Anything wrong with this?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fgsp%2Fs98_2.jpg&hash=c66762c39b80f8372e7a3b4a123887b5bc85dd40)
The number tab is in the middle; one of the state route signs is a cutout, and the other is not.
Plus, the "9" in "195" is a bit funky. It appears to be FHWA style, but with an extra tail.
That, and the "EXIT" in "EXIT 1 3/4 MILES". It is usually considered unnecessary with the tab.
Other than that this is vintage NJ Highway Authority work? It gets the point across, just with weirdness that NJHA put into their signs back in the day.
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:45:28 PM
Plus, the "9" in "195" is a bit funky. It appears to be FHWA style, but with an extra tail.
Looks more like a stretched Arial if you ask me... for the
9 that is.
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:45:28 PM
That, and the "EXIT" in "EXIT 1 3/4 MILES". It is usually considered unnecessary with the tab.
Personal speculation; the exit tab was added on later. The main BGS legend was mistakenly designed without an exit tab in mind (or when NJHA exit tab specs only included the exit number but no
EXIT text).
i wonder if the 138 shield is covering up a cutout 38 shield.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2015, 01:12:04 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 06, 2015, 12:45:28 PM
That, and the "EXIT" in "EXIT 1 3/4 MILES". It is usually considered unnecessary with the tab.
Personal speculation; the exit tab was added on later. The main BGS legend was mistakenly designed without an exit tab in mind (or when NJHA exit tab specs only included the exit number but no EXIT text).
Very likely that at one point the sign just had a "98" tab, as the NJHA used to do. They probably changed the tab to add "Exit" at a later time.
Quote from: odditude on May 06, 2015, 01:14:45 PM
i wonder if the 138 shield is covering up a cutout 38 shield.
That's highly likely. NJ-38 lived on the books for years before it was cancelled over in that area.
I also note that the inter-line spacing between the destinations appears to be less than standard - which leads me to suspect that the sign was overlaid at some point to add a third destination.
The 9 is not compressed F. Could be an alternate version or something.
The exit tab has the word EXIT in Series C, which most of the time Series E is used. The tab is also in the middle, rather than on the right.
Quote from: storm2k on May 06, 2015, 03:24:51 PM
Quote from: odditude on May 06, 2015, 01:14:45 PM
i wonder if the 138 shield is covering up a cutout 38 shield.
That's highly likely. NJ-38 lived on the books for years before it was cancelled over in that area.
That is the case. 38 was signed in this area, where the segment of roadway was known to locals as "The Army Mile" (it served the Camp Evans Area / Marconi installation.) The Whitman-era bridge mileage identifiers even referenced mileage measured from the Camden-area western terminus of 38.
As my stepdad would say, "As long as you can read it..."
ixnay
Besides the cutout shield, the 195 shield is definitely funky.
Aside from the funky '195' and the differing state route shields, the other thing I noticed is that the exit tab is kind of small.
Quote from: Gnutella on May 08, 2015, 04:33:32 PM
Aside from the funky '195' and the differing state route shields, the other thing I noticed is that the exit tab is kind of small.
Insufficient left and right margins. However, given it was obviously an add-on to the sign panel after the fact, I'm presuming the minimal size was deliberate for structural reasons. As such, I'm willing to forgive
NJDOT NJTA for that particular fault.
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
As such, I'm willing to forgive NJDOT for that particular fault.
NJTA (NJHA before '03) - this is on the GSP.
Quote from: odditude on May 08, 2015, 06:15:55 PM
NJTA (NJHA before '03) - this is on the GSP.
Appreciate the clarification - I've revised my original post.
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
As such, I'm willing to forgive NJDOT NHTA for that particular fault.
What's NHTA? I'm hoping that you meant NJHA.
Quote from: signalman on May 08, 2015, 07:06:36 PM
Quote from: roadman on May 08, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
As such, I'm willing to forgive NJDOT NHTA for that particular fault.
What's NHTA? I'm hoping that you meant NJHA.
My bad for typing so fast - I combined both acronyms - have corrected to NJTA.
Quote from: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
Anything wrong with this?
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
Quote from: dave1013 on May 12, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.
At first glance, I'll say TMI :love:.
I know there are 3 routes and most likely -- since I don't live there -- 1 CC for each route. I would have one or two of those CCs on a separate supplementary sign to lessen the clutter.
...And Route 34 should be on the left instead of Route 138 East.
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2015, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: dave1013 on May 12, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.
Also, as has been noted in this thread, this signage was erected by the New Jersey Highway Authority (which ran the Parkway until it was merged into the Turnpike Authority), which quasi-followed MUTCD standards, but only to a certain point. This sign will likely be replaced at some point with MUTCD compliant signage, including no black backing on the shields, as the NJTA does not use it and NJDOT is moving away from it as well.
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2015, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2015, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: dave1013 on May 12, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.
Also, as has been noted in this thread, this signage was erected by the New Jersey Highway Authority (which ran the Parkway until it was merged into the Turnpike Authority), which quasi-followed MUTCD standards, but only to a certain point. This sign will likely be replaced at some point with MUTCD compliant signage, including no black backing on the shields, as the NJTA does not use it and NJDOT is moving away from it as well.
NJDOT is
sorta moving away from it. Hard to tell at this point, as any given contract might go one way or the other.
Quote from: Alps on May 13, 2015, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2015, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2015, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: dave1013 on May 12, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.
Also, as has been noted in this thread, this signage was erected by the New Jersey Highway Authority (which ran the Parkway until it was merged into the Turnpike Authority), which quasi-followed MUTCD standards, but only to a certain point. This sign will likely be replaced at some point with MUTCD compliant signage, including no black backing on the shields, as the NJTA does not use it and NJDOT is moving away from it as well.
NJDOT is sorta moving away from it. Hard to tell at this point, as any given contract might go one way or the other.
Hard to tell what NJDOT is doing with a lot of things, unless there are just some things that were in the pipe that are coming out differently, e.g., Clearview on signs, some shields have backings and others don't. They're usually a lot more consistent.
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2015, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 13, 2015, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2015, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2015, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: dave1013 on May 12, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.
Also, as has been noted in this thread, this signage was erected by the New Jersey Highway Authority (which ran the Parkway until it was merged into the Turnpike Authority), which quasi-followed MUTCD standards, but only to a certain point. This sign will likely be replaced at some point with MUTCD compliant signage, including no black backing on the shields, as the NJTA does not use it and NJDOT is moving away from it as well.
NJDOT is sorta moving away from it. Hard to tell at this point, as any given contract might go one way or the other.
Hard to tell what NJDOT is doing with a lot of things, unless there are just some things that were in the pipe that are coming out differently, e.g., Clearview on signs, some shields have backings and others don't. They're usually a lot more consistent.
Well the Clearview is apparently an experiment that they're moving on from, so no further concern on that front.
I applaud New Jersey's way of applying Clearview -- limiting it to certain stretches of roads/highways. It makes it easier to replace it in bulk than to having to chase after the random placements that other states do when replacing/upgrading older signs.
Quote from: Alps on May 13, 2015, 11:58:07 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2015, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 13, 2015, 06:25:37 PM
Quote from: storm2k on May 13, 2015, 12:21:52 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on May 12, 2015, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: dave1013 on May 12, 2015, 11:43:20 AM
Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion. Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.
New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.
Also, as has been noted in this thread, this signage was erected by the New Jersey Highway Authority (which ran the Parkway until it was merged into the Turnpike Authority), which quasi-followed MUTCD standards, but only to a certain point. This sign will likely be replaced at some point with MUTCD compliant signage, including no black backing on the shields, as the NJTA does not use it and NJDOT is moving away from it as well.
NJDOT is sorta moving away from it. Hard to tell at this point, as any given contract might go one way or the other.
Hard to tell what NJDOT is doing with a lot of things, unless there are just some things that were in the pipe that are coming out differently, e.g., Clearview on signs, some shields have backings and others don't. They're usually a lot more consistent.
Well the Clearview is apparently an experiment that they're moving on from, so no further concern on that front.
I'm actually amazed it was an experiment at all. It really looked like NJDOT wasn't going to move away from classic Highway Gothic at all for a long time.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 14, 2015, 12:53:15 PM
I applaud New Jersey's way of applying Clearview -- limiting it to certain stretches of roads/highways. It makes it easier to replace it in bulk than to having to chase after the random placements that other states do when replacing/upgrading older signs.
Not really. I spotted one Clearview replacement sign 40 miles away (Rt. 55, Exit 53) from the next-known Clearview sign (I-295, Exit 56).
And so far, it's been haphazardly done. Here's the 295 signage:
The 2 ground mounted 'Scenic View' signs were replaced. The signs used different fonts and different sized fonts, but the overhead signs that were created at the same time haven't been replaced.
A ground-mounted exit sign for 130 was replaced; the overhead signs haven't.
All signs for Exit 56 were replaced, including a new overhead sign that was just replaced a few years prior due to a construction accident. While the new signs now include Rt. 68 & the Joint Base MDL, none of the smaller signage on the exit ramp has been updated. Looking for Rt. 68? You're on your own!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 14, 2015, 01:13:06 PM
Not really. I spotted one Clearview replacement sign 40 miles away (Rt. 55, Exit 53) from the next-known Clearview sign (I-295, Exit 56).
the closest is actually on I-676 SB (Exit 3), about 12 miles away.
True, although that one was the experimental sign, and I'm not sure how they conducted any experiments with it.
By making them look as ghastly as possible it seems.