I have always been fascinated by the way NJ 35 ends and transitions into NJ 27 in Rahway, NJ with no END and shield pairs of the new route to come. As NJ 35 N Bound defaults onto NJ 27 N Bound along the infamous St. George Avenue, it has only one sign to acknowledge the upcoming NJ 27 in the form of a JCT sign at the South Branch Rahway River. Nothing else.
This is primarily so because of Amtrak's NE Corridor that spans over NJ 35 at its northern terminus. In addition to add to the challenge, the NJ 35 & NJ 27 intersection has Colonia Boulevard also coming in from the same side as NJ 27 South making it a 5 way intersection. So I can see why NJDOT did a terrible job in signing the two directions of NJ 27 especially that railroads do not like road agencies for using their property as overhead signs even though car dealers and other businesses can paint billboards on them.
I myself would attach an overhead sign with a diagram of the 5 way intersection showing Colonia Boulevard a 90 degree left beyond the 45 degree left for NJ 27 South. Then I would use Metuchen for NJ 27 South in addition and also use NJ 27 North for straight with Elizabeth. The sign would be just before New Brunswick Avenue as there is no room between New Brunswick and the railroad overpass as well as the bridge being at an angle.
How would you sign that intersection so that NJ 27 gets the signage it deserves?
It should be something like:
END 35
JCT 27
with or without destinations.
A lot of routes are missing end route markers, even if they are less than 1/2 mile in length you are lucky they are signed at all. Route 35 should have been extended past Route 37, perhaps to intersect Route 24.
Perhaps using Original Lincoln Highway signage would provide continuity.
No one cares about route numbers. JCT 27, left arrow and straight arrow. Put NORTH 27 and SOUTH 27 reassurance markers so it's easy to see what's what. Done.
Quote from: J Route Z on January 27, 2015, 08:52:22 PM
It should be something like:
END 35
JCT 27
with or without destinations.
A lot of routes are missing end route markers, even if they are less than 1/2 mile in length you are lucky they are signed at all. Route 35 should have been extended past Route 37, perhaps to intersect Route 24.
I assume extended past NJ 27? It does extend past NY 37 at the other end, terminating at Island Beach State Park.
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2015, 11:10:57 PM
No one cares about route numbers. JCT 27, left arrow and straight arrow. Put NORTH 27 and SOUTH 27 reassurance markers so it's easy to see what's what. Done.
Agreed. Adding an END NJ 35 shield in there would be good, too.
35 was going to extend to Paterson when it was part of 4.
Even if you extend NJ 35, you still have the issue of the railroad overpass and the 5 way intersection. The post is how you would deal with overcoming this particular obstacle if you were required to sign this intersection.
Similar to this before the overpass with an End 35 Ahead? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.914816,-75.009447,3a,37.5y,246.81h,86.33t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sSocMOLY9pbdT2JOMyubhmg!2e0!5s20120801T000000!5m1!1e1
Of course it would be 27 N and S with the N one being forward instead of to the right, but a similar assembly. No need for overheads. And of course a re-assurance 27 N marker right at the intersection, preferably with another End 35.
Quote from: bzakharin on January 29, 2015, 02:48:56 PM
Similar to this before the overpass with an End 35 Ahead? https://www.google.com/maps/@39.914816,-75.009447,3a,37.5y,246.81h,86.33t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sSocMOLY9pbdT2JOMyubhmg!2e0!5s20120801T000000!5m1!1e1
Of course it would be 27 N and S with the N one being forward instead of to the right, but a similar assembly. No need for overheads. And of course a re-assurance 27 N marker right at the intersection, preferably with another End 35.
There is no room for shields even at the intersection due to the Amtrak overpass. So a little green sign would not even fit either. Heck even the signaling is side mounted because of the lack of space and only one overhead signal head.
I think that the intersection of SR 413 and US 13 in Bristol, PA is a fittingly similar example, considering the NEC railroad tracks also intervenes immediately before the intersection: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.098075,-74.871966&spn=0.003792,0.00728&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.098039,-74.872862&panoid=g1b6du9DhmgsEbgiD0p9Lg&cbp=12,294.69,,0,0.41
I would say that, like PennDOT did here, simply erect a smallish BGS (or gantry-mounted LGS, though that may be semantics) immediately in front of the railroad trestle with a similar legend as in the link that bzakharin posted (i.e., NJ 27 South {left arrow} | North {straight arrow}). If the sign were small, similar to the one shown in the link above, you could even fit a second small BGS/gantry-mounted LGS saying "End NJ 35."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe40i34j.png&hash=35001b9108c0f371ba42bc41d3ffeb448beea6ab)
Do like Maryland does. Put an oversized 27 South sheild assembly with a big left arrow on that traffic light pole in the middle part of the intersection. Then a 27 North reassurance shield just past the intersection. Problem solved.
Yeah I have been meaning to ask about that one. Is that large shield on the left side in MD a new ruling that their state MUTCD requires in signing practices?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 13, 2015, 01:21:14 PM
Yeah I have been meaning to ask about that one. Is that large shield on the left side in MD a new ruling that their state MUTCD requires in signing practices?
Found this in Maryland's 2011 MUTCD (Section 2D.30):
Along State owned, operated and maintained roadways, a supplemental Junction Assembly may be
considered for the left side of any multi-lane one way roadway, including roadways that are part of a divided highway.