the SB I-95/ NJT exit.  It don’t use it post ramp toll plaza where Trenton still is present at split.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 11, 2023, 06:23:37 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2023, 06:26:00 PM
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?

It’s not only there. Enola, PA has I-81 NB ramp from US 11-15 signed for Harrisburg instead of Hazleton as well. Who at that point will hop on I-81 to get to Harrisburg when US 11-15 almost go there themselves.

It’s not only the NJ Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on June 11, 2023, 11:03:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2023, 11:26:26 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.

It seems very unlikely motorists would jump off the Turnpike at Interchange 9 to slog thru numerous traffic lights on US 1 to get to Trenton.  While the time estimates are about the same in normal traffic, and the distance to Trenton via US 1 is shorter, most people are going to take the freeway options vs the local road options, even when tolls are involved. 

Heck, we witness this all the time in NJ when given the option of taking the NJ Turnpike vs. 295.  In theory, there wouldn't be a single motorist on the Turnpike between 195 and the Delaware Memorial Bridge when 295 doesn't have congestion.

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?

Thus, the imperfect world of signing control cities.  In most states, cities would be spread so far apart there would be no question what a control city should be, and it would be left to random headscratchers such as I-80 throughout PA and some town in Colorado.  In NJ, it's a bit different - we have so many options, and many of the larger options don't reside in the state.  Trenton may not be the most sensible, but it makes a little sense to give the state capital some sort of nod. 

After all, traffic counts will show most people aren't taking Exit 6 to Philly either.  Harrisburg almost makes just as much sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2023, 11:47:21 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on June 12, 2023, 01:06:17 AM
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?

when I lived in Ewing near TTN, the only time I'd take Route 1 to head to the Turnpike NB (or vice-versa) would be after 9PM. otherwise, traffic + lights would make the trip longer than if I took 579/29/195/Turnpike. the extra time and aggravation were a much higher cost to me than the toll.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2023, 01:50:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 12, 2023, 03:00:31 AM
Alright, one final swing at this and then I'm done for the moment...

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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: famartin on June 12, 2023, 03:01:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2023, 06:31:14 AM
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.

I don’t have a problem with Princeton or Trenton for that matter.

Oregon and Florida have the issue of using one control one way of a large city and smaller ones the other way. I-5 uses Portland NB
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.

I have no problem with Princeton or Trenton.

Oregon and Florida sign one city one way and smaller ones the other way.  I-5 in Oregon uses Portland NB through out the state, but uses Salem, Eugene, Rosenberg, and Medford SB  throughout the state.

I-75 SB from the Georgia State Line to Tampa uses Tampa while from Tampa to Georgia the other way uses Ocala, Lake City, and Valdosta. 

It’s not a Turnpike thing or people fixating on New York City.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 12, 2023, 02:17:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2023, 03:28:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on June 12, 2023, 03:43:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 12, 2023, 07:47:40 PM
Trenton was always the southbound control city right from the original opening of the Turnpike. And New York was the northbound.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 12, 2023, 07:54:17 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2023, 08:46:13 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.
I agree. Since the Turnpike goes through Newark and connects at multiple interchanges, both cities should be equally important to list. Good.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2023, 10:01:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2023, 10:05:47 PM
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.

PennDOT doesnt think this way. Carlisle is used on I-81 NB heading to the larger Harrisburg. Hazleton over Wilkes- Barre beyond Harrisburg.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on June 12, 2023, 10:13:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2023, 02:26:13 AM
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?
Yes it was and still is. Trenton always had two exits signed. Just now the second is Exit 7A rather than 8.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2023, 06:53:33 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/MyWmGyrU5kPhrWTb8
No control city for the NB ramp, but Trenton for the SB ramp.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on June 20, 2023, 09:06:11 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/MyWmGyrU5kPhrWTb8
No control city for the NB ramp, but Trenton for the SB ramp.

You would think they would use New York City here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on June 20, 2023, 12:02:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: chrisg69911 on June 20, 2023, 02:57:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 20, 2023, 05:33:09 PM
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.

Yeah, that wouldn't be controversial, especially in this group, skipping over the largest city in America to a destination 2 states away.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on June 20, 2023, 06:04:10 PM
I think when New York City is being used as a control city is is assumed to be referring to Manhattan. Outlying boroughs would use the borough name such as Staten Island. So I see no harm in New York City being used as the control city here.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on June 20, 2023, 06:28:30 PM
Wouldn’t “New York”  by itself work?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on June 20, 2023, 06:53:13 PM
Wouldn’t “New York”  by itself work?

True, can’t go wrong with that control city, since the driver can think of it leading to the city or the state.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on June 21, 2023, 07:02:08 PM
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.

95 does bypass the main part of NYC. If control cities refer to points, most people are looking for Midtown or Downtown Manhattan, which are accessed from the Turnpike by exiting (exit 16E) rather than continuing all the way to the George Washington Bridge. Just because it passes through city limits, doesn't make NYC a good control city for the part going toward the GWB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on June 22, 2023, 10:19:41 AM
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.

The Trans-Manhattan Expressway gives away which boro it goes through first, plus it has exits to both the Henry Hudson and Harlem River Drives so New York City is still fine. I think the Turnpike prefers the crossing names since it does provide relatively direct access to all three of the PA crossings to Manhattan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 23, 2023, 10:09:32 AM
So what is going on now with all the work around mile 84 NB or somewhere in the mid 80s?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:25:25 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.
AGREED!
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.

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.
I disagree about Wilmington, it is large enough (70K), directly on the route, and it serves as a major junction with 95.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on June 26, 2023, 01:28:11 PM
Alright, one final swing at this and then I'm done for the moment...

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
AGREED!

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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 26, 2023, 07:55:07 PM
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.
You know Trenton is the state capital, right? Kind of important. And Philadelphia is farther off the Turnpike than Trenton.

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.
AGREED!
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.

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.
I disagree about Wilmington, it is large enough (70K), directly on the route, and it serves as a major junction with 95.
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.

Trenton is larger than Wilmington.  Trenton has about 90,000 residents.  Wilmington has about 70,000 residents.

Wilmington is also not directly on the route.  The closest one gets to Wilmington is actually on the NJ border of the river, since the river is fully within Delaware at this location.  The border of Wilmington is only a few hundred feet north of the location where the New Jersey/Delaware border line is painted on the bridge deck: https://goo.gl/maps/UhBwTimu9h44AnW66 . And since the vast majority of traffic isn't turning north towards Wilmington, it's relevance to most traffic on the Turnpike is minimal.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 27, 2023, 01:29:18 AM
Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL. They’re both cities near crossroads and so is Delaware’s largest city.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on June 27, 2023, 08:44:07 PM
Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.

Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on June 28, 2023, 11:02:30 AM
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8eY2afK/ Interesting, I never knew the New Jersey Turnpike used longer lines than other roads.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2023, 12:00:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 28, 2023, 12:26:22 PM
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'm inclined to think the longer lines would somehow have a calming effect and therefore, if anything, cause motorists to drive slower.  But I've yet to drive the Turnpike so I haven't tested that.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 29, 2023, 04:42:13 PM
Growing up in NJ I never had a problem with those lines like I never had issues with full serve gas like people are having in another state that disallows self serve in another recent thread.

It may seem like your driving slow, but that’s the way it is if you drive the Jersey Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: plain on June 30, 2023, 12:12:05 AM
Damn near everyone in NJ drives fast.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on June 30, 2023, 10:02:47 AM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1403192636576400/permalink/3647122858850022/

Here is an interesting HoJo pennant with the NJ Turnpike on it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on July 02, 2023, 08:04:49 PM
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1403192636576400/permalink/3647122858850022/

Here is an interesting HoJo pennant with the NJ Turnpike on it.

I just clicked on the link and got

This content isn't available right now

When this happens, it's usually because the owner only
shared it with a small group of people, changed who can
see it or it's been deleted.

[Go to News Feed button]

Go Back
Visit Help Center

[Italicization is ixnay's]
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 03, 2023, 08:22:20 PM
Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.

Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
I don't think Wilmington is bad; Trenton is.
Wilmington is directly adjacent to 95, and moreover, it is a major crossroads merging with 95 and as well beach traffic down to Norfolk.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 03, 2023, 08:23:51 PM
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.
You forgot to mention VERY few exits or a lot of distance.

What is this about troopers having a high tolerance?  I always thought it was due to the road being tolled; they already got their money in contrast to VA where it is untolled and troopers are everywhere.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on July 03, 2023, 09:15:28 PM
Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.

Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
I don't think Wilmington is bad; Trenton is.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 03, 2023, 09:26:00 PM
Wilmington is like Benson in NC or Lake City in FL.

Yeah, they're bad choices for control city.
I don't think Wilmington is bad; Trenton is.
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.

It’s the largest entity near that junction and being the bridge isn’t used anymore, it seems fit. I-295 don’t have to go through it properly to warrant it as much as I-70 east of Frederick gets Baltimore even though the interstate ends short of it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on July 04, 2023, 03:58:52 AM
... because that is an example of continuing in the same direction, as opposed to changing direction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2023, 04:21:44 AM
... because that is an example of continuing in the same direction, as opposed to changing direction.

Doesn’t matter. It’s close enough to the junction to pass to warrant its use.  Cities of the size of Wilmington, although smaller than Trenton, still have a metro area. The big junction of I-295 and I-95 is in that metro. So it fits.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 08, 2023, 06:55:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 08, 2023, 07:03:02 PM
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.

Good question.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: davewiecking on July 08, 2023, 07:11:01 PM
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.

Possibly because, assuming the southern section would eventually be widened, they only wanted to reengineer the interchange once to add the extra ramps in both directions.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 08, 2023, 08:22:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2023, 03:02:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 04:40:12 PM
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?

Why also does WB Newark Bay Extension sign both US 1-9 and the Airport to exit the freeway to merge into the the NB Exit 14 ramp to loop around under I-95 into the SB Exit 14 ramp?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on July 09, 2023, 11:05:54 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 09, 2023, 11:13:58 PM
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?

Not likely.  They used standard length lines on a recent repaving project between Interchanges 2 & 3 as well.  The standard line length plus gap wouldn't match up with a NJ Turnpike traditional long line and gap. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 10, 2023, 02:05:20 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 10:57:55 AM
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).

Looks like they’re replacing the signs on the NB 14 ramp.

Anyway didn’t realize that getting on NB from I-78 led you into a cattlechute.  Surprised, though to see both spurs signed as I-95 from the long ramp.

https://goo.gl/maps/5MuF1LFeT3TDnWBV7
Yet on the 15 E ramp I-95 is signed only for the Western Spur.

Also why isn’t Trenton on a flip panel? The GWB is on such, but Trenton gets 21st Century technology.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 10, 2023, 12:39:03 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2023, 04:46:05 PM
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.

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).

Agreed.  A cattleshute is normally a single lane, 10-12 feet wide, with jersey barriers on both sides.  This is a normal ramp, with full shoulder to boot.

The ramp hybrid VMSs are all typically built the same way: Routes up top, flip panel, then VMS screen.  It looks a bit odd this way how they designed it, but the basic sign structure is how they've designed all their hybrids signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 09:51:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 10, 2023, 10:06:38 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 10:23:30 PM
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).

Georgia did for I-85 and I-285 near ATL and Minneapolis for I-35W and I-94. CT also at both I-91 and CT 15 interchanges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 10, 2023, 10:33:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on July 11, 2023, 11:00:24 AM
"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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 11, 2023, 11:22:04 AM
"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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on July 11, 2023, 11:25:14 AM
And that wouldn't be better than what was actually built, so that's probably why they did it that way.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 11, 2023, 11:55:25 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 11, 2023, 01:59:24 PM
"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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on July 11, 2023, 03:57:51 PM
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.

I believe the inner/outer split is at the same spot it's always been for SB Eastern alignment traffic. The ramp to exit 14 is then half a mile later and inside the merge/split complex. Compare that to as-built when exit 14 traffic went 1-1/2 miles on the outer roadway before actually exiting and a good mile south of the merge/split complex.

Looking at the design, there really isn't another good option without adding even more complexity. A necessary feature of  merge/split like that is one roadway splits and puts its two halves on both sides of the other road which then does its own split once. Short of building a second bridge parallel to the one the Eastern to outer traffic uses, there's no way to get 14 traffic off before the eastern SB split.

To me, this design, dual-dual to dual-triple (or is that triple-dual?), is a thing of genius. No weaving sections (the closest is the 4/10 of a mile between where the NB inner and outer merge to become the eastern and Exit 15E (traffic from the inner exiting at 15E have to get over fairly quickly). Is it perfect? No, but it's a lot better than what a lot of states would do.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 11, 2023, 04:04:43 PM
"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.

I’m trying to relay to a third party what the second party was suggesting.  I see now that the former Exit 9 and present 6 have done by having two separate ramps to avoid the problem at the NOrth end of the 3+3+3+3 that is been corrected.

The northern end also has the dual configuration, but in a different form. Instead of building the 12 lanes to Exit 18, they opted for a second alignment instead giving the 12 ( 10 north of Route 3) in that configuration.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on July 13, 2023, 10:23:22 PM
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.

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.
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 14, 2023, 09:22:27 AM
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.

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.
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on July 14, 2023, 08:03:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 14, 2023, 09:01:34 PM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 14, 2023, 09:41:01 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 16, 2023, 11:32:35 PM
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.

Maybe cars were missing Exit 14 in Newark that they moved back 1.5 miles the exit.  Wonder if the eastern spur has Exit 14 traffic think the car lanes have a Exit 14 ramp?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 09:36:25 AM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on July 24, 2023, 10:39:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on July 24, 2023, 10:44:28 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Jim on July 24, 2023, 11:32:58 AM
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.

Possibly on their way to hit the railroad overpass in Glenville.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2023, 02:10:33 PM
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?

Whenever there's an issue that forces a ramp to the truck lanes to be closed, trucks are allowed to use the car lanes. Once in the car lanes, they can remain in the car lanes.  In the cast of the OP's GSV, the truck is moving southbound just south of Interchange 9.  A ramp closure to the truck lanes at Interchanges 14, 13A, 13, 12, 11, 10 or 9 would have permitted the truck to enter the car lanes without penalty.

To Dough's question:  Probably due to an earlier incident, or the ramp closure reason above.  There's no benefit to trucks to use the car only lanes for no reason since all exits can be reached and the speed limit is the same.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: chrisg69911 on July 24, 2023, 03:00:55 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 24, 2023, 03:31:54 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2023, 04:01:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on July 24, 2023, 04:03:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2023, 06:57:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on July 24, 2023, 07:21:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 24, 2023, 09:50:35 PM
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.

We've had people on these forums who call them the Express Lanes and Local Lanes.  And the 'Bus' language on these signs is often forgotten.  So just specifying what's actually written on the signage, because even many on here do get it wrong.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Flyer78 on July 26, 2023, 11:44:27 AM
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.

But a ramp upstream to the outer lanes may have been closed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 01, 2023, 04:54:44 PM
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.

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.
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?

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?

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 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.

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.
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.
That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 01, 2023, 05:39:08 PM
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.

Quote
Coming 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2023, 06:40:00 PM
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.

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.
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.
That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2023, 08:53:37 PM
Which Exit 10? The original NB only that was in the western quadrant of the NJ Turnpike/ Garden State Parkway/ Main Street Triple stack or the current Edison Exit 10?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 01, 2023, 09:07:59 PM
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.


 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2023, 09:16:36 PM
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.


 

Historic Aerials don’t have coverage from 1966 to 1969.  It shows the Turnpike with a wide median in 66 with the original 10 interchange where the current emergency u turn exists and the original 10 plaza in the west quadrant with a bridge over the parkway.  Three years later the original 10 ramps are gone and the turnpike is all under construction with the current 11 interchange built already.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 01, 2023, 09:24:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2023, 09:45:58 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on August 01, 2023, 09:59:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2023, 10:15:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 01, 2023, 10:28:01 PM
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.

Wow! That originally 9 was inside the GSP was something I did not know. I grew up in Berkeley Heights (moved there in 1967 from out of state) but we usually went north on the GSP (from Exit 140 U.S. 22 as I-78 did not exist yet) so trips south on the GSP were very rare and probably never occurred until after it was all rebuilt into what's more or less its current configuration. That said, I think the whole rebuild of that triangle (Turnpike / GSP / NJ440) was one massive co-ordinated project including the turnpike dual-dual, the new Exits 10 and 11, building 440 (not completed until 1974 per Wikipedia), and flipping 9 and the GSP although it took several years (looking at that 1969 Historic Aerials view, it appears I-287 ended at U.S. 1 and Turnpike new Exit 10 only provided access to Woodbridge Ave.; even in the 1972 aerial, it appears 440 did not make it all the way to the GSP or 9).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 01, 2023, 10:31:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2023, 12:22:20 AM
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.

Exit 10 was partial and NB parkway had to left exit onto US 9 and do a breezwood, which would never work today with the amount of traffic going NB from the Shore to I-95 NB for New York that has Exit 11 plaza one of the widest plazas on the Turnpike. The original 11 toll could not handle the ADT counts of today if they never modified 10 and 11 into one mega interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 02, 2023, 01:05:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2023, 02:23:32 AM
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.

No worries.

Yes if you look at the piers supporting the outer roadway over Route 9 it has the same design as many bridges along the eastern spur and south of Exit 6. Green beams and the pier caps end at the outer pier where the late sixties and later era bridges have prime color beams with the pier caps hanging over the ends of the last piers.

So the bridge over US 9 is original Turnpike bridge over 70 years old.

The aerials do show the NB lanes go under Route 9 and so does old Rand McNally maps of the sixties show it.

https://goo.gl/maps/hRm9LmtkRW9Kr5vY7

The entrance to the yard was where the NB US 9 ramp was. Alps caught it on camera when the ramp was the yard driveway and of concrete. Don’t know if he still has the photo  or not as I haven’t been on his site in decades since we had words over another user’s preaching.

https://goo.gl/maps/Acsd3g5tA8RuApXx9

Original design with the original parapet changed to modern jersey wall. So the NJTA, had renovated the bridge as seventy years would have made it functionally obsolete
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 03, 2023, 09:37:50 PM
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.

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.
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.
That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2023, 10:50:44 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 04, 2023, 12:37:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tmoore952 on August 04, 2023, 04:26:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on August 04, 2023, 04:32:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 04, 2023, 05:01:34 PM
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?

Nothing is wrong with making a controlled lane change. I'm referring to the people who are normally stapled to the left lane but it then appears as soon as they realize their exit is coming up in a mile (whether that's due to a sign or their nav device lets them know) must get to the right lane immediately and launch themselves across two or three lanes of traffic with little regard to what other traffic is there and with no or minimal signaling. Those people have no idea of where they are going and are just blindly following what their nav device tells them to do.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2023, 06:20:44 PM
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?

There's two other guys in my carpool. One will get in the right lane upwards of 10 miles before the exit on 295, with several intechamges to go. Doesn't matter if it's a slow moving truck in front of us or a gigantic alien swallowing up cars in the right lane. He will not move from that lane.

The other guy will stay in the center lane until the last moment, then get pissed that people are right beside him and won't let him in, even when he doesn't use a turn signal. He'll bypass several gaps within a mile of the interchange just to squeeze in with no time to spare.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2023, 01:19:30 AM
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.

Quote
Coming 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.

As far as narrowing down to two lanes through 6 causing back ups when one roadway is closed is just as likely as it happening in Newark when the ramps between the inner/ outer to eastern and western spurs are two lanes each. If the outer roadway was closed, for example, that would narrow the turnpike down to two lanes from three  as you head from the western or eastern spurs into the remaining open roadway.

I think the one who suggested that Exit 6 not remain fully three lanes and have one ramp from the south to Exit 6 saw how the very other end operates and is suggesting that.

I agree that the NJ Turnpike and Pearl Harbor split should mirror the eastern and western split.

Also, the western spur is only four lanes north of Route 3 in a heavy populated area, yet it don’t create bottlenecks at either end like at 16W or at the split in Ridgefield Park.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on August 07, 2023, 03:18:25 AM
"No issues"?

The SB exit 14 configuration means, if closing the outer roadway is needed, they must either still have a lane open for exit 14, or must close exit 14. I'm not sure how either of those can be regarded as "no issues"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on August 07, 2023, 01:00:12 PM
Also, the Turnpike actually is planning to widen the western spur to be three lanes each direction on its entire length, so I guess they do see the two lane section as a bottleneck.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 07, 2023, 02:09:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2023, 03:46:55 PM
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.

The recent 14 change came about so they can close the outer roadway completely and to address potential mistakes from those who miss 14 on the inner roadway due to latest mentality of the general population these days. I wouldn’t think there are back ups at the inner/ outer splits on ether spur when they close one side due to the two lane narrow crossovers from each spur. Then again I left New Jersey some time ago to see the latest.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 13, 2023, 02:17:05 PM
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on August 14, 2023, 07:37:34 PM
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on August 14, 2023, 10:28:39 PM
Why would anyone want a highway to be exactly uniform just for the heck of it?

The NJTP Runs extremely well, and they do a good job at maintaining & constructing it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 15, 2023, 01:38:01 PM
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.
How do you figure either??????

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 16, 2023, 03:09:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on August 17, 2023, 08:53:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 17, 2023, 12:36:54 PM
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


And while I think it's good to be able to contact the engineers, I'm not sure what helpful advice that can be provided for a project that went out to bid 15 years ago and has been built for 10 years. And operates without an issue.

I have often tried posting public notice and public meeting announcements to help guide people to review the project and put their opinions in at that time, when it goes on public record, and may have an opportunity to be reviewed. If people aren't willing to put their two cents in during the formal process, their comments aren't going to be helpful 10 years after a project was completed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:37:46 PM
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
I am not complaining, just wondering why pre-split the roadways going NB.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2023, 01:39:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 28, 2023, 02:38:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 28, 2023, 04:34:45 PM
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.

This post will not age well.  Although I think the audacity of roadgeeks is actually a virtue, sometimes it really causes us to stick our feet in our mouths...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on August 29, 2023, 01:34:01 AM
Quote
Quote
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”
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on August 29, 2023, 08:09:38 AM
The problem is we take things way too literally and some of us here feel we have to post like we are all news reporting and it’s a basic discussion site. We do not have to be so literal, but some of us are on the spectrum which causes us to feel personal attacks that aren’t truly there.

We need to all chill and not get to into this, or that makes us no different than, let’s say, Ethanman or MMM, or even the Spelling Nazi.

Bugo also pointed out that some here are envious of those with spectrum disorders and pointed out that it’s not something any sane person would want to experience at all or wish, IMO, on your worst political enemy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on August 30, 2023, 08:18:57 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on August 30, 2023, 08:40:10 PM
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.
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.
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.

To be fair, this has happened to the best of us.  Best to just re-read, admit one's mistake and move on.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on August 31, 2023, 01:56:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J N Winkler on August 31, 2023, 02:03:49 AM
Folks, I am locking this thread for a 48-hour cooling period.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bluecountry on September 10, 2023, 09:30:25 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on September 10, 2023, 03:21:53 PM
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.
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.
People told you.  You then proceeded to keep arguing that your way was better.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on September 10, 2023, 05:45:32 PM
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.

As I said in the other thread (New England Thruway) where you are making similar complaints, you need to state why you think the current design is bad and what problems it causes. It is not enough to say you think it's wrong without support for that position.

Also, you do not enhance your positions by exaggerating. The northbound split before Exit 6 that bothers you so much is not "miles before an exit." It is almost exactly one mile which is not, by most people's definition, "miles." By exaggerating, you are actually weakening your position.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2023, 10:25:30 AM
Do we ant another 48 hours again?

My request is lay it to rest. We all know Blue Country’s opinion and he ain’t going to change his. So don’t provoke him again.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Tonytone on September 11, 2023, 11:30:02 AM
Are we seriously going back and forth about one of the best Ran Turnpikes in the country?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 11, 2023, 11:40:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on September 11, 2023, 12:19:13 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 11, 2023, 01:43:12 PM
Yes, let's talk about...

The NJ Turnpike's Surplus Vehicle and Equipment Auction.

The NJTA hosts this event once or twice a year, in which they sell off vehicles and equipment that are no longer needed.  Some of it is operable; some is not.  Some have minimum bid requirements.  Unfortunately, for what many in this group would be interested in, no signs or other 'collectable' stuff are part of the auction, however, they do have a number of arrow boards available to flash and annoy your neighbors with!

The general guidelines are shown here: https://www.njta.com/newsroom/turnpike-authority-to-offer-surplus-vehicles-equipment-parts-for-sale-by-sealed-bid . Within the press release is a link to see what is actually being offered.  Nicely, the auctions are now conducted via WebEx, so everyone can watch the action and see the bids that are submitted.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 11, 2023, 03:58:02 PM
Depends on what you call collectable. Looking at the list, doesn't look like all those imported Holdens held up very well. Someone who loves RWD V8 sedans will buy them anyway!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on September 11, 2023, 05:50:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 11, 2023, 06:19:17 PM
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?

I’m guessing it was around the time that the missing link between the Turnpikes and I-95 in Bucks County, PA was completed in 2018.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 11, 2023, 06:29:40 PM
I was considering bidding on an arrow board, but I'd have to figure out how to transport it. 4'x8' doesn't fit in most vehicles and it may be trailer mounted, but you need to be able to tow.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on September 14, 2023, 03:35:36 PM
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?

When the 95 missing link opened, since that's where 95 goes. South of Exit 6, it's still Camden and then Wilmington.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: mrsman on September 22, 2023, 03:51:15 PM
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.
How do you figure either??????

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.


While a little late to the discussion, and not wishing to start up any flame war, I would add that any concerns about the design being too much would be before th project was completed.  is it more expensive or environmentally damaging than necessary?  Probably for most traffic projections, the widening between 6 and 8A would be sufficient as a 5-5 (not a 2-3-3-2), but fortunately NJTP happily decided to design for the future and went with the bigger design keeping the 3-3-3-3 layout all the way to a point south of exit 6.  And it is very nice as anybody who travels the stretch knows that so many of the old traffic problems of the past are now a part of history.

Further widening southward has to be met with some caution.  We can't keep a 3-3-3-3 layout all the way to the end, because we have to somehow incorporate the eventual merger of 295 traffic and US 40 traffic into the mainline before the Delaware Memorial Bridge which is only 4 lanes in each direction.  So the very southern end of the NJTP will probably never be widened unless the bridge is expanded.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 22, 2023, 05:36:24 PM
I think 6 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Exit 4 should be enough (and will be difficult enough to accomplish).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on September 22, 2023, 09:12:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 22, 2023, 11:48:54 PM
I think 6 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Exit 4 should be enough (and will be difficult enough to accomplish).

I think overall it won't be too tough. The Turnpike already has most of the right-of-way needed.  They'll need to rebuild dozens of bridges (many of which are in need of replacing anyway) and put up sound barriers.  However, expanding beyond that would be difficult.  Unlike up north where they basically prepared for 12 lanes, the Turnpike down south may be able to squeeze in 8 lanes total in some distant future life, but they're not getting beyond that without major property, house and building acquisitions.

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.

You would think...except the Turnpike between 1 & 4 has congestion issues especially on summer weekends and holidays, whereas 295 doesn't.

Motorists like using the Turnpike.  Most of them pay no mind to the free highway right next to it. Even coming off the Delaware Memeorial Bridge - they merge left to get on the Turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RoadRage2023 on September 23, 2023, 01:21:57 AM
I think the reason for that might be because I-295 only goes part of the way up before veering off into PA. Much of the Jersey Turnpike traffic is long distance between NYC and points south. Maybe they don't want to waste time connecting via surface roads. Although I did that once taking the turnpike to exit 4 or something and then switched to 295 to save a little on the toll. Connecting via I-195 is a little too out of the way but not out of the question. You also have to deal with that awkward I-76 interchange along the way on 295 unlike the turnpike.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on September 23, 2023, 08:32:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RoadRage2023 on September 23, 2023, 08:40:41 PM
Yes it's convenient. The roads come so close together I wonder why they don't just build direct ramps between them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on September 23, 2023, 09:12:44 PM
Exit 7 is a good spot to connect as well, although the combination of truck stops and a two-lane segment are not ideal for safe speeders.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 23, 2023, 09:25:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ilpt4u on September 23, 2023, 09:29:11 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: RoadRage2023 on September 23, 2023, 09:33:28 PM
I was thinking more at the point where the roads come within 100-150 feet of each other. Maybe there could be some sort of connection. Such as near mount Laurel road where you can see the other road through the treeline.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on September 24, 2023, 07:13:07 AM
Yes it's convenient. The roads come so close together I wonder why they don't just build direct ramps between them.

Probably b/c the NJTP Authority doesn't want to lose any revenue.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on September 26, 2023, 04:57:35 AM
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?

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on September 29, 2023, 01:07:04 PM
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
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on September 30, 2023, 01:56:48 AM
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?

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.
maps.google.com
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 01, 2023, 10:09:01 PM
out of curiosity - from an engineering perspective, if a hypothetical interchange between 295 and 95 was built:

would the ramps going to 95 NB / Turnpike mainline need to be divided due to the relatively short distance to the mainline NB/SB split (in a similar manner to how the ramps from DE 1 NB to 95 NB are divided), assuming that they were intended to serve both 95/Turnpike NB and Turnpike SB (as opposed to neglecting access to the Turnpike SB)?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2023, 10:20:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SteveG1988 on October 01, 2023, 10:27:30 PM
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.

Improvements to the connection at exit 5 would honestly be the best bet. optimize the traffic lights a bit better, fix the merge/decel lanes on the 295 cloverleaf. The bordentown exits for 295 could have been made a lot better, but that will be harder to fix.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 01, 2023, 10:35:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: odditude on October 01, 2023, 11:36:01 PM
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.

i'm specifically speaking of where 295 passes over 95 / the PA extension of the Turnpike.

and "hypothetically" because even if it wasn't incredibly cramped, ROW acquisition would be a bit complicated.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 05, 2023, 01:53:44 PM
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TheDon102 on October 05, 2023, 03:30:57 PM
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".

So its in the works…  :bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2023, 08:22:52 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QnbkVi6SotySsbv26
What does NSX stand for on the mileposts?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2023, 09:15:38 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QnbkVi6SotySsbv26
What does NSX stand for on the mileposts?

You're headijg north from the Turnpike proper here, and heading to NYC. NSX are the Northbound eXpress lanes of 95. The MP to the right has NSL, or Northbound Local lanes.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 08, 2023, 10:31:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: akotchi on October 08, 2023, 01:31:23 PM
^^ The view is actually looking southbound.

NSX is "from North to South in eXpress," i.e. southbound express lanes

NSL (which is on the milepost at the far right of the view) is "from North to South in Local."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 08, 2023, 01:50:46 PM
Thanks. Seems convoluted, but if it allows them needed precision, that’s all that matters.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 08, 2023, 03:18:39 PM
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.

I had turned the camera and saw the bridge, but missed the actual direction. Thanks for the corrections.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 08, 2023, 08:05:47 PM
Thanks. Seems convoluted, but if it allows them needed precision, that’s all that matters.

It is convoluted but for whatever reason that's how NJTA set it up over fifty years ago when they first started building the dual roadways, so I guess it works for them.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 08, 2023, 08:10:34 PM
To further explain the NJTA's roadway designations, further south where the Turnpike divides into the east and west leg north of Newark the abbreviations are for southbound: NSW and NSE. Northbound is SNE and SNW.

Then when you get south of Newark where the dual parallel roadways begin the southbound is NSI and NSO for inner and outer lanes. Northbound is SNI and SNO.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2023, 11:21:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 09, 2023, 08:54:20 AM
… Northbound is SNI and SNO.

So if they ever decide to change the system, northbound will be Sekke Sekke Nekke Nekke Ptang Zoo Boing!

:bigass:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: thenetwork on October 11, 2023, 09:45:46 PM
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.

It makes more sense than those non-freeway routes in New York that look like eye charts...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on October 12, 2023, 04:30:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 12, 2023, 05:02:20 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 16, 2023, 06:35:52 PM
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.

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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: rover on October 21, 2023, 07:54:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 21, 2023, 09:33:55 PM
I think widening the stretch from Exit 4 to the southern end is far more important than an interchange with I-295.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on October 22, 2023, 01:29:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 22, 2023, 08:13:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 22, 2023, 02:31:51 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 22, 2023, 07:50:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on October 22, 2023, 08:37:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on October 22, 2023, 09:01:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2023, 06:17:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on October 23, 2023, 07:47:02 PM
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.

I lived in Highland Park. Was just a way of life. I love jughandles and will forever. Better than Michigan lefts. I know that. US 1 being congested was also normal. Especially before the changes at Parsonage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2023, 02:22:46 PM
It has just been announced that Governor Murphy will veto the NJTA's proposed toll increases.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 26, 2023, 05:54:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on October 27, 2023, 06:08:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 27, 2023, 07:18:05 PM
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.

The next meeting is 11/21.  So chances are...then. 

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.njta.com%2Fmedia%2F7107%2F2023-board-meeting-dates.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: rover on October 30, 2023, 10:41:20 PM
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

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.
That is so far away as to not be relevant.

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.
No reason, since 895 merges with 95 like a mile north.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on October 30, 2023, 11:11:00 PM
Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3

4 lanes each way between exits 4 and 3?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 30, 2023, 11:12:45 PM
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.

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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2023, 11:18:59 PM
Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3

4 lanes each way between exits 4 and 3?
but 3 lanes north of there :D
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on October 31, 2023, 01:27:09 AM
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.
New user joins, makes post basically verbatim to a recently banned user… seems normal to me  :clap:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on October 31, 2023, 08:01:24 AM
Widening the NJTP to 4 lanes from exit 4 to exit 3

4 lanes each way between exits 4 and 3?

He doesn't know how to describe the number of lanes on a road. He uses the number of lanes per side as his way of referring to how many lanes the road has. Thus, presumably he would refer to what most of us call a two-lane road (one lane each way with passing zones over the center line) as "one-lane." See below.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 01, 2023, 09:42:39 AM
I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2023, 10:09:16 PM
I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.
wut?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: J N Winkler on November 01, 2023, 10:20:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tmoore952 on November 01, 2023, 11:01:54 PM
No reason, since 895 merges with 95 like a mile north.
It's 4 miles away.  But you can't say...

Where 895 and 95 cross (wo interchange) in Baltimore is right where 83 would have come in when built. It would have come in around Boston St.
Boston St. does have interchanges with both 895 and 95 although I don't think all movements are possible.

I remember being driven through there on what is now 895 around 1983 when 95 was being built. Putting in an interchange there would be challenging. You are very close to the north portal of the Harbor Tunnel.

According to Wikipedia, the Harbor Tunnel Thruway was designated as I-895 in 1979. I thought it was a little later than that, but whatever. Point is that is was not an interstate for a very long time (25+ years).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2023, 11:30:41 PM
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.
I get that part - just not sure how it is relevant to the NJTP.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: LilianaUwU on November 01, 2023, 11:31:36 PM
I think once his plans are implemented, the speed limit should be raised to 85 mph and numbered to I-266.
wut?
Yeah, it should be I-366.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2023, 10:09:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 02, 2023, 11:00:25 AM
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...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 02, 2023, 05:57:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2023, 10:47:53 PM
In order to help distinguish between traffic issues and roadway closures on the car and truck lanes, especially utilizing GPS systems, and to provide the full Turnpike with an Interstate number...

From South to North: 

I-95 should enter NJ from the NJ/PA Turnpike Delaware River Bridge, then at Interchange 6 follow the outer roadway, then the westerly alignment, then continue towards the George Washington Bridge.

I-695 should start at the base of the Delaware Memorial Bridge as it veers away from I-295, follow the southern portion of the Turnpike from Interchanges 1 - 6, then the inner roadway, then the Easterly Alignment, terminating with 95 just before I-80.

BAM!  No one steal my idea.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Ted$8roadFan on November 03, 2023, 05:03:21 AM
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.


https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 03, 2023, 06:44:00 AM
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.


https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Well, the ACE, anyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 03, 2023, 07:24:40 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on November 03, 2023, 08:38:25 AM
ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.


https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Well, the ACE, anyway.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 03, 2023, 12:45:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2023, 01:38:07 PM
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.

Or copying the idea of unmarked I-76C, which is the highway 'stub' that goes from Walt Whitman Bridge over US 130 to NJ 168, that inner roadway can be unmarked I-695C.

ICYMI: electronic tolling coming to NJ.


https://www.governing.com/transportation/new-jersey-starts-transition-to-cashless-toll-collection
Well, the ACE, anyway.

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.

The conversion to AET is part of each agency's future Capital Plan.

For the NJTA:  On Page 12 of https://www.njta.com/media/7226/2023-2027_projects-summary-2023-01-10.pdf it notes money will be spent in 2025, then in 2027.  And that's just the start of it.  Per Pages 29 & 30 of https://www.njta.com/media/5832/2020_njtalongrangecapitalplan_v1-as-approved-may-2020.pdf , the entire AET conversion for both the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway will run about $900 million!

For the SJTA:  On PDF Page 9 of https://www.sjta.com/sjta/pdfs/2020/2020%20Capital%20Plan.pdf , the proposed project will be $40 million.  On Page 3 of   https://www.sjta.com/sjta/publish/library/Public_Notices/May%2017,%202023%20Board%20Agenda.pdf , contracts were awarded earlier in 2023 for about $35 million to construct the AET system on the AC Expressway, in which it appears gantries will be placed over the roadway between each interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 03, 2023, 02:10:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 03, 2023, 04:50:33 PM
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.
take it to Fictional (:
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 03, 2023, 06:34:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 03, 2023, 06:45:20 PM
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 don't think most Tpk & Pkwy travelers will mind the elimination of toll plazas. Per https://www.njta.com/investor-relations/traffic-revenue , 92.5% of travelers this past month used EZ Pass on the Turnpike, and slightly under 91% on the Parkway.

It's those other 8 - 9% of travelers that will mind, and what the NJTA will care about also, because they're going to have to send bills and hope people actually pay the bill.

I imagine full time toll collector positions have gone down considerably over the years, but I noted in the financials that part time positions are being reduced also, which may lead to additional overtime for the full timers.  In the past, when toll collector positions have been eliminated, the Authority has offered toll collectors other positions that they may qualify for, especially in maintenance.   

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.

It looks like this issue will be corrected on the ACX being they're placing gantries between each interchange.

For the Turnpike, that would be easy to resolve also, but as you pointed out they haven't done it yet.  Could be just ingrained culture that most people don't notice or mind.  The Parkway would require quite a number of gantries to have motorists incur tolls between every interchange, but at an estimated $500 million to construct the system, that may be what they're looking to do.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 03, 2023, 08:26:56 PM
I imagine that a lot of the gaps on the Parkway can be closed simply by reverting to two-way tolling on the mainline.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: MASTERNC on November 06, 2023, 01:00:03 PM
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.

The PA Turnpike has the same issue.  They note this is due to different "revenue requirements" that were set when each section was opened.  When open-road tolling gantries are activated, they will make the rates consistent on a per-mile basis.  My guess is this will be an upward movement (and not downward).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 06, 2023, 01:37:54 PM
And don't get me started on the Illinois Tollway where there are places you can exit and pay a ramp toll or stay on another few miles and pay a lower ramp toll or nothing at all (and vice versa for entrances). Examples: I-90 WB pay nothing to enter at I-290 or pay $0.45 farther west at Roselle Rd. and Barrington Rd. Or also on I-90 WB, pay $0.30 to exit at Exit 47 (IL-47) or go west another five miles to Exit 42 (US-20) and pay nothing to exit. Since both are in the influence area of the Elgin mainline toll, I-290 to U.S. 20 costs $0.75 (I-Pass/EZ-Pass) while the 10 miles shorter Barrington Rd. to IL-47 costs $1.50. Illinois Tollway has lost all sense of the logic of toll collection and just throws ramp tolls on at random every time they do a little bit of construction (all three cited interchanges, IL-47, Roselle Rd., and Barrington Rd. have the absurdity of ramp tolls in both directions which does not fit with a system where there is a mainline toll plaza which covers a segment of the road with ramp tolls to collect from those who don't pass through the mainline toll).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 06, 2023, 05:39:34 PM
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".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 06, 2023, 06:18:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 06, 2023, 06:40:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 06, 2023, 06:43:05 PM
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.

Them too. Those were first built and paid forand were intended as a free road even after toll bonds financed the rest.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2023, 06:58:10 PM
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!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 06, 2023, 07:09:40 PM
Them too. Those were first built and paid forand were intended as a free road even after toll bonds financed the rest.

And speaking of the 129-140 segment, a long, long time ago, I had a summer job with NJDOT where I was assigned to one of the maintenance sections to assist the regular guys as they took vacation. I was assigned to the maintenance yard in Clark on the GSP that took care of 129-140 since that was NJDOT back then. The coolest part was getting to ride up and down it in one the few trucks permitted to use it.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 06, 2023, 10:19:47 PM
I just remember how the GSP was multicolored in the Rand McNally Road Atlas to show the free and toll sections...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 06, 2023, 10:39:16 PM
My current Rand McNally roadmap of the NY Metro area still has the GS Parkway shown in a different color for the free section.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2023, 11:01:03 PM
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 don't think the area around Exits 9, 10 & 11 couldn't be tolled, but rather, Cape May County demanded that the new ramps remain free.  The NJTA said, fine, but we're not rushing to spend the money if we can't recoup it. 

This recollection would be from the late 1990s or early 2000s so finding this source on the internet is impossible. It's a distant memory now, but during the early 2000's it was a frustrating wait to finally get this section of road worked on to remove the lights.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2023, 12:07:52 AM
Will the free I-95 in Bergen County remain so? I wasn’t around when the NJTA bought the freeway from NJDOT, so I don’t know the arrangement made for future tolling. However New York does it on MTA bridges, as the toll crossings pay for the free ones. Like the Triborough pays for the Queensboro.

Between NJ and PA the DRJTBC has the toll bridges pay for the free ones as well. The Route 179 Bridge at Lambertville , NJ and New Hope, PA is free to its user but funded from the other toll bridges. Ditto for the Trenton Makes Bridge as it’s free but subsidized from the toll crossings. The Scudders Falls Bridge was free but the new crossing didn’t have the other crossings pick up the tab though. It’s now tolled.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 07, 2023, 12:51:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 07, 2023, 02:05:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on November 07, 2023, 02:24:45 PM
Boy, if the MTA is in charge of the free crossings, NYCDOT's got some 'splainin' to do with all the money NYSDOT's thrown at them for maintenance of them...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on November 07, 2023, 08:45:31 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bzakharin on November 09, 2023, 11:19:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 09, 2023, 10:22:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 11:24:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 13, 2023, 02:12:07 PM
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.

The history of the Expressway's Interchange 9 is relatively unusual compared to the rest of the highway.

Originally a partial interchange, EB traffic had a free exit leaving the Expressway, and a free onramp to go westbound. 

In the mid-late 1980's, the EB interchange was reconfigured and a tolled ramp onto the ACX EB was added, and a tolled ramp exiting WB was added.  The previously existing movements remained free.

In the late 1990's, the free ramps were modified to be tolled ramps.  My only assumption is the SJTA was trying to add business to their AC Airport, and figured they'll try to tap into the revenue stream of people arriving for flights.  Most airlines that attempted scheduled flights were never tremendously successful at the airport, and ultimately low-budget Spirit became the only airline with regularly scheduled flights.

The Expressway has long wanted to modify the interchange again by adding higher-speed ramps, but I haven't heard much on that lately.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ixnay on November 13, 2023, 07:59:30 PM
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. :)

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2023, 08:13:22 PM
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.”
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 11:18:39 AM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2023, 11:44:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpik
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2023, 11:54:43 AM
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.


Also to note no SB exits or NB entrances north of Pasack Valley Plaza either. That’s to get Thruway motorists to pay the toll at Pascack Valley first before exiting elsewhere on the road and for no locals using the Parkway for free NB north of the plaza from the crossroads.  Of course with one way tolling it changed that some, but the original concept made sense.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2023, 12:02:47 PM
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.

Well when Union was two way tolling, the way they had it laid out made sense, either you paid the toll at the mainline plaza or you paid it on the ramp so they got you either way coming on or off 78. The eliminated the toll from the southbound ramp to 78 West (and just never had that as an option for the new ramp to 78 East) to match the one way tolling config.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2023, 12:08:48 PM
Also one can enter from both Union Avenue ramps  to the Parkway South ( yes the 143 SB ramp is from the very same Union Avenue that is in Union from 142C)  as well as I-78 to the SB Parkway now and not pay a toll as well.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 15, 2023, 10:07:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Dough4872 on November 15, 2023, 11:51:29 PM
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?

The Pennsylvania Turnpike currently does ETC at the former toll plazas at interchanges but is in the process of installing mainline toll gantries between interchanges.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 16, 2023, 02:27:41 AM
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?

When the NY Thruway went ETC, the former 15 to 50 ticket section was divided into five virtual ticket sections with short sections in between them with mainline gantries between interchanges. The Erie section, the other former ticket section between 55 and 61, is now one virtual ticket section.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 16, 2023, 05:28:27 PM
You know the PTC did this setup with cash around Scranton.  They had the mainline toll between Keyser Avenue and Wyoming Valley and used the former Exit 39 toll at Clark’s Summit to be a mainline instead of tolling the ramp NB and SB on from Keyser. The Clark’s Summit Plaza charged all users from Keyser Avenue to the norther terminus and the mainline plaza between Wyoming Valley and Keyser Avenue charged all travel between PA 315 and Keyser without the need to have ramp tolls that sometimes aren’t fair.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on November 16, 2023, 06:26:14 PM
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.

The good and bad of Illinois Tollways. As they’ve made changes, they have also created places (mostly along I-90) where you pay to enter and the pay to exit at the first exit opportunity. There should always be an opportunity to exit without an additional toll after you pay a toll.

OTOH, the O’Hare arrangement (which goes back to the Tollway’s beginning) is well thought out. No matter how you arrive at the O’Hare interchange complex, you pay a toll as you exit the complex (whether on a ramp or mainline). Nobody pays twice and nobody gets a free ride. Similarly, the I-294/I-88 complex is well thought out with I-294 through traffic paying at an I-294 mainline toll while I-88 traffic to/from I-294 pay at an I-88 mainline toll with the I-294 mainline too between the ramps to/from I-88.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2023, 08:41:17 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Cs5FuHoDdfYNnmjc9
The exit overhead at SB Exit 4 is been dismantled in the GSV caption . Does this mean normal exit guides here with MUTCD compliant are coming to this locale?

Look back and see the former guide just had exit number only and no mention of Route 73 or Camden which was not in union with anything.

Oh never mind.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/igWQuQcLZu33sxq7A
It has new compliant signs.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 20, 2023, 02:04:42 PM
...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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 20, 2023, 04:41:07 PM
Here is the 1/4 mile sign on the NJTP NB approaching Exit 4 (NJ 73) taken on Saturday. (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10219681141179562&set=a.10219681205621173)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53403903856_2a5fdbb030_c.jpg)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on November 20, 2023, 07:09:27 PM
...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.
1/4 mile sign belongs 1/4 mile before the exit gore, per MUTCD. NJTP chooses to have a long exit to facilitate decel.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on November 20, 2023, 07:51:28 PM
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 does follow MUTCD spec's. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 20, 2023, 11:48:44 PM
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. 

Previously, the Turnpike generally used overhead signage at the 2 mile and 1 mile marks only.  The 1/4 mile signage is a new addition, but it just appears odd at the location used.  I'd rather have seen them use a 1/2 mile sign then use the arrow sign in its more commonly used location.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 12:15:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2023, 07:40:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 08:18:02 AM
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.

In many interchanges, they used old ones, but yes generally they’re new in or about the same spot. Exit 4 SB got moved back to before the deceleration lanes on a new rust colored gantry. The NB uses the old Exit 4 gantry that had a lane control arrow for the deceleration lane as I assume it still has life in it as it’s SB counterpart must of been functionally obsolete and determined its outlived its service life for replacement.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on November 21, 2023, 11:56:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2023, 12:56:00 AM
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 didn’t mean old as in ancient, I meant to old before the recent MUTCD change. In most cases the NJTA when converting to MUTCD left the preexisting gantries ( no matter how old or new) up and added the odd 1/4 mile guides ( as Jeff pointed out shouldn’t be used at a start of a deceleration lane why I consider them odd) were most likely considered for supporting them because, simply, that they’re there.

I also noticed that SB Exit 4 replaced ( and relocated) a guide on a newer gantry in that NB at the same interchange kept using the preexisting and hypothesized that maybe the NJTA didn’t replace the gantry was that the last inspection revealed it still had life in it making it cost effective to keep it unlike it’s SB counterpart that revealed to be cost prohibitive to maintain.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: bwana39 on December 01, 2023, 05:09:17 PM
Againers on the NJT

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/residents-outraged-over-controversial-10-billion-highway-expansion-in-major-city-i-don-t-understand-why/ar-AA1kN8xH?cvid=91d3cb30766247dd805b17446d317d56&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=9
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on December 01, 2023, 08:30:20 PM
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?

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?   
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Rothman on December 01, 2023, 09:03:41 PM
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?

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?
That was discussed on the forum somewhere, maybe even in this thread...
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on December 01, 2023, 10:28:47 PM
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?

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?   
From the article:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 02, 2023, 09:30:51 AM
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?

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?   
From the article:

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: kernals12 on December 13, 2023, 01:39:03 PM
I assume that article is talking about the Western Leg from Exits 15 to 18?

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?   
From the article:

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.

It's sad that Hudson County residents have internalized the narcissistic view held by New Yorkers that all the infrastructure in the tri-state area is there to serve Manhattan.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 24, 2023, 04:43:13 PM
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/
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on December 24, 2023, 05:00:32 PM
Is it a "narcissistic view", or is it the truth?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 24, 2023, 06:36:36 PM
Is it a "narcissistic view", or is it the truth?

Depends on how you see it. At least the person acknowledges that there are other roads even more expensive than New Jersey. Then again the NJ Turnpike is also expensive in another way.

The publisher, at least is letting the reader decide.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on December 24, 2023, 07:11:54 PM
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
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 24, 2023, 11:01:28 PM
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."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on December 24, 2023, 11:49:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 24, 2023, 11:59:17 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on December 25, 2023, 12:23:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 25, 2023, 02:10:00 AM
I will say one thing. AZ Animals don’t know anything about both Delaware and Florida. Like Jeff pointed out, they have the Delaware Turnpike at 67 miles and as far as Florida goes, the turnpike in the Sunshine State running from Homestead to Jacksonville when the road goes no where near Jacksonville.

What’s interesting is this is shared by a radio station who has loyal listeners who gobble this crap up.  Most of the people who believe this are those who are not on the spectrum and are typical Americans with families and hear to believe this. No wonder why we are a messed up culture here in our own nation. If this is allowed, then we have to assume other stuff is to.

However, I would say that New Jersey Turnpike is one of ( not the) the most expensive roads around. Also not at $14 average, Delaware is still high per mile for its 11 miles of actual freeway.  Plus PA at shelling out over a hundred bucks is the most expensive one trip travel around despite it mileage.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TheDon102 on December 25, 2023, 09:02:05 AM
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)
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 25, 2023, 09:08:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TheDon102 on December 25, 2023, 09:19:06 AM
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?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 25, 2023, 12:34:16 PM
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?
Maybe if you're a truck.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 25, 2023, 12:35:15 PM
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 avoid the traffic from NYC to richmond use I-78, I-81, and US 15 (or I-70 if you must) to I-270.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: sprjus4 on December 25, 2023, 12:44:59 PM
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.

Also, most would cut over down near I-26 in South Carolina, following I-77 to I-81 - not indirectly via I-64 at Richmond. Over a 12+ hour drive, it only adds roughly an hour, which can easily be added to the direct I-95 route if you hit the Washington-Baltimore metro at the wrong time. There is also substantially less traffic in comparison to I-95.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: storm2k on December 25, 2023, 06:41:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 25, 2023, 10:58:33 PM
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. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 02:11:03 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/uF9yFzWbcUSZAvdA8
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on December 26, 2023, 10:55:30 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/uF9yFzWbcUSZAvdA8
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.
Anyone else read that sign as "DC 1000"?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jmacswimmer on December 26, 2023, 11:04:33 AM
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.

For the Delaware Turnpike, my only theory is if they incorrectly included the mileage for the adjoining JFK Highway in Maryland towards that 67-mile total they came up with. As for the $14 toll, only way I can think of to reach that number is a roundtrip on the JFK Highway & Delaware Turnpike with a Maryland E-ZPass: $6 (MD rate) northbound only at the Tydings Bridge, then $4 each way at the Newark toll plaza.

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. 

I forget where I read this, but my understanding is that there's no actual structural limitations with the bridges or pavement along that stretch of DE 4. So it is indeed for legal & ticketing purposes a weight limit along that stretch, but the motivation behind it still appears to be to knock out the easiest shunpiking route for trucks.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 26, 2023, 11:43:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on December 26, 2023, 12:24:06 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zQ1YDgd11CyUr7ZZ7
Is that left toll lane at 18E using the passenger side window to distribute the tickets? I know once upon a time Exit 1 had a lane where the collector was on the right and either collected money from the right passenger or gave out tickets from the right.  Is the NJTA still doing that here ?

Never mind. I panned back. It’s EZ Pass only. Sorry.

They did though have that setup reaching across or having the passenger pay the toll in the seventies in South Jersey.  It was odd, but even  Disney had that entering the Magic Kingdom parking toll. One person collected two tolls fro two windows.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 26, 2023, 12:42:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: 1995hoo on December 26, 2023, 01:29:13 PM
I haven't driven through there (as opposed to passing through on the Acela) in years. The last time I drove north, we took the Bay Bridge and went up the Eastern Shore because I wanted to check out the new US-301, and that was now over four years ago June 2019). Hence why I began my comment with the words "[f]rom what I've heard."
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tmoore952 on December 27, 2023, 01:24:11 PM
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."

Let me try this again (I had a whole response typed out but it wouldn't post).

There are several problems with the Delaware Turnpike paragraph, and for that reason it is not easy to make simple corrections. I'm not getting paid for correcting erroneous claims by NJ radio stations, so I'll only cover one of them.

If you replace "Delaware Turnpike" with "JFK Memorial Highway" you get close to the listed mileage. It is 64 miles from the I-95/295/495 interchange in Delaware (historically known as Farnhurst Interchange) to the MD 43 (Exit 77) interchange in MD, which is where the JFK Memorial Highway originally ended.  I suspect for the radio station to get to 67 miles (and the listed toll) they are including the approximately 3 miles to the NJ line via the Delaware Memorial Bridge (and including that toll), but those three miles are not (and have never been) part of either the Delaware Turnpike OR the JFK Memorial Highway.

The other thing I'll mention, is that when I do shunpike near Newark (I normally only do this southbound -- northbound I usually use US 1 since I am going to the extreme northern tip of Delaware), I use DE 4 sometimes, and other times I use Chestnut Hill Road (which is the old DE 4 -- until the 1980s). I've never had any problems with speeding, which is easy when you don't speed.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2023, 07:29:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 27, 2023, 10:39:09 PM
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.

Those options were a bit tricky if you didn't know where you were going.  Old Chapel Hill into 279 is still available though.

There's another alternative, via 896 South to Old Baltimore Pike, but same thing - you gotta know when to turn to use it effectively.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on January 23, 2024, 09:05:48 PM
...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.
1/4 mile sign belongs 1/4 mile before the exit gore, per MUTCD. NJTP chooses to have a long exit to facilitate decel.

Update to this discussion: I recently discovered that on the Garden State Pkwy. at some exits (notably 163 northbound) unbelievably there is no sign at all at the beginning of the long deceleration lane. Last advance sign is 1/2 mile back. And what's worse is the new (2023) MUTCD actually permits this practice. (Pages 305, 316, Sec. 2E-25-05). On page 305 the graphic surprisingly shows the last advance sign as far back as 1 mile before an unsigned decel. lane. The new Manual recommends (not a standard) that if the exit direction sign is mounted overhead, then it should be in vicinity of the theoretical gore, not at the beginning of the decel. lane.

I think a sign at the beginning of a parallel (not tapered) deceleration lane should be required. At least on the Turnpike, they have the 1/4 mile sign. Can't imagine why they didn't follow the same practice on the GS Parkway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 31, 2024, 10:37:11 PM
One of the more grim aspects of driving is that fatals are going to happen.  One of the things the NJTA is open about is listing the fatal crashes for the year on the Turnpike and Parkway.  In January's meeting agenda, every crash that resulted in a fatality in 2023 is printed with a description of the accident investigation and the number of people that died.  It does not list names.

There were 24 fatal crashes on the Turnpike, with 27 deaths.  There were 17 fatals on the Parkway, with 19 deaths.

Pages 86-94 of the January Meeting Agenda: https://www.njta.com/media/7973/njta-final-agenda-for-bm-1-30-2024.pdf

Continuing on Page 95 is the monthly report of crashes, aides, and summonses on the NJTA roadways, with YTD summary.  To summarize for both toll roads, in 2023 the NJSP investigated 16,807 crashes (more than 2022), responded to 45,169 calls for aid (more than 2022), and issued 107,273 summonses (less than 2022).  If you think most of them were for speeding, you would be way wrong (although they were most likely the majority of any type of ticket issued).  In 2023 only 15,878 tickets were written for speeding, about 15% of the overall total.  Most were written on the Parkway.  Focusing on the Turnpike, only 5,618 speeding tickets were issued, about 15 per day.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 01, 2024, 12:19:03 AM
3% toll hike on the Turnpike system starting on March 1st (it's been approved by Gov. Murphy)... Going up another 15 cents!
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2024, 07:12:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 08:22:46 AM
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.

Those figures are averages, based on what the average traveler spends on the Turnpike and Parkway.

For the full length, it appears the Turnpike will have a 60 - 65 cent increase for cash and Peak Time EZ Pass travelers, from $20.05 to $20.65 or $20.70 (depending on how they round the increase). Off Peak EZ Pass travelers should see an increase of about 45-46 cents, from $15.01 to $15.46 or $15.47.

Parkway travelers driving the full length paying cash should see an increase of about 35 cents, from $11.55 to $11.90. EZ Pass users will go from $11.11 to $11.44 or $11.45.

In one story I read, some politicians are upset at the annual increases. Maybe they need to be reminded the annual increases are in response to politician's grips of occasional tolling changes that saw large price increases, which they didn't like either.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 01, 2024, 05:10:04 PM
Any news on the I-695 for the spur? Or is that just an official office use thing?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 01, 2024, 05:19:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 01, 2024, 05:31:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 01, 2024, 07:00:47 PM
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.

This one:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33230.msg2868762#msg2868762
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 02, 2024, 05:04:37 PM
What were the determining factors in which alignment (East or West) would be the I-695.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 02, 2024, 06:41:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on February 02, 2024, 07:57:23 PM
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.

Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 02, 2024, 09:02:58 PM
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.

One of the excellent design elements of the "Northern Mixing Bowl" is that eastern road to/from I-80 and western road to/from GWB do not share any roadway. As you said, minimizes weaving and minimizes the impact of congestion in one of the major movements on the other. From the viewpoint of traffic flow logic, it's the same as if the "West-GWB" highway crossed the "Lincoln Tunnel-I-80" highway at an interchange.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: artmalk on February 02, 2024, 09:45:14 PM
So does this mean we will actually see I-695 on the Eastern spur? If so, when?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 02, 2024, 10:45:16 PM
Well for what it's worth, I think the current sign configurations are good. Seems to me that adding yet another route number to this already complicated road maze will just cause more complexity that we don't need. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tmoore952 on February 02, 2024, 10:49:50 PM
The 10 or so times I have driven to the GWB using the NJT, I always preferred the Eastern alignment precisely because it was the original route. I'd even get off at the US 46 EB exit and take that to the GWB.

I did take the Western alignment a couple times, and while it was nice, I missed the historical context since it was built later.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 03, 2024, 02:44:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: TheDon102 on February 03, 2024, 03:19:58 PM
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.

If I'm not mistaken the western spur is supposed to be widened soon
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 03, 2024, 04:47:14 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 04, 2024, 04:09:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 04, 2024, 04:56:37 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 04, 2024, 07:02:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 04, 2024, 07:08:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 04, 2024, 08:05:38 PM
If they absolutely have to assign an Interstate route number to both legs, why not simplify it by calling them 95W and 95E ?
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 04, 2024, 08:22:58 PM
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.

Right. To me they’re two different alignments of the same through road.  I never had a problem with two I-95s there and it’s been well over 50 years and now they want to change.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tmoore952 on February 04, 2024, 08:46:50 PM
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 grew up right near I-95 on the north side of Wilmington.

NJ can have all the through traffic to NY-NE. Philly's bad enough as it is. Chester has a tight squeeze just south of Comm. Barry Bridge with houses on either side for which nothing can be done without a complete rerouting (the road there was actually US 322. before I-95 was built).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on February 05, 2024, 02:05:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 05, 2024, 06:32:08 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 05, 2024, 08:30:56 PM
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.

Funny, the old signs said "To 46 80"
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 05, 2024, 09:53:27 PM
Considering New Jersey was always big with Exit numbers as a reference, it’s hard to believe that they won’t be signed anymore at the Newark Split.

Considering that northbound approach to that split is sort of like the end of the mainline that splits into two separate extensions ( hence the name spurs) that further exit info would be still used.

IMO they should have tabs that are similar to I-78 EB with Exits 14A-14C to be Exits 15W-18W for the west and Exits 15E-18E for the original east approaching the split.    SB at Ridgefield Park should use a supplemental sign denoting the east spur for Exits 17- 15x and west spur for 19W-16W.  16E is irrelevant SB and both 15E and 15W are accessible from either so no tabs needed there.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: SignBridge on February 05, 2024, 10:12:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 05, 2024, 10:38:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 06, 2024, 12:55:36 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jmacswimmer on February 06, 2024, 01:09:58 PM
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).

And the PTC seems to be phasing them out as they replace signs - here's examples from Breezewood (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.989002,-78.2549311,3a,75y,251.1h,85.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRXKtBjvGLOL5Plq66b6-5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), Downingtown (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0667128,-75.6679889,3a,75y,56.28h,91.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNCEFfGH9Rmd1iIjaScVhLw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), Willow Grove (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1631546,-75.1202966,3a,75y,132.07h,86.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snDXVB7a8Jwya7UB3o1ec9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), Bensalem (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1335613,-74.970112,3a,75y,269.89h,84.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shGYFxGEoEMP90iq598EwKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu), & Allentown (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5922807,-75.5682327,3a,75y,120.99h,86.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSNU3WWIEvBcbyLVPGtTteg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Mergingtraffic on February 06, 2024, 08:02:20 PM
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.
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 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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 06, 2024, 09:15:05 PM
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.
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 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 was wondering why the Harmon Meadows Blvd overpass is built with provisions for an outer roadway on both sides. Considering that was built in the early eighties a decade after the Western Spur Opened, it was clear that there was a proposal to add a dual carriageway on the Eastern Spur or some sort of other configuration.


Also the phase out on both PA and N.Y. toll road ramp exit numbers might be because of AET. Remember that the Exit numbers on the NJ Turnpike are for ticket reference more than anything. It helps the driver at a quick glance locate his or her exit to figure the toll.  In fact Exit 1 is not a specific ramp, nor is Exits 18E& W as they are the toll booths that handle the cash collection and ticket distribution for through traffic at both end of the ticket system.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 06, 2024, 10:19:46 PM
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.
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 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.

They're widening 1 - 4.  The roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 will remain as is, as there's very few traffic issues in that area other than SB traffic approaching Interchange 4 due to the narrowing.

I would imagine widening 1 - 4 may be a priority due to the age of the infrastructure.  Every overpass that hasn't been widened or otherwise reconstructed since the Turnpike's opening is over 70 years old at this point, and they're all located in this stretch of highway.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 07, 2024, 12:49:44 AM
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.

The Westerly Alignment was already in planning to be expanded to dual-dual by the late 1980s. I have the plan somewhere and if I ever find myself with a lot of time on my hands will scan them. But of course that (and the concurrent Route 17 extension to the Turnpike) never happened. I suspect in today’s climate, literally and figuratively, any expansion here will be more modest.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 07, 2024, 09:02:24 PM
Someone here already posted the plans for the widening. It had some pretty crazy ramps at the Pulaski Skyway.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Steve D on February 08, 2024, 09:29:34 AM
Someone here already posted the plans for the widening. It had some pretty crazy ramps at the Pulaski Skyway.

That was me from about 10 years ago.  Search for the "Old NJ Turnpike Photos" thread.  I posted pictures of the proposed widening of exits 15E, 15W, and 16W with the new ramps, from the 1985-90 Turnpike widening program report.    However I did not have pictures of the proposed exit 15W-A which was in a draft version of the report but did not make the final.  I recall the design of Exit 15W-A was similar to that of the proposed 16W which I posted (double Y-shape).  I think 15W-A was supposed to connect to either state route 17 or 20.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 08, 2024, 12:44:13 PM
I believe it was indeed 17, and the space between 17, 3, and the Turnpike at that time was discussed as the location for a new baseball stadium, the NJSEA apparently taking George Steinbrenner’s moving threats seriously. I’ll dig out my copy.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: ran4sh on February 08, 2024, 07:25:59 PM
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 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.

277 might be shorter but it has way more exits
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: FLAVORTOWN on February 12, 2024, 11:22:33 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8459564,-74.0177971,3a,54.6y,199.98h,98.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_N6vxOO7gKHiLsODbZQ5sg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

The empty areas make sense now with the I-695 application
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 03:22:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2024, 04:39:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2024, 12:55:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2024, 01:33:57 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2024, 01:41:13 PM
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).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2024, 03:08:20 PM
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).

I should have said "(virtual) ticket toll roads".
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: tmoore952 on February 13, 2024, 04:53:16 PM
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).

For that reason,  was hard for me to think of it as a turnpike when I was in college. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2024, 09:33:53 PM
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.

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.
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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 09:41:47 PM
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.

I think NJTA was trying to avoid this.

Also in NJ US 130 has no exit number on the Pearl Harbor Extension.  Even when it was an EB only exit to Cedar Lane it had none, but the NJTA did in paperwork call it 6A.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Henry on February 13, 2024, 09:49:46 PM
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 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.

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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2024, 10:04:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: lstone19 on February 13, 2024, 10:17:41 PM
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.

To me, Woodbury was Toll Plaza 15 while Exit 15 was the physical exit at Suffern. And that’s no different that the other exit/plaza combinations as built (B3, 50, 55, and 61). But when they made the toll system change that resulted in the Woodbury plaza, the number system was long established. For those who don’t know, as built, the ticket system started at Spring Valley and was designated 14. It was west of both physical exit 14 and the added 14A. 15 was a normal trumpet with a ramp toll plaza for ticket distribution and payment. 14B and 15A had not been built with 17 going around the hill rather than via the Thruway between 15 and 15A. 16 was a normal trumpet.

In the 70’s, they did the reconfiguration. The main driver was to get the Catskills traffic going to/from 16 out of the ticket system. Spring Valley became a fixed rate toll, the ramp plaza at 15 Suffern went away, the Woodbury plaza was built between the ramps at 16, and the 16 Harriman ticket plaza became mostly the fixed rate barrier for traffic to/from the south plus a lane or two on its north end for traffic exiting from the north (traffic entering going north, as I described in the last note, paid the fixed toll, then got a ticket discounted for the amount pre-paid).
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: vdeane on February 13, 2024, 10:35:52 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 10:49:10 PM
Entering SB from 19W was odd as you paid the toll SB at wherever you exited but got the ticket at Entry point 18W. So you entered the freeway at 19 W, but entered the toll system at 18W.

Back before 19W was numbered, we were leaving the Meadowlands Arena and we came by taking the Turmpike to Exit 16W and following NJ 120 to the parking lots. When we left the arena, we followed the signs which led us on from what is now 19W. My dad got annoyed when he noticed a higher toll going home than coming not realizing he entered via a different exit plaza. I realized what was going on, that the NJTA and the NJ Sports Authority had signed exit traffic to use the most convenient way to the road SB not caring that drivers would pay, back then about ten or fifteen cents more, to enter from the next entry point, but my dad thought politics from the state of NJ suckering the consumers.

The Turnpike used to do that ( and still probably do that today) charge 14 toll rates going NB and 13 rates going SB to use 13A.  That was cause the NJTA didn’t want to lose toll revenue as those going NB that were using 14 prior to 1982 to the airport before 13A opened to traffic now to the airport would be using 13A and pay a shorter distance toll. For SB it was cause those using 13 for Elizabeth pre 1982 would now use 13A and again if they were fair to charge the right fare would lose out again.  So they got this approved by the state and had the media relay this fact to the public, so people would know this scam when 13A was approved with NJ 81 at construction.
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2024, 11:56:37 PM
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.

But is it a good precedent?  It seems like the 35E/W is brought up as an argument that it's been done before, but it appears it's really due to both Dallas and Fort Worth, and St. Paul and Minneapolis, both wanting a 2 digit Interstate number going thru their cities, so this was the compromise.   

If we wanted to go down that rabbit hole, we could've nixed the sole 95 around DC, and used 95W on the western half of the beltway and 95E on the eastern half of the beltway. Or allow E/W or N/S numbers rather than 3 digit numbers that are the norm.

The NJ Turnpike Authority never seemed to be ok with 95W & 95E, otherwise they would've signed it as such over the past 50 years. 
Title: Re: New Jersey Turnpike
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2024, 06:41:46 PM
I'll note that the Turnpike numbers toll plazas, not interchanges. That is why 16E, 17, and 18E are all in the same spot - 16E is for the exit, 18E is for the mainline, and 17 is a different plaza. That is why Exits 1 and 6A aren't signed - 1 is a mainline plaza and 6A is the lone booth left at 130.