Can someone explain to me how it is there are two I-95 expressways through Secaucus? They break off then reunite.
New Jersey Turnpike thread (as I-95 is part of the Turnpike on both legs): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.0
Quote from: longhorn on October 27, 2015, 09:49:38 AM
Can someone explain to me how it is there are two I-95 expressways through Secaucus? They break off then reunite.
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
...I-95 is part of the Turnpike on both legs.
The Eastern spur (Exits 15X, 16E, 17) is I-95. The Western spur is unsigned NJ Route 95W. So there are not "two I-95s". There are two legs of the Turnpike, but only one is I-95.
The NJTP, however, usually signs the Western spur as I-95, but this is 100% incorrect of them to do.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 27, 2015, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: longhorn on October 27, 2015, 09:49:38 AM
Can someone explain to me how it is there are two I-95 expressways through Secaucus? They break off then reunite.
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
...I-95 is part of the Turnpike on both legs.
The Eastern spur (Exits 15X, 16E, 17) is I-95. The Western spur is unsigned NJ Route 95W. So there are not "two I-95s". There are two legs of the Turnpike, but only one is I-95.
The NJTP, however, usually signs the Western spur as I-95, but this is 100% incorrect of them to do.
The above info doesn't appear to be 100% correct either.
This FHWA map shows both the eastern and western spur is interstate highway: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/new_jersey/nynewark_nj.pdf
And the NJDOT Straight Line Diagrams indicates I-95 uses the Eastern Spur, while I-95W is the Western Spur.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095__-.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095W_-.pdf
Was the second spur constructed to relieve congestion on the original alignment?
QuoteWas the second spur constructed to relieve congestion on the original alignment?
Yes.
The Westerly Alignment was constructed to serve the Meadowlands as much as it was to help through volumes. Indications are that if one had to be chosen for I-95, it would be the Westerly, since that's the through route. Easterly was the original I-95, which is why the Westerly was later named -W, but it mainly serves the Lincoln Tunnel and could become an x95.
In what way, other than current signage, is the western spur a more logical through route? Seems to me that since the eastern spur maintains six lanes throughout while the western drops to four at the north end, the eastern has more through capacity and therefore should be the through route. The western spur is also prone to congestion generated by events at the Meadowlands while the eastern suffers no such problem.
For these reasons, if I am heading south on the turnpike from the GWB I always take the eastern spur.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 27, 2015, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: longhorn on October 27, 2015, 09:49:38 AM
Can someone explain to me how it is there are two I-95 expressways through Secaucus? They break off then reunite.
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
...I-95 is part of the Turnpike on both legs.
The Eastern spur (Exits 15X, 16E, 17) is I-95. The Western spur is unsigned NJ Route 95W. So there are not "two I-95s". There are two legs of the Turnpike, but only one is I-95.
The NJTP, however, usually signs the Western spur as I-95, but this is 100% incorrect of them to do.
RandMcNally and Iphone, and Google mpas states both are I-95, I am sure there is a reason for it, I just want to know why?
Quote from: longhorn on October 28, 2015, 10:12:41 AM
Quote from: AMLNet49 on October 27, 2015, 01:08:48 PM
Quote from: longhorn on October 27, 2015, 09:49:38 AM
Can someone explain to me how it is there are two I-95 expressways through Secaucus? They break off then reunite.
Quote from: froggie on October 27, 2015, 09:52:54 AM
...I-95 is part of the Turnpike on both legs.
The Eastern spur (Exits 15X, 16E, 17) is I-95. The Western spur is unsigned NJ Route 95W. So there are not "two I-95s". There are two legs of the Turnpike, but only one is I-95.
The NJTP, however, usually signs the Western spur as I-95, but this is 100% incorrect of them to do.
RandMcNally and Iphone, and Google mpas states both are I-95, I am sure there is a reason for it, I just want to know why?
It's almost as if they treat it like a Express & Local lane setup, or HOV/HOT & General Purpose lane setup. Neither use a separate designation for the Express/HOV/HOT, but they can have different exits from the regular lanes.
Yes, I know, it's not quite like that due to the completely separate roadways, but it's a close comparison.
The Western Spur has ORT lanes and is likely why the Turnpike encourages people to use that route. I imagine the Eastern getting the "real" I-95 is due to the Lincoln Tunnel having been I-495 before it was decommissioned.
The western spur also is the flatter route as it doesn't have to cross the Hackensack River on a high bridge along with Snake Hill. If there is an event at the Meadowlands, the flip signs change and direct through travel to the eastern spur.
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes and is likely why the Turnpike encourages people to use that route. I imagine the Eastern getting the "real" I-95 is due to the Lincoln Tunnel having been I-495 before it was decommissioned.
That's a good point but I assumed it was simply because it came first.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 28, 2015, 05:54:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes and is likely why the Turnpike encourages people to use that route. I imagine the Eastern getting the "real" I-95 is due to the Lincoln Tunnel having been I-495 before it was decommissioned.
That's a good point but I assumed it was simply because it came first.
It was easier to implement. They did consider doing it with 16E/18E, but trying to implement ORT with 2 exit possibilities within a single toll plaza was something they decided against. There's basically 2 ways to do it: Leave the ORTs off to the side, either/and 18E to the left and 16E to the right. Or they could put it in the middle, which would still need 4 ORT lanes - 2 for 16E, 2 for 18E - and that would eliminate the ability to shift the number of lanes open for either plaza.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 27, 2015, 11:34:22 PM
In what way, other than current signage, is the western spur a more logical through route? Seems to me that since the eastern spur maintains six lanes throughout while the western drops to four at the north end, the eastern has more through capacity and therefore should be the through route. The western spur is also prone to congestion generated by events at the Meadowlands while the eastern suffers no such problem.
For these reasons, if I am heading south on the turnpike from the GWB I always take the eastern spur.
You deal with heavy Lincoln Tunnel traffic then.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 28, 2015, 05:47:26 PM
The western spur also is the flatter route as it doesn't have to cross the Hackensack River on a high bridge along with Snake Hill. If there is an event at the Meadowlands, the flip signs change and direct through travel to the eastern spur.
Yeah, normally the western spur is signed for thru traffic, with the eastern spur appearing on signs as simply the exit for the Lincoln Tunnel, etc. But if something gums up the western spur they can change the signs to make the eastern spur the primary route.
iPhone
Quote from: longhorn on October 28, 2015, 10:12:41 AM
RandMcNally and Iphone, and Google mpas states both are I-95, I am sure there is a reason for it, I just want to know why?
My 2015 R-McN, on the main NJ map, shows the NJTP spurs as 95E and 95W. However, the Newark/Jersey City enlargement (as well as the metro NYC enlargement a few pages later) show both spurs as 95 (no E or W).
ixnay
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes and is likely why the Turnpike encourages people to use that route. I imagine the Eastern getting the "real" I-95 is due to the Lincoln Tunnel having been I-495 before it was decommissioned.
Nope and nope.
The encouraging of "thru traffic" to use the western spur has existed since before there were any ORT lanes, since before there was even any EZpass at all, and indeed as long as I can remember. The reason, as has been touched on, is to try and segregate Lincoln Tunnel bound traffic (which can only sensibly use the eastern spur) from GWB bound traffic (which can sensibly use either). Using the eastern spur as a thru route is great for avoiding Meadowlands traffic, but of course if everyone did it the benefit would go away so NJTA actively discourages it by lying with their signage and signing the eastern spur as an exit.
As for eastern getting the "real" I-95, it's not (directly) because of 495. It's because that section of the turnpike was designated as I-95 pretty much right when the interstate system was created, whereas the western spur did not open until 1970.
My I-95 question in New Jersey is just north of the east and west spurs and the Vince Lombardi service area:
Is the US Route 46 exit northbound unsigned NJ Turnpike exit 18?
Why does I-95 continue the mileage-based exit sequence of I-80, considering the 4 miles from the junction in Teaneck to the GW Bridge isn't I-80 at all? Was it so they didn't have to use NJ Turnpike numbered exits, have a separate field of exit 1 to whatever to the GW Bridge...or both?
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2015, 12:17:06 AM
My I-95 question in New Jersey is just north of the east and west spurs and the Vince Lombardi service area:
Is the US Route 46 exit northbound unsigned NJ Turnpike exit 18?
Why does I-95 continue the mileage-based exit sequence of I-80, considering the 4 miles from the junction in Teaneck to the GW Bridge isn't I-80 at all? Was it so they didn't have to use NJ Turnpike numbered exits, have a separate field of exit 1 to whatever to the GW Bridge...or both?
As I mentioned recently, the NJ Turnpike uses 'Interchanges' to mark their toll barriers and toll plazas. You're still exiting the road at Exit 5, Exit 11, etc, but that's just lining up with the Interchange you are at. US 46 is just an unnumbered exit, rather than unsigned Exit 18. The same condition occurs on the southern end of the NJ Turnpike where there's no number for the southbound exit for Rt. 140, along with no number for the northbound exit for US 40.
As incredible as it sounds, those exit numbers were based on I-95 mileage at the time, which started at Exit 6 (as opposed to interchange 6) of the NJ Turnpike. If you were to do a distance search from the ramp area of the PA Turnpike Extension and the NJ Turnpike Mainline to those exits you are referring to, the exit number should be within 1 mile of the mileage from Exit 6.
Since I-95 is now considered part of the PA Extension, the numbers are a little off now. But as close and much of a coincidence is it is, those exit numbers are really I-95 mileage based, not I-80 mileage based.
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes
ORT as in "open road tolling" per Wiki. (So *that's* what roadgeeks call what I call "high speed EZPass lanes"... :/ )
Quote from: ixnay on October 29, 2015, 07:55:01 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes
ORT as in "open road tolling" per Wiki. (So *that's* what roadgeeks call what I call "high speed EZPass lanes... :/ )
I recall reading that New Jersey specifically avoided calling them "high-speed lanes" out of concern people would misinterpret it to mean they could go fast. The issue first arose, IIRC, when they opened the single "express" lane on the Pennsylvania Extension. Since it's not a "true" ORT lane, it has a lower speed limit that is still higher than converted toll plaza lanes have. They didn't want people thinking it was OK to go through that lane at full highway speed.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2015, 08:23:10 AM
Quote from: ixnay on October 29, 2015, 07:55:01 AM
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes
ORT as in "open road tolling" per Wiki. (So *that's* what roadgeeks call what I call "high speed EZPass lanes... :/ )
To be technical, that's the industry standard name of those lanes...not just roadgeeks use it! :-)
QuoteI recall reading that New Jersey specifically avoided calling them "high-speed lanes" out of concern people would misinterpret it to mean they could go fast. The issue first arose, IIRC, when they opened the single "express" lane on the Pennsylvania Extension. Since it's not a "true" ORT lane, it has a lower speed limit that is still higher than converted toll plaza lanes have. They didn't want people thinking it was OK to go through that lane at full highway speed.
When they first opened that Int. 6 ORT lane, it was signed at 45 mph. Today, there's no separate speed limit for that lane, which defaults it to 55 or 65 mph (I forget what's signed in that area) for that stretch of roadway.
Thank you Jeff! (And Nicole!) That numbering scheme always confuses the hell out of me!
Also, maybe I'm wrong, but heading north at the Secaucus toll plaza, didn't the older neon signs say "EXIT 16 - Lincoln Tunnel" and "EXIT 18- GW Bridge"? (I know the exit for NJ 495/Lincoln Tunnel from southbound I-95 is Exit 17.)
Looking up the NJ Drivers Manual for another thread, some things caught my eye:
A) The manual is way longer than it used to be
B) Pertaining to this thread, there's a section regarding toll booths. They specifically mention "High Speed EZ Pass Lanes". (And technically, the correct spelling is E-ZPass, which no one uses except on the EZ Pass websites)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 10:33:36 AM
Looking up the NJ Drivers Manual for another thread, some things caught my eye:
A) The manual is way longer than it used to be
B) Pertaining to this thread, there's a section regarding toll booths. They specifically mention "High Speed EZ Pass Lanes". (And technically, the correct spelling is E-ZPass, which no one uses except on the EZ Pass websites)
C) My high school driver's ed teacher continues to be right, they never fix the errors, the only changes made is the picture of the governor. Now they don't even have a picture of him, but these two errors that I distinctly remember from c. 2006 are still present:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRZ7JbMz.png&hash=7b6187c9b89bce557a47a206a0a1cf95192717e6)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 06:23:41 AM
As incredible as it sounds, those exit numbers were based on I-95 mileage at the time, which started at Exit 6 (as opposed to interchange 6) of the NJ Turnpike. If you were to do a distance search from the ramp area of the PA Turnpike Extension and the NJ Turnpike Mainline to those exits you are referring to, the exit number should be within 1 mile of the mileage from Exit 6.
I've always heard that the numbers were based on the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on October 29, 2015, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 10:33:36 AM
Looking up the NJ Drivers Manual for another thread, some things caught my eye:
A) The manual is way longer than it used to be
B) Pertaining to this thread, there's a section regarding toll booths. They specifically mention "High Speed EZ Pass Lanes". (And technically, the correct spelling is E-ZPass, which no one uses except on the EZ Pass websites)
C) My high school driver's ed teacher continues to be right, they never fix the errors, the only changes made is the picture of the governor. Now they don't even have a picture of him, but these two errors that I distinctly remember from c. 2006 are still present:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRZ7JbMz.png&hash=7b6187c9b89bce557a47a206a0a1cf95192717e6)
I'm pretty sure that it's only coincidence if the route number in a driver's manual matches up with real world conditions. And the circle
really is the MUTCD state route shield.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 06:23:41 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2015, 12:17:06 AM
My I-95 question in New Jersey is just north of the east and west spurs and the Vince Lombardi service area:
Is the US Route 46 exit northbound unsigned NJ Turnpike exit 18?
Why does I-95 continue the mileage-based exit sequence of I-80, considering the 4 miles from the junction in Teaneck to the GW Bridge isn't I-80 at all? Was it so they didn't have to use NJ Turnpike numbered exits, have a separate field of exit 1 to whatever to the GW Bridge...or both?
As I mentioned recently, the NJ Turnpike uses 'Interchanges' to mark their toll barriers and toll plazas. You're still exiting the road at Exit 5, Exit 11, etc, but that's just lining up with the Interchange you are at. US 46 is just an unnumbered exit, rather than unsigned Exit 18. The same condition occurs on the southern end of the NJ Turnpike where there's no number for the southbound exit for Rt. 140, along with no number for the northbound exit for US 40.
As incredible as it sounds, those exit numbers were based on I-95 mileage at the time, which started at Exit 6 (as opposed to interchange 6) of the NJ Turnpike. If you were to do a distance search from the ramp area of the PA Turnpike Extension and the NJ Turnpike Mainline to those exits you are referring to, the exit number should be within 1 mile of the mileage from Exit 6.
Since I-95 is now considered part of the PA Extension, the numbers are a little off now. But as close and much of a coincidence is it is, those exit numbers are really I-95 mileage based, not I-80 mileage based.
The I-95 exits in Bergen County are numbered based on the originally intended alignment of I-95 through Mercer County, the unbuilt Somerset Expressway, current I-287 and the Turnpike north of Exit 10. The I-80 interchange, which is signed as Exit 69, is at about Mile 73.5, according to the current Straight Line Diagram, which measures I-95 from the Turnpike Connector Bridge in Bristol PA/Florence NJ.
Interesting to note that before the Turnpike bought the northern section of I-95 from the State in about 1991 (or so), U.S. 46 was signed as Exit 68 in the southbound direction only, prior to entering the Turnpike.
Actually, I think it still is signed that way today. I was heading SOUTH on I-95 Tuesday, so I'm not 100% sure.
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2015, 01:53:54 PM
Actually, I think it still is signed that way today. I was heading SOUTH on I-95 Tuesday, so I'm not 100% sure.
You're right -- it is . . . but only from the I-95 lanes. Once you cross from the inner lanes (from I-95) to the outer lanes (from I-80) to access the exit ramp, the exit number disappears.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2015, 08:23:10 AM
I recall reading that New Jersey specifically avoided calling them "high-speed lanes" out of concern people would misinterpret it to mean they could go fast. The issue first arose, IIRC, when they opened the single "express" lane on the Pennsylvania Extension. Since it's not a "true" ORT lane, it has a lower speed limit that is still higher than converted toll plaza lanes have. They didn't want people thinking it was OK to go through that lane at full highway speed.
When they first opened that Int. 6 ORT lane, it was signed at 45 mph. Today, there's no separate speed limit for that lane, which defaults it to 55 or 65 mph (I forget what's signed in that area) for that stretch of roadway.
Thanks. I remember it being 45 mph. I seldom have reason to go that way. But the 45-mph limit is what I recall reading was the reason for not referring to it as "high speed" E-ZPass.*
*I always spell "E-ZPass" with the hyphen in the proper place!
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2015, 07:40:43 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 08:58:11 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 29, 2015, 08:23:10 AM
I recall reading that New Jersey specifically avoided calling them "high-speed lanes" out of concern people would misinterpret it to mean they could go fast. The issue first arose, IIRC, when they opened the single "express" lane on the Pennsylvania Extension. Since it's not a "true" ORT lane, it has a lower speed limit that is still higher than converted toll plaza lanes have. They didn't want people thinking it was OK to go through that lane at full highway speed.
When they first opened that Int. 6 ORT lane, it was signed at 45 mph. Today, there's no separate speed limit for that lane, which defaults it to 55 or 65 mph (I forget what's signed in that area) for that stretch of roadway.
Thanks. I remember it being 45 mph. I seldom have reason to go that way. But the 45-mph limit is what I recall reading was the reason for not referring to it as "high speed" E-ZPass.*
*I always spell "E-ZPass" with the hyphen in the proper place!
*I always find myself correcting technical memos and reports to say "E-ZPass" with the hyphen in the proper place!
Quote from: ixnay on October 28, 2015, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: longhorn on October 28, 2015, 10:12:41 AM
RandMcNally and Iphone, and Google mpas states both are I-95, I am sure there is a reason for it, I just want to know why?
My 2015 R-McN, on the main NJ map, shows the NJTP spurs as 95E and 95W. However, the Newark/Jersey City enlargement (as well as the metro NYC enlargement a few pages later) show both spurs as 95 (no E or W).
ixnay
Can you provide a screenshot of the map?
Quote from: Henry on October 30, 2015, 01:16:48 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 28, 2015, 08:22:47 PM
Quote from: longhorn on October 28, 2015, 10:12:41 AM
RandMcNally and Iphone, and Google mpas states both are I-95, I am sure there is a reason for it, I just want to know why?
My 2015 R-McN, on the main NJ map, shows the NJTP spurs as 95E and 95W. However, the Newark/Jersey City enlargement (as well as the metro NYC enlargement a few pages later) show both spurs as 95 (no E or W).
ixnay
Can you provide a screenshot of the map?
How do you make a screenshot of a piece of paper? :confused:
iPhone
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 06:23:41 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2015, 12:17:06 AM
My I-95 question in New Jersey is just north of the east and west spurs and the Vince Lombardi service area:
Is the US Route 46 exit northbound unsigned NJ Turnpike exit 18?
Why does I-95 continue the mileage-based exit sequence of I-80, considering the 4 miles from the junction in Teaneck to the GW Bridge isn't I-80 at all? Was it so they didn't have to use NJ Turnpike numbered exits, have a separate field of exit 1 to whatever to the GW Bridge...or both?
As I mentioned recently, the NJ Turnpike uses 'Interchanges' to mark their toll barriers and toll plazas. You're still exiting the road at Exit 5, Exit 11, etc, but that's just lining up with the Interchange you are at. US 46 is just an unnumbered exit, rather than unsigned Exit 18. The same condition occurs on the southern end of the NJ Turnpike where there's no number for the southbound exit for Rt. 140, along with no number for the northbound exit for US 40.
As incredible as it sounds, those exit numbers were based on I-95 mileage at the time, which started at Exit 6 (as opposed to interchange 6) of the NJ Turnpike. If you were to do a distance search from the ramp area of the PA Turnpike Extension and the NJ Turnpike Mainline to those exits you are referring to, the exit number should be within 1 mile of the mileage from Exit 6.
Since I-95 is now considered part of the PA Extension, the numbers are a little off now. But as close and much of a coincidence is it is, those exit numbers are really I-95 mileage based, not I-80 mileage based.
This begs the question, if the Turnpike were to adopt mileage based exit numbers, would the exit numbers on the turnpike north of current exit 6 be based on a zero point at I-95 crossing the River (Penn Turnpike Extension) or from the Delaware Memorial Bridge? And if they go ahead with mileage based exits would any of the exit numbers on I-95 between I-80 and the GWB need to be changed?
Quote from: mrsman on October 30, 2015, 01:52:36 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 29, 2015, 06:23:41 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 29, 2015, 12:17:06 AM
My I-95 question in New Jersey is just north of the east and west spurs and the Vince Lombardi service area:
Is the US Route 46 exit northbound unsigned NJ Turnpike exit 18?
Why does I-95 continue the mileage-based exit sequence of I-80, considering the 4 miles from the junction in Teaneck to the GW Bridge isn't I-80 at all? Was it so they didn't have to use NJ Turnpike numbered exits, have a separate field of exit 1 to whatever to the GW Bridge...or both?
As I mentioned recently, the NJ Turnpike uses 'Interchanges' to mark their toll barriers and toll plazas. You're still exiting the road at Exit 5, Exit 11, etc, but that's just lining up with the Interchange you are at. US 46 is just an unnumbered exit, rather than unsigned Exit 18. The same condition occurs on the southern end of the NJ Turnpike where there's no number for the southbound exit for Rt. 140, along with no number for the northbound exit for US 40.
As incredible as it sounds, those exit numbers were based on I-95 mileage at the time, which started at Exit 6 (as opposed to interchange 6) of the NJ Turnpike. If you were to do a distance search from the ramp area of the PA Turnpike Extension and the NJ Turnpike Mainline to those exits you are referring to, the exit number should be within 1 mile of the mileage from Exit 6.
Since I-95 is now considered part of the PA Extension, the numbers are a little off now. But as close and much of a coincidence is it is, those exit numbers are really I-95 mileage based, not I-80 mileage based.
This begs the question, if the Turnpike were to adopt mileage based exit numbers, would the exit numbers on the turnpike north of current exit 6 be based on a zero point at I-95 crossing the River (Penn Turnpike Extension) or from the Delaware Memorial Bridge? And if they go ahead with mileage based exits would any of the exit numbers on I-95 between I-80 and the GWB need to be changed?
Or, they can just change the definition of a "mile" to meet their current exits. In the end, it'll probably be easier.
Quote from: Duke87 on October 28, 2015, 08:48:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on October 28, 2015, 01:03:35 PM
The Western Spur has ORT lanes and is likely why the Turnpike encourages people to use that route. I imagine the Eastern getting the "real" I-95 is due to the Lincoln Tunnel having been I-495 before it was decommissioned.
Nope and nope.
The encouraging of "thru traffic" to use the western spur has existed since before there were any ORT lanes, since before there was even any EZpass at all, and indeed as long as I can remember. The reason, as has been touched on, is to try and segregate Lincoln Tunnel bound traffic (which can only sensibly use the eastern spur) from GWB bound traffic (which can sensibly use either). Using the eastern spur as a thru route is great for avoiding Meadowlands traffic, but of course if everyone did it the benefit would go away so NJTA actively discourages it by lying with their signage and signing the eastern spur as an exit.
As for eastern getting the "real" I-95, it's not (directly) because of 495. It's because that section of the turnpike was designated as I-95 pretty much right when the interstate system was created, whereas the western spur did not open until 1970.
I think because of this confusion, this would be a good candidate for an official suffixed interstate, I-95W and I-95E. I-95W should be signed as Meadowlands/GW Bridge and I-95E as Lincoln Tunnel/GW Bridge. Southbound I-95W should be signed as Meadowlands/Trenton and I-95E Secaucus/Trenton.
In my view, I would only allow suffixed interstates where a corridor splits into two and then rejoins sometime later. I-35 through Dallas/Fort Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul fits the bill. I-95 through the Meadowlands fits the bill.
Many of the historic suffixed interstates do not fit the criteria and suffixes should not come back to those routes. E.g. I-70 in Frederick, Maryland split into I-70N to Baltimore and I-70S to Washington, but the two I-70s never rejoined. I-70N became I-70 and I-70S became I-270 and that's how it should remain.
2016 Rand McNally of New Jersey:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F30%2F3c486770588ed532a7e1c836bdc6e859.jpg&hash=16e405673a7bf08a7490a2db40958ef69f8b4618)
ASUS ZenFone 2E
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 30, 2015, 04:56:05 PM
2016 Rand McNally of New Jersey:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F30%2F3c486770588ed532a7e1c836bdc6e859.jpg&hash=16e405673a7bf08a7490a2db40958ef69f8b4618)
ASUS ZenFone 2E
Lincoln Highway is on the wrong route, therefore everything is wrong.
That's right, the new road atlases hit the stands *in high summer* nowadays, don't they?
Oh, and how DO you make screenshots of a piece of paper?
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on October 30, 2015, 08:55:04 PM
That's right, the new road atlases hit the stands *in high summer* nowadays, don't they?
Oh, and how DO you make screenshots of a piece of paper?
ixnay
A....camera?
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 30, 2015, 08:55:04 PM
That's right, the new road atlases hit the stands *in high summer* nowadays, don't they?
Oh, and how DO you make screenshots of a piece of paper?
ixnay
A....camera?
Looks like that's what swbrotha used for the first step.
But, I was thinking, how do you make screenshots with a printer/scanner like I have.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on October 30, 2015, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 30, 2015, 08:55:04 PM
That's right, the new road atlases hit the stands *in high summer* nowadays, don't they?
Oh, and how DO you make screenshots of a piece of paper?
ixnay
A....camera?
Looks like that's what swbrotha used for the first step.
But, I was thinking, how do you make screenshots with a printer/scanner like I have.
ixnay
That's easy. Scan the page and upload the resulting photo file.
Edit: I say easy, but that's from my viewpoint.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 30, 2015, 04:56:05 PM
2016 Rand McNally of New Jersey:
Holy flipping hell. Rand McNally's cartography quality is still degrading I see!
As for mile-based exits on the NJ Turnpike, I imagine that if they are ever forced to change the numbers they will do what most toll roads do and favor their own mainline. Though since they control the remainder of I-95 up to Fletcher Ave they might reasonably renumber all those exits as well to avoid having them jump backwards. This would make the exit numbers go up to 122 or thereabouts.
Which is unideal but still better than a jump backwards from 113 to 68 (or 72 via the exit 6 alignment).
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 30, 2015, 08:55:04 PM
That's right, the new road atlases hit the stands *in high summer* nowadays, don't they?
Oh, and how DO you make screenshots of a piece of paper?
ixnay
A....camera?
That would be a photograph.
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 09:02:30 PM
That's easy. Scan the page and upload the resulting photo file.
That would be a scan.
A screenshot would be a shot–photograph, essentially; a captured image–of a screen. If you took a photo of a map, or scanned it, you might have a mapshot. You can't have a screenshot if there isn't a screen.
iPhone
Quote from: empirestate on October 30, 2015, 09:20:51 PM
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
Quote from: ixnay on October 30, 2015, 08:55:04 PM
That's right, the new road atlases hit the stands *in high summer* nowadays, don't they?
Oh, and how DO you make screenshots of a piece of paper?
ixnay
A....camera?
That would be a photograph.
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 09:02:30 PM
That's easy. Scan the page and upload the resulting photo file.
That would be a scan.
A screenshot would be a shot—photograph, essentially; a captured image—of a screen. If you took a photo of a map, or scanned it, you might have a mapshot. You can't have a screenshot if there isn't a screen.
iPhone
I was going off an incorrect assumption, my bad. Isn't the easiest way to screenshot something is to press your print screen button? Or use something that uploaded a selected portion of the screen to a site (for example, I use puush)
Quote from: kj3400 on October 30, 2015, 09:30:22 PM
I was going off an incorrect assumption, my bad. Isn't the easiest way to screenshot something is to press your print screen button? Or use something that uploaded a selected portion of the screen to a site (for example, I use puush)
on Windows, either PrintScreen (for the entire screen buffer, including multiple monitors) or Alt+PrintScreen (for just the window that has focus) will copy an image of the specified region to the Clipboard. you can also use the Snipping Tool in any post-Vista version of Windows.
for the record, just since the keys are nearby - never hit CTRL+ScrollLock on a computer used for development purposes. if a certain development feature (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff545499%28v=vs.85%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396) is enabled, hilarity (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://dakseven.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/image65.png&imgrefurl=http://sevenitblog.com/tag/force-system-crash/&h=505&w=664&tbnid=RGp6LN5BKq7LqM:&docid=jq4cVbeW43jHFM&ei=w9g0VsC4MMj_-AGLk5TAAQ&tbm=isch&ved=0CCcQMygIMAhqFQoTCICmxoT-7MgCFcg_PgodiwkFGA) will ensue.
Also, FWIW, on an iPhone or iPad to take a screenshot you press the power button and the home button at the same time. Then upload the photo using whatever app supports the hosting service you use.
One way to get a screenshot of a map would be to use a scanner app to create a .PDF and then take a screenshot of that and upload it. But why bother with the extra steps when you could just take a regular photo and upload that?
Thanks for that tip on Alt-PrtScr. I was unaware of that and since I use dual monitors, that's very useful information. Appreciate the tip.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on October 30, 2015, 04:56:05 PM
2016 Rand McNally of New Jersey:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F30%2F3c486770588ed532a7e1c836bdc6e859.jpg&hash=16e405673a7bf08a7490a2db40958ef69f8b4618)
ASUS ZenFone 2E
Nevermind, I've already seen the proof! And I meant to ask if someone could provide a photo instead of a screenshot. Gosh, I feel so dumb!
Since we're talking about errors on the NJ maps...does RmN still show NJ 29 as a blue-lined limited access highway between Trenton & I-95?
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
it doesn't; that's just how that map is showing it.
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
Internally, NJDOT considers the Western Spur as 95W. In the field, both spurs are signed as I-95.
ASUS ZenFone 2E
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
It never has been. It's just one of the many errors found within Rand McNally's maps.
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
Never. The Western Spur is officially a state route (regardless of how it's signed) called NJ 95W. The Eastern Spur is part of the national interstate network (regardless of how it's signed or labeled) as a part of I-95.
I have a huge problem with the way it is usually signed. Signing I-95 as "Exit 16E" is ludicrous because it has to be incredibly confusing for a non-roadgeek visitor to get anywhere off of the Eastern Spur that isn't the tunnel (Secaucus Mall, the Exchange train station, Weekawken/Union City) because it looks like the mainline is the actual exit for the tunnel.
The better way to sign it would be simply to sign the Western Spur with a NJTP shield, "Western Spur" text, and then "GW Bridge/New York" as control points. The Eastern Spur should be signed with NJTP and I-95 shields, "Eastern Spur" text, and "Lincoln Tunnel/Secaucus" as control points. It would still encourage through traffic to use the Western Spur and tunnel traffic to use the eastern spur, but it would accurately reflect the fact that there are two full freeway spurs.
Google Maps is also confused by the signs, labeling 16W both in East Rutherford and in Ridgefield where the spurs split.
Calling them "spurs" on the signs, as is the common local parlance, could be confusing. A "spur" route generally goes off in one direction and ends there. "Westerly Alignment" and "Easterly Alignment," Turnpike-speak for the roads, is obtuse. I would sign them "Western Route (Exits 16W, 15E-W, Sports Complex)" and "Eastern Route (Exits 17, 16E, 15E-W-X, Lincoln Tunnel, Secaucus)."
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 02, 2015, 04:25:08 PM
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
Never. The Western Spur is officially a state route (regardless of how it's signed) called NJ 95W. The Eastern Spur is part of the national interstate network (regardless of how it's signed or labeled) as a part of I-95.
I have a huge problem with the way it is usually signed. Signing I-95 as "Exit 16E" is ludicrous because it has to be incredibly confusing for a non-roadgeek visitor to get anywhere off of the Eastern Spur that isn't the tunnel (Secaucus Mall, the Exchange train station, Weekawken/Union City) because it looks like the mainline is the actual exit for the tunnel.
The better way to sign it would be simply to sign the Western Spur with a NJTP shield, "Western Spur" text, and then "GW Bridge/New York" as control points. The Eastern Spur should be signed with NJTP and I-95 shields, "Eastern Spur" text, and "Lincoln Tunnel/Secaucus" as control points. It would still encourage through traffic to use the Western Spur and tunnel traffic to use the eastern spur, but it would accurately reflect the fact that there are two full freeway spurs.
Incorrect.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 27, 2015, 01:47:30 PM
This FHWA map shows both the eastern and western spur is interstate highway: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/new_jersey/nynewark_nj.pdf
And the NJDOT Straight Line Diagrams indicates I-95 uses the Eastern Spur, while I-95W is the Western Spur.
Both are part of the Interstate system. Nobody who isn't from the area would likely go anywhere other than Exit 16E from the Eastern Spur. Even if it wasn't, it would be far from the only Interstate signed on a ramp before the mainline is encountered. How it is currently signed works.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 02, 2015, 04:25:08 PM
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
Never. The Western Spur is officially a state route (regardless of how it's signed) called NJ 95W. The Eastern Spur is part of the national interstate network (regardless of how it's signed or labeled) as a part of I-95.
I have a huge problem with the way it is usually signed. Signing I-95 as "Exit 16E" is ludicrous because it has to be incredibly confusing for a non-roadgeek visitor to get anywhere off of the Eastern Spur that isn't the tunnel (Secaucus Mall, the Exchange train station, Weekawken/Union City) because it looks like the mainline is the actual exit for the tunnel.
The better way to sign it would be simply to sign the Western Spur with a NJTP shield, "Western Spur" text, and then "GW Bridge/New York" as control points. The Eastern Spur should be signed with NJTP and I-95 shields, "Eastern Spur" text, and "Lincoln Tunnel/Secaucus" as control points. It would still encourage through traffic to use the Western Spur and tunnel traffic to use the eastern spur, but it would accurately reflect the fact that there are two full freeway spurs.
I agree about not using the term "spur". Where did it come from anyway? They already list the exits and routes for each spur and only sign I-95 for one of them at the split, according to GSV from September of this year: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7139439,-74.141128,3a,15y,112.55h,92.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIrrjmrJX7fJPJYzrSjpENQ!2e0!5s20150901T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1. Did they change something since then to refer only to 16E? Maybe they should add more destinations to the eastern spur than just "Lincoln Tunnel" and a Turnpike shield before the "TO 46", but beyond that, it seems fine.
I actually kind of like the floating I-95. I know it's not allowed by the feds, but for the regular driver, needing to know the difference between I-95 and "through traffic" is just one more point of confusion. If NJTA wants through traffic to use a particular spur, sign that as I-95.
Edit: Maybe you're referring to Southbound signage: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8382387,-74.0197658,3a,75y,193.1h,81.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sak9-Ol94nyYGIIRNtDZgww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
That indeed has room for improvement, but it isn't too bad.
Was definitely wrong about it being NJ 95W. I got that off Wikipedia without double checking straight line diagrams, so I did and I see that I was wrong. However there is no federal I-95W designation, so I guess that means: the Western Spur designated as Interstate roadway, the state calls it Route 95W, a separate state organization maintains it, but there is no formal federal designation for it. This might be the strangest roadway in the country in terms of designation.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 02, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
Was definitely wrong about it being NJ 95W. I got that off Wikipedia without double checking straight line diagrams, so I did and I see that I was wrong. However there is no federal I-95W designation, so I guess that means: the Western Spur designated as Interstate roadway, the state calls it Route 95W, a separate state organization maintains it, but there is no formal federal designation for it. This might be the strangest roadway in the country in terms of designation.
It's designated as Interstate 95W. New Jersey calls everything "route".
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 02, 2015, 04:25:08 PM
The better way to sign it would be simply to sign the Western Spur with a NJTP shield, "Western Spur" text, and then "GW Bridge/New York" as control points. The Eastern Spur should be signed with NJTP and I-95 shields, "Eastern Spur" text, and "Lincoln Tunnel/Secaucus" as control points. It would still encourage through traffic to use the Western Spur and tunnel traffic to use the eastern spur, but it would accurately reflect the fact that there are two full freeway spurs.
How many people would just take the Eastern Spur anyways simply because they saw an I-95 shield?
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 02, 2015, 06:02:39 PM
Was definitely wrong about it being NJ 95W. I got that off Wikipedia without double checking straight line diagrams, so I did and I see that I was wrong. However there is no federal I-95W designation, so I guess that means: the Western Spur designated as Interstate roadway, the state calls it Route 95W, a separate state organization maintains it, but there is no formal federal designation for it. This might be the strangest roadway in the country in terms of designation.
It is, in fact, NJ 95W, in the same sense that I-80 is NJ 80 and US 46 is NJ 46. Each highway has an SR number and it always matches. And yes, the two roadways are the Easterly and Westerly Alignments. Spur is shorter, but spurs dead-end and these come back together. The Newark Bay Extension ought to be called the Holland Tunnel Spur, and yet it's not.
I would sign it:
Western [NJTP][I-95] NORTH - Geo Washington Br - TO (I-280) (NJ 3) Meadowlands.
Eastern [NJTP][I-95] NORTH - Lincoln Tunnel - TO (NJ 495) Secaucus.
That pretty much covers all the destinations and reflects that both alignments come back together.
QuoteI have a huge problem with the way it is usually signed. Signing I-95 as "Exit 16E" is ludicrous because it has to be incredibly confusing for a non-roadgeek visitor to get anywhere off of the Eastern Spur that isn't the tunnel (Secaucus Mall, the Exchange train station, Weekawken/Union City) because it looks like the mainline is the actual exit for the tunnel.
Where are you seeing that the eastern spur is signed 95 North/16E? I think you're awfully confused about the signage in this area. You're talking about stretches of highway that have some of the highest traffic volumes anywhere in the nation, and motorists get around without a problem.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
QuoteI have a huge problem with the way it is usually signed. Signing I-95 as "Exit 16E" is ludicrous because it has to be incredibly confusing for a non-roadgeek visitor to get anywhere off of the Eastern Spur that isn't the tunnel (Secaucus Mall, the Exchange train station, Weekawken/Union City) because it looks like the mainline is the actual exit for the tunnel.
Where are you seeing that the eastern spur is signed 95 North/16E? I think you're awfully confused about the signage in this area. You're talking about stretches of highway that have some of the highest traffic volumes anywhere in the nation, and motorists get around without a problem.
I concede that yes people don't seem to have a problem currently and there is no real reason to change current signage. But I didn't say it was signed as I-95/Exit 16E. I said it was only signed as Exit 16E (and southbound as Exit 17). I just find it tricky because it is signed as if the split is the exit to the Lincoln, not a second alignment of the mainline. I'm kind of on of those people that wishes everything was signed exactly as it is legally, but I also understand the traffic reasons why that's not the case. Just my opinion. And also making sure that it is clear I know how it is currently signed, but also just voicing my opinion about what I'd like it to be signed as.
Quote from: AMLNet49 on November 02, 2015, 08:37:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
QuoteI have a huge problem with the way it is usually signed. Signing I-95 as "Exit 16E" is ludicrous because it has to be incredibly confusing for a non-roadgeek visitor to get anywhere off of the Eastern Spur that isn't the tunnel (Secaucus Mall, the Exchange train station, Weekawken/Union City) because it looks like the mainline is the actual exit for the tunnel.
Where are you seeing that the eastern spur is signed 95 North/16E? I think you're awfully confused about the signage in this area. You're talking about stretches of highway that have some of the highest traffic volumes anywhere in the nation, and motorists get around without a problem.
I concede that yes people don't seem to have a problem currently and there is no real reason to change current signage. But I didn't say it was signed as I-95/Exit 16E. I said it was only signed as Exit 16E (and southbound as Exit 17). I just find it tricky because it is signed as if the split is the exit to the Lincoln, not a second alignment of the mainline. I'm kind of on of those people that wishes everything was signed exactly as it is legally, but I also understand the traffic reasons why that's not the case. Just my opinion. And also making sure that it is clear I know how it is currently signed, but also just voicing my opinion about what I'd like it to be signed as.
Do note that signage often directs traffic from I-80 to use the Eastern Spur, likely because that ramp is better-equipped to send traffic that way.
And the NJ Turnpike signage is variable, so there's never one specific way it is always signed. 95 could be signed on either/or the eastern or western spur.
I lived in NJ for over 25 years and never once in the 20 years the two spurs were there, did anyone complain that there were two route 95's.
Being that the two freeways split and reconnect just a few miles later is not enough for confusion. True for paperword NJDOT has one route designated as Route 95W, but that is for technical purposes.
The way it is now is just fine. It is signed very well, and it gets you through New Jersey. The only gripe I have is that NJTA does not use control cities but control crossings, which still are good considering that people know where the Lincoln Tunnel and the GWB is, but I prefer Midtown NY for Exit 16E and Uptown NY and Bronx for Exits 18E & W. Even though that is as classic as the old signs that the NJTA removed for the new MUTCD compliant sign, in a better world I still say the cities and/or boroughs should be used.
I guess it goes along with the convention of the turnpike not liking to sign places outside New Jersey. Half of the bridge and tunnel are technically still in the state.
I would think for a motorist, a bridge is a better point one can identify with compared to a section of city, which border is generally never marked.
The NJ Turnpike historically never had any destination signage. Today they use Wilmington & New York, even using Wilmington as a travel time destination as well.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2015, 10:22:25 AMThe NJ Turnpike historically never had any destination signage. Today they use Wilmington & New York, even using Wilmington as a travel time destination as well.
The entrances generally had destinations e.g. "New York and NORTH," "Camden and SOUTH."
Also mileage signs used to use New York at ten mile intervals going north. Going south it would use Trenton, Camden, and Delaware Memorial Bridge as mileage controls using the 10 miles multiples.
I believe the SB Truck lanes still has 30 miles to Trenton at Exit 9 even though its longer now that I-195 is used to get there instead of NJ 33 from Exit 8 when the sign was first erected. Also the 30 mile distance sign for the Delaware Memorial Bridge still may be there south of Exit 4. Have to check with Jeff on both.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:51:56 PM
The only gripe I have is that NJTA does not use control cities but control crossings, which still are good considering that people know where the Lincoln Tunnel and the GWB is, but I prefer Midtown NY for Exit 16E and Uptown NY and Bronx for Exits 18E & W.
"Midtown" (without "NY") would work, but "Uptown" is too broad. There's no one location that's "uptown"–and if there is, it may well be closer to the Lincoln Tunnel than the GWB; I'm thinking Upper West Side and Upper East Side. Also, "uptown" and "upstate" could be confused with one another. "Washington Heights" would be much better understood locally, or "Inwood" if you need something shorter, and of course "Bronx" works just fine too.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
It never has been. It's just one of the many errors found within Rand McNally's maps.
For years, Rand McNally would have you believe that I-80 and I-95 were multiplexed from Teaneck to the George Washington Bridge.
ASUS ZenFone 2E
Quote from: swbrotha100 on November 06, 2015, 02:00:06 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 02, 2015, 03:44:06 PM
Quote from: longhorn on November 02, 2015, 03:09:01 PM
Interesting, so now its 95E and 95W. So when does this officially go into effect?
It never has been. It's just one of the many errors found within Rand McNally's maps.
For years, Rand McNally would have you believe that I-80 and I-95 were multiplexed from Teaneck to the George Washington Bridge.
ASUS ZenFone 2E
Just like they would have you believe that US 209 between I-80 and PA 33 is a full controlled access freeway when in reality its a four lane divided arterial.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:51:56 PM
The only gripe I have is that NJTA does not use control cities but control crossings, which still are good considering that people know where the Lincoln Tunnel and the GWB is, but I prefer Midtown NY for Exit 16E and Uptown NY and Bronx for Exits 18E & W.
If one agrees with the MUTCD assertion that using the names of the crossings is wrong (I don't), it seems to me that while "Midtown" works as a substitute for the Lincoln Tunnel, "Uptown" does not for the GWB. "Bronx" sorta does, but frankly if we had to ditch the bridge as a control point I'd go ahead and have the signs say "New Haven CT", same as they do on the NY side of the bridge already.
It's tough to pick control points along this segment of 95 since there are lots of prominent cities, but Trenton and New Haven have the advantage of being essentially the outer edge of the NYC metro area in each direction (or at least, they are the termini of NY-bound commuter rail service on the Northeast Corridor).
New Haven might work better if control cities are used. However, I was thinking about the way New Jerseyans think, or at least did when I lived there many decades ago. The G. Washington Br. always was there and we always used that for many years, however the MUTCD has a point with using control cities and not states and crossings. Its better for the long distance travelers.
In fact I got a taste of it last week when heading east on I-70 through St. Louis. MoDOT uses "Illinois" for the control city for I-70 now where it splits from its old alignment at the new Stan Musial Bridge. For a long distance traveler it would be better to use "Indianapolis" for I-70 east then the whole entire state of Illinois. For me it seemed so weird to see that after seeing Columbia and St. Louis for several miles, and now to jump to an entire state when the interstate has several hundred miles to go before reaching the park and ride outside of Baltimore.
Sometimes, I would argue exceptions are a necessary evil. When you're dealing with New York City, which is the highest populated city in the US, the city more people commute to compared to any other city in the US, and the most visited city in the US, for the majority of travelers in the NYC area, NYC is THE long distance city they want. It wouldn't make much sense to sign "New Haven" until one has crossed into NYC, unless 2 destinations were signed (i.e.: New York City/New Haven).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2015, 12:46:45 AM
Sometimes, I would argue exceptions are a necessary evil. When you're dealing with New York City, which is the highest populated city in the US, the city more people commute to compared to any other city in the US, and the most visited city in the US, for the majority of travelers in the NYC area, NYC is THE long distance city they want. It wouldn't make much sense to sign "New Haven" until one has crossed into NYC, unless 2 destinations were signed (i.e.: New York City/New Haven).
I suggest this largely because when a city's name is used it usually means the route is a sensible way to that city's central business district. Anyone heading north on I-95 looking to get to New York City's central business district is going to have exited at 16E if not sooner. By continuing towards the GWB you have already bypassed midtown and are likely bound for an outlying area if not outright passing through.
Of course, while this applies to the western spur of the Turnpike (and the eastern spur beyond 16E), once I-80 enters the fray you get the awkward situation where while traffic that came from the Turnpike is unlikely to be headed to midtown, a good chunk of the traffic from 80 is. So yeah, signing New Haven (at least on its own) along that section would be weird.
This is why the current setup of using the names of the bridges and tunnels exists and is a good practice. It's clear and well understood. Forcing place names to be used instead would create situations where the signage is less clear and understandable. So it shouldn't be done even if the MUTCD would really prefer it.
Are there a lot of people confused by "George Washington Bridge"?
A better solution would be to use supplemental signs. For approaching I-78 from the south, a sign for Holland Tunnel would work well stating to use I-78 East to Exit 14C. Then the EB Control point would be New York DOWNTOWN.
At the split of the two spurs a supplemental overhead for both the Lincoln Tunnel and GWB would span on a brown gantry where the exit numbers could change depending on the spurs as if the east spur is closed it turns to Exit 16W. Then the pull through would be the Bronx or New Haven for the western spur and NY MIDTOWN for the east spur and the Exit 16E signage.
What will be a problem is I-80 as its control city is New York or recently New York City as NJDOT is on the kick of signing New York as New York City since the early 90's. Even at the US 46 exit in Wayne where its signed for the Lincoln Tunnel and New York (City) is signed on the pull through there, so most traffic for all five boroughs will stay on 80 all the way to the GWB. So after I-80 comes in you have to use New York (City) along with New Haven there to keep the consistency going for those being controlled by the signs on I-80.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 07, 2015, 12:43:33 PM
A better solution would be to use supplemental signs. For approaching I-78 from the south, a sign for Holland Tunnel would work well stating to use I-78 East to Exit 14C. Then the EB Control point would be New York DOWNTOWN.
At the split of the two spurs a supplemental overhead for both the Lincoln Tunnel and GWB would span on a brown gantry where the exit numbers could change depending on the spurs as if the east spur is closed it turns to Exit 16W. Then the pull through would be the Bronx or New Haven for the western spur and NY MIDTOWN for the east spur and the Exit 16E signage.
What will be a problem is I-80 as its control city is New York or recently New York City as NJDOT is on the kick of signing New York as New York City since the early 90's. Even at the US 46 exit in Wayne where its signed for the Lincoln Tunnel and New York (City) is signed on the pull through there, so most traffic for all five boroughs will stay on 80 all the way to the GWB. So after I-80 comes in you have to use New York (City) along with New Haven there to keep the consistency going for those being controlled by the signs on I-80.
I always thought there should be supplemental signage with the crossing. New York City
VIA HOLLAND TUNNEL, GWB
Although officially the city of New York someone headed for Brooklyn or Staten Island isn't thinking they are going to the city. So that being said Outerbridge Crossing should be signed for Staten Island not NYC.
As an aside I used to think it was called the Outerbridge Crossing because it was the outer most bridge in reference to Manhattan. Growing up one of the priests at church was Father Outerbridge.. It was named for his ancestor..
Quote from: jwolfer on November 07, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
I always thought there should be supplemental signage with the crossing. New York City
VIA HOLLAND TUNNEL, GWB
the travel time signs on the Turnpike and Parkway have these listings, similar to below...
NYC VIA
-------
GWB XX min
LINCOLN XX min
HOLLAND XX min
Quote from: jwolfer on November 07, 2015, 03:40:21 PMAs an aside I used to think it was called the Outerbridge Crossing because it was the outer most bridge in reference to Manhattan. Growing up one of the priests at church was Father Outerbridge.. It was named for his ancestor..
I assume that ancestor was Eugenius H. Outerbridge, the first chairman of what was then the Port of New York Authority.
ixnay
That would make sense.. They probably have a common ancestor
Quote from: odditude on November 07, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 07, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
I always thought there should be supplemental signage with the crossing. New York City
VIA HOLLAND TUNNEL, GWB
the travel time signs on the Turnpike and Parkway have these listings, similar to below...
NYC VIA
-------
GWB XX min
LINCOLN XX min
HOLLAND XX min
Those are ridiculous, though, since the GWB time is always longer than the others - which might give an unfamiliar motorist the mistaken impression that the Lincoln Tunnel is less congested and a better route. In actuality, of course, the GWB takes longer to get to at free flow speed simply because it is further north, and it is generally not a good idea to use one of the tunnels as an alternate route if one's destination is beyond the GWB.
At the same time, for those familiar with the area, those times are good to know in general.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 07, 2015, 11:01:44 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 07, 2015, 12:46:45 AM
Sometimes, I would argue exceptions are a necessary evil. When you're dealing with New York City, which is the highest populated city in the US, the city more people commute to compared to any other city in the US, and the most visited city in the US, for the majority of travelers in the NYC area, NYC is THE long distance city they want. It wouldn't make much sense to sign "New Haven" until one has crossed into NYC, unless 2 destinations were signed (i.e.: New York City/New Haven).
I suggest this largely because when a city's name is used it usually means the route is a sensible way to that city's central business district. Anyone heading north on I-95 looking to get to New York City's central business district is going to have exited at 16E if not sooner. By continuing towards the GWB you have already bypassed midtown and are likely bound for an outlying area if not outright passing through.
Of course, while this applies to the western spur of the Turnpike (and the eastern spur beyond 16E), once I-80 enters the fray you get the awkward situation where while traffic that came from the Turnpike is unlikely to be headed to midtown, a good chunk of the traffic from 80 is. So yeah, signing New Haven (at least on its own) along that section would be weird.
This is why the current setup of using the names of the bridges and tunnels exists and is a good practice. It's clear and well understood. Forcing place names to be used instead would create situations where the signage is less clear and understandable. So it shouldn't be done even if the MUTCD would really prefer it.
What is interesting is that distances to New York along I-95 north of Baltimore appear to be the distances via the NJ Turnpike and the GWB, if I'm not mistaken, so it's not just I-80
Quote from: Duke87 on November 08, 2015, 12:10:40 AM
Quote from: odditude on November 07, 2015, 06:40:52 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 07, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
I always thought there should be supplemental signage with the crossing. New York City
VIA HOLLAND TUNNEL, GWB
the travel time signs on the Turnpike and Parkway have these listings, similar to below...
NYC VIA
-------
GWB XX min
LINCOLN XX min
HOLLAND XX min
Those are ridiculous, though, since the GWB time is always longer than the others - which might give an unfamiliar motorist the mistaken impression that the Lincoln Tunnel is less congested and a better route. In actuality, of course, the GWB takes longer to get to at free flow speed simply because it is further north, and it is generally not a good idea to use one of the tunnels as an alternate route if one's destination is beyond the GWB.
They aren't useless because while times to those crossings alone are very useful, they only tell half the story. The time to the crossing might be only half the time to the other side of the crossing, or it might be two minutes short of it.
If you've made it to North Jersey and don't know that "NYC" is not one singular point, signs are not your biggest problem.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on November 06, 2015, 02:00:06 PM
For years, Rand McNally would have you believe that I-80 and I-95 were multiplexed from Teaneck to the George Washington Bridge.
Y'know, I always wondered about that...
How did this topic get down to 2 states away?
It should say 'New York City' like state highways or include both the tunnel/bridge & NYC on the sign together.
All state highways always include control cities.
Quote from: empirestate on November 06, 2015, 01:19:31 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:51:56 PM
The only gripe I have is that NJTA does not use control cities but control crossings, which still are good considering that people know where the Lincoln Tunnel and the GWB is, but I prefer Midtown NY for Exit 16E and Uptown NY and Bronx for Exits 18E & W.
"Midtown" (without "NY") would work, but "Uptown" is too broad. There's no one location that's "uptown"–and if there is, it may well be closer to the Lincoln Tunnel than the GWB; I'm thinking Upper West Side and Upper East Side. Also, "uptown" and "upstate" could be confused with one another. "Washington Heights" would be much better understood locally, or "Inwood" if you need something shorter, and of course "Bronx" works just fine too.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Are there a lot of people confused by "George Washington Bridge"?
Not everybody knows that the bridge leads to NYC, and sometimes Lincoln Tunnel & Holland Tunnel is also used. Control city is easier and better, or both. G S Parkway sometimes put 'G W Bridge' or 'Geo W Bridge'.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Are there a lot of people confused by "George Washington Bridge"?
Not everybody knows that the bridge leads to NYC, and sometimes Lincoln Tunnel & Holland Tunnel is also used. Control city is easier and better, or both. G S Parkway sometimes put 'G W Bridge' or 'Geo W Bridge'.
If you knew nothing about the area and saw three exits, one that said "Holland Tunnel, New York City," one labeled "Lincoln Tunnel, New York City," and one "George Washington Bridge, New York City," all leading to places miles from the others, how would you know which to take?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Are there a lot of people confused by "George Washington Bridge"?
Not everybody knows that the bridge leads to NYC, and sometimes Lincoln Tunnel & Holland Tunnel is also used. Control city is easier and better, or both. G S Parkway sometimes put 'G W Bridge' or 'Geo W Bridge'.
If you knew nothing about the area and saw three exits, one that said "Holland Tunnel, New York City," one labeled "Lincoln Tunnel, New York City," and one "George Washington Bridge, New York City," all leading to places miles from the others, how would you know which to take?
If I were headed for somewhere specific in New York City, I would probably know which crossing (or exit number) I was looking for. If I were *not* headed for New York City, I suppose they would help me to not accidentally end up there, though that's a pretty unlikely scenario. If I had to pass through NYC on my way to somewhere else (most likely on I-95), no this wouldn't help. What would help would be to sign something beyond NYC as a secondary destination, like "New Haven" or even "Connecticut" or "New England".
I would have said, "look at some kind of map," which obviates the need for any change from what exists now.
My guess is that more GW traffic coming up the Turnpike is headed for the Bronx, Queens, Long Island, or New England than anywhere in Manhattan.
That's too much info for signs in New Jersey, and "New York City" is confusing in its broadness (particularly given that "The City" to many or most refers to Manhattan specifically). "George Washington Bridge" is Very well known as the route to these places. "95" also sends the "it's this way" message.
It may be my New Jersey talking, but it's not the Turnpike's responsibility to teach you geography. As an adult you are supposed to come in to this with at least a little preparation.
I would look at a map too, but I'm trying to get into the mindset of someone who wouldn't. Besides, why are there BGSs at all then? Let's just stick to route and exit numbers, perfect, clean, cheap. Obviously there must be some value in having destinations and control cities, so it makes sense to talk about which ones to use.
Except for trucks, most LI traffic coming from the Turnpike would likely use Outerbridge or Goethals unless there's something messing them up that's worse than typical GW or Cross Bronx traffic. Cuts the corner and bypasses a toll bridge. Ditto for Queens (for the same reason). The majority of traffic going from the Turnpike to the GW is likely through traffic to Westchester and beyond.
I'd sign as follows:
Outerbridge/Goethals: Staten Island, Long Island
Holland: Lower Manhattan
Lincoln: Midtown, Queens
GW: The Bronx, New Haven
Bridge names should still be controls where practical (GW definitely), but you have to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Quote from: bzakharin on November 25, 2015, 07:32:08 PM
I would look at a map too, but I'm trying to get into the mindset of someone who wouldn't. Besides, why are there BGSs at all then? Let's just stick to route and exit numbers, perfect, clean, cheap. Obviously there must be some value in having destinations and control cities, so it makes sense to talk about which ones to use.
Yes, but one extreme of the conversation seems to frequently be "What happens if the driver is almost totally ignorant?" which is not a large enough segment on which to base signage. Signs ought not be counted on to get every person to every destination, just the largest possible segment in the right general direction with the least amount of words.
Same thing when you see Lincoln Tunnel, G W Bridge and Holland tunnel.. Which one to take?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2015, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 06:15:13 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 07, 2015, 11:26:12 AM
Are there a lot of people confused by "George Washington Bridge"?
Not everybody knows that the bridge leads to NYC, and sometimes Lincoln Tunnel & Holland Tunnel is also used. Control city is easier and better, or both. G S Parkway sometimes put 'G W Bridge' or 'Geo W Bridge'.
If you knew nothing about the area and saw three exits, one that said "Holland Tunnel, New York City," one labeled "Lincoln Tunnel, New York City," and one "George Washington Bridge, New York City," all leading to places miles from the others, how would you know which to take?
I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.
In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 25, 2015, 09:55:33 PM
I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.
In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.
I like New England on signage, includes all of them.
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 25, 2015, 09:55:33 PM
I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.
In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.
I like New England on signage, includes all of them.
I hate region wide control cities. New England is everything from Greenwich, CT to Houlton, ME. It's almost like signing "The South" as a control city in Maryland.
I live in New England but I'm 6 (maybe even 7) hours from any part of the NJ Turnpike. Go to Houlton and you're 10 hrs away.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 25, 2015, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 25, 2015, 09:55:33 PM
I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.
In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.
I like New England on signage, includes all of them.
I hate region wide control cities. New England is everything from Greenwich, CT to Houlton, ME. It's almost like signing "The South" as a control city in Maryland.
I live in New England but I'm 6 (maybe even 7) hours from any part of the NJ Turnpike. Go to Houlton and you're 10 hrs away.
True that New England is huge area, but there will be control cities once you enter NY state. I like control cities as well, but sometimes state or region can work fine at times depending on the situation. I want to see Miami, DC, Atlanta on miles distance on the Turnpike, it would be nice.
Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones. Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:12:35 AM
Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones. Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.
Especially since you often don't see signage for major cities that people are more likely to be going to. For example, when you come off the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) from Long Island, you see signage for I-95 north to New Haven or south to Newark. I'd say it's a safe bet that there are more people interested in going to Boston or Philadelphia that New Haven or Newark. Yet you don't see any signage for Boston until you're up by Providence (or Hartford, if you go via I-84) or for Philadelphia until you're at the turnpike exit where you're going to be getting off.
Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:27:04 AM
Especially since you often don't see signage for major cities that people are more likely to be going to. For example, when you come off the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) from Long Island, you see signage for I-95 north to New Haven or south to Newark. I'd say it's a safe bet that there are more people interested in going to Boston or Philadelphia that New Haven or Newark. Yet you don't see any signage for Boston until you're up by Providence (or Hartford, if you go via I-84) or for Philadelphia until you're at the turnpike exit where you're going to be getting off.
So we should forget smaller cities and just go for what Petersburg, VA does instead (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2179394,-77.3882744,3a,19.8y,111.19h,103.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqMw0IvaIeEBQXkB5fVX_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:12:35 AM
Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones. Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.
I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.
It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.
Sometimes the regions are important if that route does serve all regions. Shore Points on the Garden State Parkway is fine as the Parkway serves em all, but for I-195 it is not a good candidate for that one.
New England on I-287 approaching the NY State Line has you directed to take I-87 North to I-84. However if you are going to Greenwich, Stamford, or even Providence, I-84 does not help. Then if you are going to Vermont, I-84 does NOT do anything at all for you. NJDOT should remove those signs as you travel past Oakland on I-287 as that is so confusing.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:12:35 AM
Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones. Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.
I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.
It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.
The traveler reading "New England" must gather more info than the sign provides.
The traveler going to someplace that is not New Haven must gather more info than the sign provides.
My point is that there is an enforced illusion that a specific control city is necessarily useful for travelers without anything else to go on. This is about as true for general destinations as it is specific ones; i.e. only sometimes.
There's a reason why they're called "guide" signs, not "we're going to get you to your exact location" signs.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 25, 2015, 11:09:18 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 25, 2015, 10:20:39 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 25, 2015, 09:55:33 PM
I've driven through NYC many times via the GW Bridge and never thought it difficult to navigate. I-95 is a good enough cue that "you take this route if you're going to New England." Maybe I overestimate the intelligence of people.
In any event, I agree that signing "New Haven" would be a good practice for the GW, if you must sign a city.
I like New England on signage, includes all of them.
I hate region wide control cities. New England is everything from Greenwich, CT to Houlton, ME. It's almost like signing "The South" as a control city in Maryland.
I live in New England but I'm 6 (maybe even 7) hours from any part of the NJ Turnpike. Go to Houlton and you're 10 hrs away.
Or heading west out of Chicago and it says "Suburbs".
Is the "New England" on I-287 in NJ really guiding people to the region? Remember I-84 just serves Central Connecticut and Eastern Mass via I-90. If anyone going, lets say to Pittsfield, MA would not be effected by this particular sign (or signs as I believe NJDOT has two erected) as that is located out of range on the suggested routing. Going from Mahwah to Pittsfield would be best served by taking I-87 north to the Berkshire Extension East into I-90!
If you are going to Cape Cod, where most tourists go, staying on I-287 into I-95 is the way unless you take substandard US 6 east from I-84 at Hartford, which I doubt is as good as using I-287 N to I-95 N to I-195 E.
Regions are goo as long as the road serves a great deal of it or is near the entry to the region. Like on I-70 now in St. Louis, where "Illinois" is used after you enter St. Louis. Even though it does not help for the part of the state around its NW part or the Quad Cities area, it still goes across the River into Illinois leaving that state.
Same with Pocono Mountains on US 22 at the PA 33 interchange (if PennDOT still has the signs there) using it in addition to Stroudsburg. PA 33 heads right into the region even if the western part was served already by the NE Extension which at the point would not be seen by those wishing to go there.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:12:35 AM
Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones. Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.
I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.
It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.
The traveler reading "New England" must gather more info than the sign provides.
The traveler going to someplace that is not New Haven must gather more info than the sign provides.
My point is that there is an enforced illusion that a specific control city is necessarily useful for travelers without anything else to go on. This is about as true for general destinations as it is specific ones; i.e. only sometimes.
That's why I'd be a fan of signing it as "New Haven CT." Someone going to Boston would surely know that Connecticut is on the way and that if you go towards CT, you going in the right direction. I see control cities as helpful if you know points along the way in your trip. Likewise, if I'm going to Burlington and I see "New Haven CT," I know that I'm not going through Connecticut to get to Vermont so I know that the GW Bridge isn't for me.
If you sign "New England" though, that Vermont bound person could possibly think that the GW is a good way to go because he is going to New England. There is also the possibility that I-287 leads to a better entry point for New England, if only because it allows you to bypass the GW and driving through New York City altogether. I've taken both the Tappan Zee and the GW and they both work perfectly fine for New England bound traffic.
You could also pull a Maryland and Virginia DOTs and just sign "Boston" in New Jersey, as they do with New York. If you REALLY want to direct eastern New England bound traffic over the GW, that is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 01:22:36 PM
There's a reason why they're called "guide" signs, not "we're going to get you to your exact location" signs.
Exactly and they're useless as guide signs if they provide misleading information.
It's not misleading. It's just not very specific.
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2015, 06:07:50 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 01:09:52 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 26, 2015, 10:12:35 AM
Eschewing control regions is based on an assumption that very specific destinations are somehow better than general ones. Sometimes, particularly in a cluttered region like the Northeast, it is helpful to paint with a broader brush.
I disagree. I think that you should only sign a control destination if that route is the best way to any point in that destination. Taking the GW Bridge is not the best way to get to some parts of New England. If I'm a Burlington, Vermont or maybe even Berkshire bound traveler, seeing "New England" as the control destination on the Turnpike would be confusing and would result in me taking a route that would not be the most efficient. Burlington bound traffic should take the Tappan Zee and connect with I-87 that way. I realize that Burlington bound traffic might be small (but maybe not as small as you might think) but I don't think that control city signage should ignore a portion of people going to a destination just to please the majority. I think that signing "New Haven" or maybe even "New Haven CT" would be sufficient.
It's the same reason that I hate "All Maine Points" as a control city in New Hampshire, it tells me virtually nothing about where I'm going and ignores the parts of the state that I-95 would not be the most efficient way to get there.
The traveler reading "New England" must gather more info than the sign provides.
The traveler going to someplace that is not New Haven must gather more info than the sign provides.
My point is that there is an enforced illusion that a specific control city is necessarily useful for travelers without anything else to go on. This is about as true for general destinations as it is specific ones; i.e. only sometimes.
That's why I'd be a fan of signing it as "New Haven CT." Someone going to Boston would surely know that Connecticut is on the way and that if you go towards CT, you going in the right direction. I see control cities as helpful if you know points along the way in your trip. Likewise, if I'm going to Burlington and I see "New Haven CT," I know that I'm not going through Connecticut to get to Vermont so I know that the GW Bridge isn't for me.
If you sign "New England" though, that Vermont bound person could possibly think that the GW is a good way to go because he is going to New England. There is also the possibility that I-287 leads to a better entry point for New England, if only because it allows you to bypass the GW and driving through New York City altogether. I've taken both the Tappan Zee and the GW and they both work perfectly fine for New England bound traffic.
You could also pull a Maryland and Virginia DOTs and just sign "Boston" in New Jersey, as they do with New York. If you REALLY want to direct eastern New England bound traffic over the GW, that is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 01:22:36 PM
There's a reason why they're called "guide" signs, not "we're going to get you to your exact location" signs.
Exactly and they're useless as guide signs if they provide misleading information.
That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's.
If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.
The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.
Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate NY cities to choose from.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's.
If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.
And then there was this sign still hanging over all who come off NJ 495 WB in Oct. 2012 (has it been replaced?)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7791825,-74.0495224,3a,75y,289.71h,82.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.586075%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
ixnay
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 10:23:35 PM
The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.
Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate NY cities to choose from.
Many people from New Jersey actually visit Quebec and Ontario as its close proximity. Northern NJ is only about 5 hrs drive from Montreal. Having Montreal and Albany makes sense.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 26, 2015, 06:07:50 PMYou could also pull a Maryland and Virginia DOTs and just sign "Boston" in New Jersey, as they do with New York. If you REALLY want to direct eastern New England bound traffic over the GW, that is.
New York is destination of an order of magnitude larger than any city on the East Coast. It makes sense to give New York special treatment, much as Boston is treated differently within New England.
Quote from: NJ on November 27, 2015, 07:53:21 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 10:23:35 PM
The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.
Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate NY cities to choose from.
Many people from New Jersey actually visit Quebec and Ontario as its close proximity. Northern NJ is only about 5 hrs drive from Montreal. Having Montreal and Albany makes sense.
You misunderstand–it is likely that only a very small portion of northbound travelers on 287 or the Parkway are going to Montréal. More are likely going to Albany, which is still probably a small percentage. Far more are likely going to some intermediate point.
I'd bet more folks going northbound on 287 toward Suffern on a typical Saturday are heading just to shop at Woodbury Commons than are driving all the way up 87 to Montréal.
Quote from: ixnay on November 27, 2015, 07:24:58 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's.
If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.
And then there was this sign still hanging over all who come off NJ 495 WB in Oct. 2012 (has it been replaced?)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7791825,-74.0495224,3a,75y,289.71h,82.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.586075%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
ixnay
Yuck that sign is ugly... It should be all capitalized state abbreviations (PA - MD etc)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 10:23:35 PM
The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.
Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate NY cities to choose from.
Albany is where I-87 and I-90 intersect. And yes, Albany is not that great yet the NYTA uses it for a control city the moment the toll road enters Buffalo from the west when you have both Rochester and Syracuse that are much more populated than the State Capital and of course Syracuse is where another two digit interstate intersects.
For the Parkway, I am surprised that they came up with using Albany, as being that the terminus has two lanes going SB and only one going NB, it would be more likely to use a point to the south on the Thruway. However, that's going back to NYC, so I guess they had no choice but to use Albany.
They could also use Newburgh, but then that would confuse many motorists as the nearby PIP and US 9W go there, and its just as good as route as the toll road. Every time I went there, I would use the Thruway SB to the PIP NB to US 9W. At that time there were no lights on US 9W south of Newburgh, but even if some were added, still it is another good way to go.
Back to topic, yes control cities are very tough to choose from, and in some cases could be too broad, too specific, and even redundant like CFX here uses in Florida for WB FL 414 which uses Apopka on US 441 which is a road that serves that city as much as FL 414 and maybe even more as US 441 is its downtown area, as 414 bypasses the center.
Albany is NY States capital and the center/midpoint of the state so it makes sense actually.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 27, 2015, 09:02:56 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 10:23:35 PM
The control city should be useful. The chances of someone in New Jersey driving to Montreal is about the same as Christie's chances of being elected POTUS.
Albany probably isn't all that great either, but there aren't exactly a slew of upstate NY cities to choose from.
Albany is where I-87 and I-90 intersect. And yes, Albany is not that great yet the NYTA uses it for a control city the moment the toll road enters Buffalo from the west when you have both Rochester and Syracuse that are much more populated than the State Capital and of course Syracuse is where another two digit interstate intersects.
For the Parkway, I am surprised that they came up with using Albany, as being that the terminus has two lanes going SB and only one going NB, it would be more likely to use a point to the south on the Thruway. However, that's going back to NYC, so I guess they had no choice but to use Albany.
They could also use Newburgh, but then that would confuse many motorists as the nearby PIP and US 9W go there, and its just as good as route as the toll road. Every time I went there, I would use the Thruway SB to the PIP NB to US 9W. At that time there were no lights on US 9W south of Newburgh, but even if some were added, still it is another good way to go.
Back to topic, yes control cities are very tough to choose from, and in some cases could be too broad, too specific, and even redundant like CFX here uses in Florida for WB FL 414 which uses Apopka on US 441 which is a road that serves that city as much as FL 414 and maybe even more as US 441 is its downtown area, as 414 bypasses the center.
Quote from: Zeffy on November 26, 2015, 10:31:05 AM
Quote from: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:27:04 AM
Especially since you often don't see signage for major cities that people are more likely to be going to. For example, when you come off the Throgs Neck Bridge (I-295) from Long Island, you see signage for I-95 north to New Haven or south to Newark. I'd say it's a safe bet that there are more people interested in going to Boston or Philadelphia that New Haven or Newark. Yet you don't see any signage for Boston until you're up by Providence (or Hartford, if you go via I-84) or for Philadelphia until you're at the turnpike exit where you're going to be getting off.
So we should forget smaller cities and just go for what Petersburg, VA does instead (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2179394,-77.3882744,3a,19.8y,111.19h,103.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shqMw0IvaIeEBQXkB5fVX_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
You could list two control cities. Once you get past New Haven on I-95, there are at least some signs that show both New London and Providence. Why not do something like that?
I believe the MUTCD is against two control cities on pullthroughs. At the present time I can think of two signs on I-95 in CT that list control cities, NB... at Exit 70 and at Exit 76, both times displaying New London/Providence. The control city in New Haven used to be Providence but was changed to New London. There may be one sign that still has Providence as the sole control city in New Haven, but its on borrowed time (part of the I-95/I-91/Rt34 interchange reconstruction).
I still miss seeing New England and Upstate being used as control cities. Damn you, MUTCD!!!
^
Newest MUTCD allows maximum 2 control cities/street names per signage.
That sucks because NJ always used 3 in many locations. It created no issues or safety concern. If they want to pick on signing practices get after the airports for signing 20 airlines (well maybe 10 to 15) on one panel on curvy airport ramps.
Quote from: NJ on November 27, 2015, 08:50:38 AM
Quote from: ixnay on November 27, 2015, 07:24:58 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's.
If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.
And then there was this sign still hanging over all who come off NJ 495 WB in Oct. 2012 (has it been replaced?)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7791825,-74.0495224,3a,75y,289.71h,82.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.586075%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
ixnay
Yuck that sign is ugly... It should be all capitalized state abbreviations (PA - MD etc)
Well, to me, that bottom line translates to, "America Awaits!"
ixnay
The "no control cities from non-bordering states" thing is probably an internal NJDOT policy.
Albany may appear small, but the Capital District is a sizeable metro area in its own right (including traffic congestion that is arguably worse than Rochester, Buffalo, or Syracuse, which IMO are the "big three" of upstate NY), and Albany is right in the center of it. Plus I love how all the signs tell me how to get home. As for being the center of the state... Syracuse and Utica are much closer to the geographic center of the state than Albany! The Capital District is a little odd though because instead of being a city surrounded by suburbs, it's a bunch of cities, villages, and "hamlets" with suburbs in between.
Quote from: ixnay on November 27, 2015, 07:24:58 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
That's dumb as NJ could sign Pittsburgh over Baltimore anytime even though the former is farther than the latter only because PA's border's extend far beyond Delaware's.
If memory serves me old NJT signs did use New England at US 46 back in the 70's for the pull though sign going NB as a destination for the GWB.
And then there was this sign still hanging over all who come off NJ 495 WB in Oct. 2012 (has it been replaced?)...
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7791825,-74.0495224,3a,75y,289.71h,82.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ_yCNnFzdF7FtuZkO2tF_w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.586075%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656
ixnay
@ IXNAY: As of mid-day Friday, November 27, 2015, those two all-text beauties are STILL there! I was on NJ Route 495 and through the Lincoln Tunnel twice. First was coming from the north and GWB, with the second time heading south towards the NJ Turnpike and then towards Philadelphia.
It can sometimes take months to install a gantry just like it does to get a simple traffic light put up! I have seen gantries with new signs on them ready to go, then end up sitting there for several weeks before they install it.
Heck even the NB US 1 VMS at Ryders Lane in New Brunswick had it supports up for almost a year before NJDOT hired someone to install the actual board. In fact I thought NJDOT was going to resign US 1 there to have freeway style overheads for its exits, and was extremely disappointed to find out they installed that at the time. There it was just the supports and no gantry off to the side, so you would think its a sign upgrade and of course it being right at the exit for Ryders Lane NB.
Most likely it was part of a contract. Once the winning bidder is selected, it's up to them to complete the contract.
When it comes to the NJ Turnpike, does not the NJTA have their own people that work out of the sign shop in Hightstown to install it?
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
I'd tell you anything I could that would make you stop submitting ideas as silly as signing Montreal from NJ. Here is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. That is all.
Anything in CT is overshadowed by NYC. Baltimore is currently overshadowed by Wilmington. A lot of Del Mem Bridge traffic is going down the DE shore and never makes it to Baltimore, so it's even a little iffy to discuss that one.
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
I'd tell you anything I could that would make you stop submitting ideas as silly as signing Montreal from NJ. Here is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. That is all.
Anything in CT is overshadowed by NYC. Baltimore is currently overshadowed by Wilmington. A lot of Del Mem Bridge traffic is going down the DE shore and never makes it to Baltimore, so it's even a little iffy to discuss that one.
The only other one that might make any amount of sense is Youngstown, only because there is nothing along I-80 in Pennsylvania. ODOT signs New York east of the Ohio Turnpike, effectively doing the same thing in reverse. Almost every other freeway exit has a large city immediately across the border or is a straight shot to Baltimore or Albany.
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:52:53 PMHere is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. That is all.
How about Youngstown for I-80? :bigass:
I'd sign Cleveland rather than Youngstown.
I'd do Youngstown mainly because it's a major decision point. I-80 traffic splits in Youngstown to either continue along I-80 or head along I-76 to Akron and Columbus. Traffic there splits pretty evenly.
Youngstown? Seriously?
I will buy a beer for anyone that can demonstrate that more than 3 out of 10 drivers on Route 80 even know where Youngstown is. Moreover, it's 320+ miles from New Jersey, which in the Northeast may as well be another continent.*
It makes Montréal look reasonable.
No Youngstown signs in New Jersey, please.
* No, this is not the same as signing New York in Ohio. New York has over 8,000,000 people. Youngstown has 65,000 and has averaged a population loss of over 16% a decade for five decades. It has lost the largest portion of its people of any US city formerly over 100,000.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 10:38:30 PM
Youngstown? Seriously?
I will buy a beer for anyone that can demonstrate that more than 3 out of 10 drivers on Route 80 even know where Youngstown is. Moreover, it's 320+ miles from New Jersey, which in the Northeast may as well be another continent.*
It makes Montréal look reasonable.
No Youngstown signs in New Jersey, please.
* No, this is not the same as signing New York in Ohio. New York has over 8,000,000 people. Youngstown has 65,000 and has averaged a population loss of over 16% a decade for five decades. It has lost the largest portion of its people of any US city formerly over 100,000.
I agree.
Control Cities are supposed to actually be helpful. Someone in Ohio obviously knows where New York City is, very few in New Jersey know what a Youngstown is.
If you must sign a long distance control city for I-80 in New Jersey then honestly Cleveland or Chicago make the most sense.
Quote from: cl94 on November 29, 2015, 10:22:28 PM
I'd do Youngstown mainly because it's a major decision point. I-80 traffic splits in Youngstown to either continue along I-80 or head along I-76 to Akron and Columbus. Traffic there splits pretty evenly.
By that token, Maryland should use New Castle, because that's the location in Delaware where traffic takes 95 towards Philly or 295 towards NJ.
If "Delaware Water Gap" doesn't do it for ya, might as well use Stroudsburg. It's a place of some significance and it's a lot closer than Ohio.
I could see some sense in Cleveland showing up as the bottom line of a standalone distance sign, but not as a control point.
That said I can appreciate the logic in "Well if ODOT signs New York, why shouldn't NJDOT sign Youngstown" - ideally, control cities should be sequential and consistent, the westbound control city heading away from New York should match the place where New York becomes the control city eastbound.
But, I would instead conclude that ODOT is being overzealous in using New York as a control point. They should be using some place in PA. Of course, PennDOT is the opposite extreme here and uses all sorts of places of minimal consequence as control cities on I-80. Though I suppose ODOT could still play their game and use Sharon as an eastbound control city (since PennDOT uses it westbound).
Not all cities are equal nor should they be treated as such in control city guidelines. I've been to New York. New York was my friend. Mr. Youngstown, you're no New York City.
And it makes sense to sign New York further away than it does Youngstown. Same goes for Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
I'd tell you anything I could that would make you stop submitting ideas as silly as signing Montreal from NJ. Here is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. That is all.
Anything in CT is overshadowed by NYC. Baltimore is currently overshadowed by Wilmington. A lot of Del Mem Bridge traffic is going down the DE shore and never makes it to Baltimore, so it's even a little iffy to discuss that one.
How about Philadelphia? It will make sense as a control city for I-95 at exit 6 of the turnpike. Also, they already use Philadelphia as a control city for the free I-95 by Trenton.
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 08:44:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
I'd tell you anything I could that would make you stop submitting ideas as silly as signing Montreal from NJ. Here is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. That is all.
Anything in CT is overshadowed by NYC. Baltimore is currently overshadowed by Wilmington. A lot of Del Mem Bridge traffic is going down the DE shore and never makes it to Baltimore, so it's even a little iffy to discuss that one.
How about Philadelphia? It will make sense as a control city for I-95 at exit 6 of the turnpike. Also, they already use Philadelphia as a control city for the free I-95 by Trenton.
On the NJ Turnpike, "Philadelphia" is a destination name, not a control city. And it will be signed at Exit 6; it's currently greened out due to the lack of the connecting interchange for I-95.
On I-95 around Trenton, Philadelphia is a control city, because of its use on the pull-thru signs.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2015, 11:01:39 PM
If "Delaware Water Gap" doesn't do it for ya, might as well use Stroudsburg. It's a place of some significance and it's a lot closer than Ohio.
I could see some sense in Cleveland showing up as the bottom line of a standalone distance sign, but not as a control point.
That said I can appreciate the logic in "Well if ODOT signs New York, why shouldn't NJDOT sign Youngstown" - ideally, control cities should be sequential and consistent, the westbound control city heading away from New York should match the place where New York becomes the control city eastbound.
But, I would instead conclude that ODOT is being overzealous in using New York as a control point. They should be using some place in PA. Of course, PennDOT is the opposite extreme here and uses all sorts of places of minimal consequence as control cities on I-80. Though I suppose ODOT could still play their game and use Sharon as an eastbound control city (since PennDOT uses it westbound).
I disagree with that logic. If a city is big enough, popular enough, or has enough significance world wide, it should be for hundreds of miles away. However, if its a small regional place, it should only be used starting from a point like the last city like it.
In Florida we use Tampa on I-75 from the GA Border southward. However north of Tampa going N Bound on I-75 we use three different places in the same part. Its Ocala up until Ocala, then its Lake City from Ocala to Lake City, and then its Valdosta from Lake City into Georgia. Signing Valdosta from Tampa would not be feasible considering you do have Ocala and Lake City in the middle of the two that also have regional importance. However going southward to sign Lake City and Ocala is not good being that Tampa is within hours away and has more importance being one of our state's largest cities.
The NJ Turnpike is that way as its all NYC going N Bound and going S Bound its Trenton, Camden, and Delaware. That is because Wilmington is not that important as NYC.
Signing Youngstown from Teaneck, NJ to west is the same. Its not that famous and you have a lot of small cities in between that are more feasible to use.
Quote from: dgolub on November 30, 2015, 08:44:50 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
I'd tell you anything I could that would make you stop submitting ideas as silly as signing Montreal from NJ. Here is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. That is all.
Anything in CT is overshadowed by NYC. Baltimore is currently overshadowed by Wilmington. A lot of Del Mem Bridge traffic is going down the DE shore and never makes it to Baltimore, so it's even a little iffy to discuss that one.
How about Philadelphia? It will make sense as a control city for I-95 at exit 6 of the turnpike. Also, they already use Philadelphia as a control city for the free I-95 by Trenton.
Philadelphia might be great, but is not in a non-bordering state, which is the issue of the conversation you're responding to.
Maybe I overestimate the importance of Boston but I don't think it'd be a terrible control city for the GW Bridge.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 30, 2015, 10:22:02 AM
Maybe I overestimate the importance of Boston but I don't think it'd be a terrible control city for the GW Bridge.
that'd be like putting DC as a control city for Del Mem Bridge - technically valid, but hardly ideal.
I don't understand the appeal of signing cities with major highway intersections, but otherwise little significance, as control points. How many travelers know or care where the intersection is? If the highway is so important, add the highway itself to the sign with a "TO" legend. As bad are destinations on either side of the state line. How many people are taking I-287 North to Mahwah or US-1 South to Morrisville? At least the Delaware Water Gap (the park, not the town) is a tourist destination, so that one might sort of be ok for I-80.
My suggestions for I-80's control cities would be New York City EB and Cleveland, O (or OH) WB.
For I-95's cities, Philadelphia and Baltimore SB (Wilmington doesn't get mentioned they all scrublords (sarcasm)), and New York and New Haven NB.
There's nothing of consequence along I-80 in Pennsylvania to warrant control city status, unless you want to do what other states do and sign interstate junctions. This is probably one of those situations where a control state would work best, especially westbound on I-80 in New Jersey.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2015, 12:23:18 PM
There's nothing of consequence along I-80 in Pennsylvania to warrant control city status, unless you want to do what other states do and sign interstate junctions. This is probably one of those situations where a control state would work best, especially westbound on I-80 in New Jersey.
It depends where. Certainly not from the GWB, since you can access southern of PA by taking the Turnpike. If you are on 287 heading South, then you also have the option of 78, 22, and 202 for points in central and southern PA. If you are on 80 itself, you have NJ 15 heading to northern PA (the I-84 corridor)
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 11:50:34 AM
My suggestions for I-80's control cities would be New York City EB and Cleveland, O (or OH) WB.
For I-95's cities, Philadelphia and Baltimore SB (Wilmington doesn't get mentioned they all scrublords (sarcasm)), and New York and New Haven NB.
Who uses "Cleveland, O"
Quote from: bzakharin on November 30, 2015, 11:37:44 AM
I don't understand the appeal of signing cities with major highway intersections, but otherwise little significance, as control points. How many travelers know or care where the intersection is? If the highway is so important, add the highway itself to the sign with a "TO" legend. As bad are destinations on either side of the state line. How many people are taking I-287 North to Mahwah or US-1 South to Morrisville? At least the Delaware Water Gap (the park, not the town) is a tourist destination, so that one might sort of be ok for I-80.
Morrisville for US 1 makes sense, though; it's quite reasonably treated as a local route between its two interchanges with I-95 in the Trenton area.
can't really argue about Mahwah, though.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2015, 01:22:51 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 11:50:34 AM
My suggestions for I-80's control cities would be New York City EB and Cleveland, O (or OH) WB.
For I-95's cities, Philadelphia and Baltimore SB (Wilmington doesn't get mentioned they all scrublords (sarcasm)), and New York and New Haven NB.
Who uses "Cleveland, O"
It's the old abbreviation for Ohio. It was the same as what the US Postal Service used as Ohio's abbreviation prior to 1963. It's no longer used on modern road signs, but you can find them on some button copy signs.
Paterson, Delaware Water Gap or Stroudsburg, Hazelton, and Sharon for WB then Youngstown. EB should be Hazleton, Stroudsburg, and then New York. No New Jersey like there is currently in East Stroudsburg, just right to New York.
You know, I hadn't thought much about it before, but now this has me thinking about what the purpose of control cities should really be. One thing I'm sure of is that it shouldn't just be the place you think most people are trying to reach, because it's foolish to think you can guess where most people, or even a significant minority, are headed.
I'm also not sure that listing the most prominent city on the route is the aim, since the more prominent it is, the more likely that people will already be familiar with where it is. On the other hand, of course, you can't go for unheard-of places either, because how and why would you pick a random small town for use as a control city? So prominence is out.
My hunch is that what's most useful would be guidance through incremental steps, getting a motorist through a series of decision-making points which he can assemble into a reasonably complete journey. For example, way upthread someone mentioned "Illinois" as a control city for I-70, even though that route goes through relatively inconsequential parts of that state. But it makes sense to me, because if I'm in St. Louis and planning a trip eastward, I know that my first step is to cross the river out of the city and into Illinois. (As others have said, some amount of foreknowledge is due on my part.) So if I find a sign that reads "Illinois" and directs me onto I-70, I know I've made a good first move.
The challenge, of course, is how to pick these waypoints so that they are useful in a cumulative way. Using Interstate junction points makes sense for this, but as others have pointed out, people often won't know the city associated with these junctions, especially if they aren't well known places. It would make sense, then, to use the interstates themselves as control destinations, but for some reason that hasn't gained favor.
So anyway, as to the topic on hand, it seems that the control cities off of I-95 towards NYC should give some hint as to how they might be useful as part of a larger trip. To that end, I think the two tunnels should be signed for the part of NYC they reach, since those are more likely to be end points than part of a through trip. But the GWB serves traffic not only to outer areas of NYC, but also beyond, which in this case consists largely of New England. So it wouldn't bother me to see "New England" as a control destination, even though it isn't the best route to many parts of that region. It would serve me to know that my next step is to head towards New England and that this is the route that does it. Where exactly in New England isn't important yet; as I go farther on my trip I'll encounter my next waypoint, which will hopefully be signed appropriately to inform my next decision.
iPhone
Having cities set up that way is good and it was before the interstate gaps were all completed. For example "Emporia" was used on I-95 South from Petersburg instead of "Rocky Mount" which is use presently. As the interstates built long freeways that could bring motorists further in much less time adjustments were made. Emporia was used because US 301 was the old route and that was the next big town along the route, but I-95 really does not need it.
The same for I-78 and Clinton or Easton leaving the NYC metro area. Those were the two prominent control points because US 22 used to use them before the interstate was constructed. Easton was chosen as one of the two because it is the first major city on US 22 into PA and at the border so it made a great reference point. Clinton was the first big town after Somerville and the junction of NJ 31, a major N-S NJ route.
However now with I-78 completed across the Delaware River, it bypasses Easton so really Allentown could be used even from as far east as Newark. However I do not think that NJDOT would catch on, but being they did for NYC as Newark was always the destination used for I-78 E Bound for many years previous. Only on CR 513 in Clinton did they use "New York" as a ramp control city and, I think, NJ 173 in Bloomsbury as well. Even I-287 used "Newark" after the Watchung segment opened in 1988 despite US 22 being signed for "New York" at the same exact time. It was not until I-287 got widened to six lanes (ten between Somerville and I-78) the signs were replaced in the mid 90's.
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2015, 09:52:53 PM
Quote from: NJ on November 26, 2015, 09:38:57 PM
NJDOT told me that they can only include cities for the neighbor border states only. For example you cannot include any signage for Boston because MA does not border NJ. Not sure why they cannot do this. Once I emailed them to include Montreal below Albany but was told that Montreal/Canada does not border NJ.
I'd tell you anything I could that would make you stop submitting ideas as silly as signing Montreal from NJ. Here is a list of cities in non-bordering states that makes sense to sign from NJ:
1. Baltimore
2. New Haven on I-287. At least on advance signage for the I-87 interchange.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 29, 2015, 10:46:33 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2015, 10:38:30 PM
Youngstown? Seriously?
I will buy a beer for anyone that can demonstrate that more than 3 out of 10 drivers on Route 80 even know where Youngstown is. Moreover, it's 320+ miles from New Jersey, which in the Northeast may as well be another continent.*
It makes Montréal look reasonable.
No Youngstown signs in New Jersey, please.
* No, this is not the same as signing New York in Ohio. New York has over 8,000,000 people. Youngstown has 65,000 and has averaged a population loss of over 16% a decade for five decades. It has lost the largest portion of its people of any US city formerly over 100,000.
I agree.
Control Cities are supposed to actually be helpful. Someone in Ohio obviously knows where New York City is, very few in New Jersey know what a Youngstown is.
If you must sign a long distance control city for I-80 in New Jersey then honestly Cleveland or Chicago make the most sense.
Scranton still suffices for me. Two states away from New Jersey with run as long as 80 in Pennsylvania is just unnecessary. Cleveland? People would be more puzzled than anything. Chicago is a thousand miles away.
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Even if say, Scranton, is signed from New Jersey, what should PennDOT use as control cities west of I-380? I get the issue with using Youngstown in New Jersey, but PennDOT takes things to an extreme with places like Clarion being control cities. Sharon has no business being a control city with Youngstown being right there. Maybe "State College" between I-380 and I-99 heading WB?
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
I-80 doesn't go to Columbus. (Cue the infamous "I-76 doesn't go to Cleveland" outcry from Pittsburgh.")
I'm guessing that any NYC metro-area traffic bound for Columbus is going to use the NJTP, the PA Turnpike and I-70, which does go to Columbus, unless they're avowed shunpikers.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2015, 11:19:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
I-80 doesn't go to Columbus. (Cue the infamous "I-76 doesn't go to Cleveland" outcry from Pittsburgh.")
I'm guessing that any NYC metro-area traffic bound for Columbus is going to use the NJTP, the PA Turnpike and I-70, which does go to Columbus, unless they're avowed shunpikers.
Depends on where they're going on either end. Google Maps shows the difference in travel time as negligible if traveling from the GW to downtown Columbus. If someone is driving off the bridge, the difference in time is solely based on traffic.
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Any idea what percentage of folks heading east on 80 are continuing on to Connecticut? You might want to find out before picking an arbitrary set of locations. I mean, there's Riverhead, White Plains, Providence... what if they're not all on guide signs? Then what?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2015, 11:19:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
I-80 doesn't go to Columbus. (Cue the infamous "I-76 doesn't go to Cleveland" outcry from Pittsburgh.")
I'm guessing that any NYC metro-area traffic bound for Columbus is going to use the NJTP, the PA Turnpike and I-70, which does go to Columbus, unless they're avowed shunpikers.
A simpler way would be I-80 to I-71, and is cheaper than NJTP to PATP to I-70. I've compared the tolls below
I-80 to I-71 via Ohio Turnpike: $4 with EZPass, $5.75 without EZPass
NJTP to PATP to I-70: Total of $45.80 without EZPass.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Any idea what percentage of folks heading east on 80 are continuing on to Connecticut? You might want to find out before picking an arbitrary set of locations. I mean, there's Riverhead, White Plains, Providence... what if they're not all on guide signs? Then what?
It's supposed to match the I-95 control city north of New York City. It becomes New Haven if I remember, and Hartford is there for the I-87 to I-84 traveler.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2015, 11:19:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
I-80 doesn't go to Columbus. (Cue the infamous "I-76 doesn't go to Cleveland" outcry from Pittsburgh.")
Neither does New York from I-95 in Maryland. :-D
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Any idea what percentage of folks heading east on 80 are continuing on to Connecticut? You might want to find out before picking an arbitrary set of locations. I mean, there's Riverhead, White Plains, Providence... what if they're not all on guide signs? Then what?
It's supposed to match the I-95 control city north of New York City. It becomes New Haven if I remember, and Hartford is there for the I-87 to I-84 traveler.
While I understand your intention, having
Hartford listed as
any eastbound I-80 destination makes no sense whatsoever (let alone being unnecessary). Additionally & to the best of my knowledge, there are no I-87 northbound signs that list
Hartford either.
Most New England-bound travelers heading east on I-80 exit off at I-81 north (well before the Metropolitan NYC area) and use that to get to either
I-78 (to I-287) I-287 or I-84.
Quote from: PHLBOS on December 01, 2015, 08:53:26 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Any idea what percentage of folks heading east on 80 are continuing on to Connecticut? You might want to find out before picking an arbitrary set of locations. I mean, there's Riverhead, White Plains, Providence... what if they're not all on guide signs? Then what?
It's supposed to match the I-95 control city north of New York City. It becomes New Haven if I remember, and Hartford is there for the I-87 to I-84 traveler.
While I understand your intention, having Hartford listed as any eastbound I-80 destination makes no sense whatsoever (let alone being unnecessary). Additionally & to the best of my knowledge, there are no I-87 northbound signs that list Hartford either.
Most New England-bound travelers heading east on I-80 exit off at I-81 north (well before the Metropolitan NYC area) and use that to get to either I-78 (to I-287) or I-84.
I-287 intersects with I-80 in Parsippany, NJ. No need to double back to just west of Harrisburg on I-81 to I-78 just to get to I-287, especially north. Also most motorists to I-78 now use PA 33 at Bartonsville, PA as that is not so out of the way.
They do exit at I-81 north though to go to Upstate NY and New England. They stay on I-81 for Upstate and Albany, and then for the Catskills, Hudson Valley, and ultimate Hartford and Boston use I-84 from Scranton.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Any idea what percentage of folks heading east on 80 are continuing on to Connecticut? You might want to find out before picking an arbitrary set of locations. I mean, there's Riverhead, White Plains, Providence... what if they're not all on guide signs? Then what?
It's supposed to match the I-95 control city north of New York City. It becomes New Haven if I remember, and Hartford is there for the I-87 to I-84 traveler.
Again, this assumes too much about the likely intentions of travelers with many potential destinations at that point. The GW is one of the busiest bridges in the world, with many major highways heading off 95 on either side of it, and there is no clear consensus of Connecticut as a next destination for those folks like there is on the New England Thruway.
Moreover, you're signing 80, not 95. Not every traveler (possibly not even most) at the eastern end of 80 was on it back where 280 splits off, so quite a few are going to be heading south on 95 (into the Meadowlands, to vainly attempt to to pull this back on topic).
"New York" really is specific enough at this point until you are actually signing the final exits for 95.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 01, 2015, 09:28:03 AMI-287 intersects with I-80 in Parsippany, NJ. No need to double back to just west of Harrisburg on I-81 to I-78 just to get to I-287, especially north. Also most motorists to I-78 now use PA 33 at Bartonsville, PA as that is not so out of the way.
I've since modified my original post. I was inadvertently thinking of somebody heading north along I-81 (from MD) when I typed
I-78 to I-287.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2015, 10:34:57 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 01:10:29 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
Retrying this with a new post.
I-80 EB: New York and Hartford OR New Haven
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
Any idea what percentage of folks heading east on 80 are continuing on to Connecticut? You might want to find out before picking an arbitrary set of locations. I mean, there's Riverhead, White Plains, Providence... what if they're not all on guide signs? Then what?
It's supposed to match the I-95 control city north of New York City. It becomes New Haven if I remember, and Hartford is there for the I-87 to I-84 traveler.
Again, this assumes too much about the likely intentions of travelers with many potential destinations at that point. The GW is one of the busiest bridges in the world, with many major highways heading off 95 on either side of it, and there is no clear consensus of Connecticut as a next destination for those folks like there is on the New England Thruway.
Moreover, you're signing 80, not 95. Not every traveler (possibly not even most) at the eastern end of 80 was on it back where 280 splits off, so quite a few are going to be heading south on 95 (into the Meadowlands, to vainly attempt to to pull this back on topic).
"New York" really is specific enough at this point until you are actually signing the final exits for 95.
I think you've brought up an important point: that the branching of I-280 (and probably NJ 24 via I-287 before it) represents a major decision point. Until then, "New York City" makes sense as a control city for I-80, because it gets you to the greater region of that city. At I-280, then, you'd have control points showing that this route serves southern parts of the region and may be best for final destinations in the city center, while I-80 would have control points showing it not only as the through route, but the route for northern parts of the region.
The question is, after the I-280 decision point, do you continue showing the northern/through control point ("GWB" or whatever we determine that to be)? Or to you go back to showing simply "New York City", because you now have traffic entering the route who didn't go through the decision, and some of them may be bound for central and southern points via the Turnpike, or routes on the New York side. I would think that, for those people, the main thing they need to know is which way goes toward the city and which goes away. So maybe: "I-80 EAST—New York" and "I-80 WEST—Pennsylvania" or simply "Outbound"?
At the I-80 and I-280 split, New York or New York City is still the pull through destination, even though I-280 can indirectly get you to the Holland Tunnel via CR 508, NJ 7, US 1 & 9 Truck, and NJ 139.
Also at Wayne, where US 46 has an exit for those wishing to head east to Clifton and NJ 3, still has NYC as pull through along with the GWB as US 46 E Bound at Exit 52 uses Clifton and Lincoln Tunnel as control destinations without New York, despite most motorists from the west bound for Midtown would exit here.
So, the lack of New York at the decision points is not relevant as New York is listed all the way to the end of I-80 from pretty much all points. I say pretty much because at CR 521 near Hope, NJDOT uses Netcong at that entry point, but as far as I know all pull through signs use "New York" or "New York City." I do not know what all ramps say as I never been on all of them, nor have I been living in New Jersey for 25 years to be accurate.
When was the last serious talk of widening the Western Spur? I have the plans from 25+ years ago; has there been any mention since?
I remember that. If I am not mistaken it was to be another dual configuration like south of there on the mainline. I cannot be sure of the details, but nonetheless I heard what you did.
I have been away for those 25 years so who knows what happened there since. I second his question.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 12:55:29 AM
At the I-80 and I-280 split, New York or New York City is still the pull through destination, even though I-280 can indirectly get you to the Holland Tunnel via CR 508, NJ 7, US 1 & 9 Truck, and NJ 139.
Also at Wayne, where US 46 has an exit for those wishing to head east to Clifton and NJ 3, still has NYC as pull through along with the GWB as US 46 E Bound at Exit 52 uses Clifton and Lincoln Tunnel as control destinations without New York, despite most motorists from the west bound for Midtown would exit here.
So, the lack of New York at the decision points is not relevant as New York is listed all the way to the end of I-80 from pretty much all points. I say pretty much because at CR 521 near Hope, NJDOT uses Netcong at that entry point, but as far as I know all pull through signs use "New York" or "New York City." I do not know what all ramps say as I never been on all of them, nor have I been living in New Jersey for 25 years to be accurate.
You're talking about what's
actually signed; but I'm thinking about how it
might be signed if my theory were adopted, or if my theory even makes sense.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 01, 2015, 01:09:34 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2015, 11:19:55 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 08:58:48 PM
I-80 WB: Columbus and Cleveland (no need to mention PA they all scrublords (again, sarcasm and yes i am joking))
I-80 doesn't go to Columbus. (Cue the infamous "I-76 doesn't go to Cleveland" outcry from Pittsburgh.")
I'm guessing that any NYC metro-area traffic bound for Columbus is going to use the NJTP, the PA Turnpike and I-70, which does go to Columbus, unless they're avowed shunpikers.
A simpler way would be I-80 to I-71, and is cheaper than NJTP to PATP to I-70. I've compared the tolls below
I-80 to I-71 via Ohio Turnpike: $4 with EZPass, $5.75 without EZPass
NJTP to PATP to I-70: Total of $45.80 without EZPass.
Quicker to go I-80 to I-76 (straight, no exit) to I-71, and zero tolls.
This is unrelated, but about the Meadowlands, doesn't the NJ Turnpike have an exit leading to the Meadowlands? I believe there is a changeable sign that always says "DO NOT ENTER" in white with a red background. Never saw it changing.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 02, 2015, 03:30:47 PM
This is unrelated, but about the Meadowlands, doesn't the NJ Turnpike have an exit leading to the Meadowlands? I believe there is a changeable sign that always says "DO NOT ENTER" in white with a red background. Never saw it changing.
Actually it's one of the few recent on-topic posts here.
It is open during major events at the sports complex.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 12:55:29 AM
Also at Wayne, where US 46 has an exit for those wishing to head east to Clifton and NJ 3, still has NYC as pull through along with the GWB as US 46 E Bound at Exit 52 uses Clifton and Lincoln Tunnel as control destinations without New York, despite most motorists from the west bound for Midtown would exit here.
Things were simpler in the old days:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fimages%2Fstr00001%2FRoutesRt61950.jpg&hash=ddff6c5ee22900be1fb4e143e93bd21ee7a0a3f6)
Yes, New England was once used in New Jersey! Gotta love that deco style billboard that likely lit up at night.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
Things were simpler in the old days:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fimages%2Fstr00001%2FRoutesRt61950.jpg&hash=ddff6c5ee22900be1fb4e143e93bd21ee7a0a3f6)
Yes, New England was once used in New Jersey! Gotta love that deco style billboard that likely lit up at night.
That seems to go right along with my thinking. But current practice doesn't match that so much; what's the difference in philosophy?
iPhone
The billboard above is likely an "advertisement", not bounded by government bureaucracy. Ironic because it was posted by one of the most bureaucratic government agencies out there, the Port Authority.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:27:13 AM
When was the last serious talk of widening the Western Spur? I have the plans from 25+ years ago; has there been any mention since?
There haven't been any design efforts for widening since then, so any widening would not occur in this decade. It will take the start of design efforts to determine whether the old plans (dual-dual system) are used to any degree, and how much widening may happen. No timetable on that. But no, the NJTA isn't blind to the traffic there.
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 02, 2015, 03:30:47 PM
This is unrelated, but about the Meadowlands, doesn't the NJ Turnpike have an exit leading to the Meadowlands? I believe there is a changeable sign that always says "DO NOT ENTER" in white with a red background. Never saw it changing.
I've seen it open more times than closed, actually. The "CW" ramps connect the Meadowlands to I-95 NB and I-95 SB, and from I-95 SB into the Meadowlands, north of the 18W toll plaza. (In other words, it counts as a free interchange.) I don't know why there was never a NB ramp built at this spot, as it would be nice to have a relief valve for 16W when event traffic really gets going.
Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2015, 04:17:24 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
Things were simpler in the old days:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fimages%2Fstr00001%2FRoutesRt61950.jpg&hash=ddff6c5ee22900be1fb4e143e93bd21ee7a0a3f6)
Yes, New England was once used in New Jersey! Gotta love that deco style billboard that likely lit up at night.
That seems to go right along with my thinking. But current practice doesn't match that so much; what's the difference in philosophy?
iPhone
Difference is that AASHTO is now in charge of control cities, so the boroughs of NY are subjugated to the actual NY destination itself. To address an earlier post, once you stop signing NYC as the destination for I-80, that's it. You can't restart it, technically. I support the destinations for I-280 being more local in nature (The Caldwells and Newark). There are multiple routes to the Holland Tunnel from the I-80 corridor, and given the lack of direct freeway connection via I-280, it may have been deemed undesirable to sign it. Once you get to Exit 53, I-80 is signed to Geo Washington Br and US 46-NJ 3 is signed to Lincoln Tunnel. Again, that's supportable. There are very few people who don't know where they're going as they enter metro NJ, and if these signs don't help them, well, NYC is so big that they'll never get to their destination if all they're following is signs to New York.
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:30:22 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2015, 04:17:24 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
Things were simpler in the old days:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fimages%2Fstr00001%2FRoutesRt61950.jpg&hash=ddff6c5ee22900be1fb4e143e93bd21ee7a0a3f6)
Yes, New England was once used in New Jersey! Gotta love that deco style billboard that likely lit up at night.
That seems to go right along with my thinking. But current practice doesn't match that so much; what's the difference in philosophy?
Difference is that AASHTO is now in charge of control cities, so the boroughs of NY are subjugated to the actual NY destination itself.
What's AASHTO's rationale for mandating that?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 12:55:29 AM
Also at Wayne, where US 46 has an exit for those wishing to head east to Clifton and NJ 3, still has NYC as pull through along with the GWB as US 46 E Bound at Exit 52 uses Clifton and Lincoln Tunnel as control destinations without New York, despite most motorists from the west bound for Midtown would exit here.
Things were simpler in the old days:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fimages%2Fstr00001%2FRoutesRt61950.jpg&hash=ddff6c5ee22900be1fb4e143e93bd21ee7a0a3f6)
Yes, New England was once used in New Jersey! Gotta love that deco style billboard that likely lit up at night.
Thanks for posting that. Really nice look at the perspective of the time. Do you know the specific location of this sign?
As far as a general (not specific) location, I guess that billboard was on NJ 6 (today's U.S. 46) in the Little Falls/Woodland Park stretch. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8782998,-74.2038933,15z NJ S-3 mentioned on the billboard is today's NJ 3. All per Wiki.
I once had a book called IIRC Crossing the Delaware about the history of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, by the former head of the DRBA. In in is a pic of a billboard similar to the one reproduced above, but on U.S. 40 at the DE/MD line, with a picture of the then-new, single span DMB, text like "Welcome to Delaware/Delaware Memorial Bridge 12 Miles", and a friendly DE state trooper advising to "Slow Down and Live".
ixnay
Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2015, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:30:22 PM
Difference is that AASHTO is now in charge of control cities, so the boroughs of NY are subjugated to the actual NY destination itself.
What's AASHTO's rationale for mandating that?
I was referring back to I-80 in this case. AASHTO is in control of Interstate highway control cities only. Anything on US or state highways is up to the individual state, as US 46/NJ 3 would be.
Quote from: ixnay on December 02, 2015, 08:34:33 PM
As far as a general (not specific) location, I guess that billboard was on NJ 6 (today's U.S. 46) in the Little Falls/Woodland Park stretch. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8782998,-74.2038933,15z NJ S-3 mentioned on the billboard is today's NJ 3. All per Wiki.
I once had a book called IIRC Crossing the Delaware about the history of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, by the former head of the DRBA. In in is a pic of a billboard similar to the one reproduced above, but on U.S. 40 at the DE/MD line, with a picture of the then-new, single span DMB, text like "Welcome to Delaware/Delaware Memorial Bridge 12 Miles", and a friendly DE state trooper advising to "Slow Down and Live".
ixnay
Well, if those routes are correct, it would be US 46 East 1.5 miles before NJ 3, in which case the current version of that sign is:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8761445,-74.2020275,3a,75y,113.87h,89.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scnIX55ATx1p0ZdjoZxzyBA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
No cities of any sort are mentioned, just GWB and Lincoln Tunnel
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 10:38:47 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 02, 2015, 07:56:15 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:30:22 PM
Difference is that AASHTO is now in charge of control cities, so the boroughs of NY are subjugated to the actual NY destination itself.
What's AASHTO's rationale for mandating that?
I was referring back to I-80 in this case. AASHTO is in control of Interstate highway control cities only. Anything on US or state highways is up to the individual state, as US 46/NJ 3 would be.
I get that. But aren't you saying that AASHTO would only sign the city name (New York) rather than any of the boroughs or some more specific destination? Maybe I misunderstood what you mean by "the NY destination itself".
But regardless of that, I was asking about the difference in philosophy, not in jurisdiction. What is AASHTO's–or anybody's–rationale for choosing control cities, and why doesn't it lead them towards a solution like the old billboard in the photo?
The reason I'm asking is because we've gotten onto this lengthy tangent about how destinations should be signed for the NYC approaches off of I-95, and I thought if we could establish the underlying aim of choosing the destinations, we could more easily decide on what they should appropriately be. That is, if we come to an agreement about what the question is, we might more readily agree on the answer.
This is probably it, just east of Browertown Road (there's now a Taco Bell there):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.historicaerials.com%2Fapi%2Flayers%2F1953%2F18%2F77034%2F98398&hash=8bb17282ffea4a9ded07d4f953648a1c875702fb)
Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
But regardless of that, I was asking about the difference in philosophy, not in jurisdiction. What is AASHTO's–or anybody's–rationale for choosing control cities, and why doesn't it lead them towards a solution like the old billboard in the photo?
This isn't a direct answer, but a modern analogue for the usage of boroughs in that sign...is the continued practice of local destinations along Los Angeles freeways, particularly the usage of "Hollywood" and "Echo Park" (and to some extent "San Pedro"), all locales in the Los Angeles city limits. (This along with "Los Angeles" being used generally as a control destination referring to downtown specifically)
Are there other places where sub-sections of cities are used as primary control destinations along with or in lieu of the actual city name itself?
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:27:13 AM
When was the last serious talk of widening the Western Spur? I have the plans from 25+ years ago; has there been any mention since?
There haven't been any design efforts for widening since then, so any widening would not occur in this decade. It will take the start of design efforts to determine whether the old plans (dual-dual system) are used to any degree, and how much widening may happen. No timetable on that. But no, the NJTA isn't blind to the traffic there.
Given that the Western spur is essentially surrounded in entirety by wetlands, would widening it even be feasible? Would require an awful lot of mitigation work, and an awful lot of wetland creation at some other location.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 03, 2015, 08:31:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:27:13 AM
When was the last serious talk of widening the Western Spur? I have the plans from 25+ years ago; has there been any mention since?
There haven't been any design efforts for widening since then, so any widening would not occur in this decade. It will take the start of design efforts to determine whether the old plans (dual-dual system) are used to any degree, and how much widening may happen. No timetable on that. But no, the NJTA isn't blind to the traffic there.
Given that the Western spur is essentially surrounded in entirety by wetlands, would widening it even be feasible? Would require an awful lot of mitigation work, and an awful lot of wetland creation at some other location.
Not exactly. When this plan was proposed, the Meadowlands had been developed in part by trading rights for some kind of "wetlands improvements." You would see mud flats with new, immature plants, and new bird platforms.
Are there signs still in the marsh on the Eastern Spur declaring that Hartz Mountain has restored that area?
I have no idea how meaningful the improvements are. Perhaps they cleared the invasive phragmites (reeds) out for a while, but phragmites just comes back.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2015, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
But regardless of that, I was asking about the difference in philosophy, not in jurisdiction. What is AASHTO's–or anybody's–rationale for choosing control cities, and why doesn't it lead them towards a solution like the old billboard in the photo?
This isn't a direct answer, but a modern analogue for the usage of boroughs in that sign...is the continued practice of local destinations along Los Angeles freeways, particularly the usage of "Hollywood" and "Echo Park" (and to some extent "San Pedro"), all locales in the Los Angeles city limits. (This along with "Los Angeles" being used generally as a control destination referring to downtown specifically)
Are there other places where sub-sections of cities are used as primary control destinations along with or in lieu of the actual city name itself?
White River Junction, Vermont is a village within the town of Hartford, Vermont. WRJ is an I-91 control city, Hartford, VT is not.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 03, 2015, 08:31:39 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 02, 2015, 06:25:22 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2015, 01:27:13 AM
When was the last serious talk of widening the Western Spur? I have the plans from 25+ years ago; has there been any mention since?
There haven't been any design efforts for widening since then, so any widening would not occur in this decade. It will take the start of design efforts to determine whether the old plans (dual-dual system) are used to any degree, and how much widening may happen. No timetable on that. But no, the NJTA isn't blind to the traffic there.
Given that the Western spur is essentially surrounded in entirety by wetlands, would widening it even be feasible? Would require an awful lot of mitigation work, and an awful lot of wetland creation at some other location.
All I know is that the only thing stopping the 1980s widening was funding, not permits, so they have to have something ready.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 03, 2015, 09:09:06 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2015, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
But regardless of that, I was asking about the difference in philosophy, not in jurisdiction. What is AASHTO's–or anybody's–rationale for choosing control cities, and why doesn't it lead them towards a solution like the old billboard in the photo?
This isn't a direct answer, but a modern analogue for the usage of boroughs in that sign...is the continued practice of local destinations along Los Angeles freeways, particularly the usage of "Hollywood" and "Echo Park" (and to some extent "San Pedro"), all locales in the Los Angeles city limits. (This along with "Los Angeles" being used generally as a control destination referring to downtown specifically)
Are there other places where sub-sections of cities are used as primary control destinations along with or in lieu of the actual city name itself?
White River Junction, Vermont is a village within the town of Hartford, Vermont. WRJ is an I-91 control city, Hartford, VT is not.
Yes and no. White River Junction might be a CDP, but it is significantly more notable than Hartford, which in itself is not a notable destination. Going back in history, the area's rail station was (and still is) White River Junction. Hartford is also a town. That would be like NYSDOT having all of its exits in the town of Colonie use "Colonie" as the control instead of the hamlets currently used.
For a long while Toms River in NJ was unincorporated until they decided to name the township it was part of as it. It used to be a community inside the now defunct Dover Township. So the situation of White River Junction is not unique as there are many others out there that use unincorporated towns and cities for control destinations.
Even Toms River is not the only other scenario, there is one other that I cannot remember at this time. I had one yesterday to mention, but now it moved to the tip of my tongue.
Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 03, 2015, 09:09:06 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2015, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
But regardless of that, I was asking about the difference in philosophy, not in jurisdiction. What is AASHTO's–or anybody's–rationale for choosing control cities, and why doesn't it lead them towards a solution like the old billboard in the photo?
This isn't a direct answer, but a modern analogue for the usage of boroughs in that sign...is the continued practice of local destinations along Los Angeles freeways, particularly the usage of "Hollywood" and "Echo Park" (and to some extent "San Pedro"), all locales in the Los Angeles city limits. (This along with "Los Angeles" being used generally as a control destination referring to downtown specifically)
Are there other places where sub-sections of cities are used as primary control destinations along with or in lieu of the actual city name itself?
White River Junction, Vermont is a village within the town of Hartford, Vermont. WRJ is an I-91 control city, Hartford, VT is not.
Yes and no. White River Junction might be a CDP, but it is significantly more notable than Hartford, which in itself is not a notable destination. Going back in history, the area's rail station was (and still is) White River Junction. Hartford is also a town. That would be like NYSDOT having all of its exits in the town of Colonie use "Colonie" as the control instead of the hamlets currently used.
It would also be more akin to using a neighborhood name (such as in NYC) rather than the city name than it is to using a borough instead of the city. It comes down to the difference between place names that are areal in nature vs. those that are point-based. A New England-style town is really a further subdivision of the county–an areal division of the land. So you wouldn't tend to direct someone to this broad area of land, any more than you might expect to see a county as a signed destination. Instead, you'd use some localized, concentrated settlement, which often has the same name as the town, but in this case it doesn't.
(That's paragraph 1 of what could become a very long discussion of the topic, and one we're no strangers to around here.)
Quote from: empirestate on December 04, 2015, 11:30:45 AM
Quote from: cl94 on December 03, 2015, 11:19:50 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on December 03, 2015, 09:09:06 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 03, 2015, 07:15:29 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 03, 2015, 12:00:18 PM
But regardless of that, I was asking about the difference in philosophy, not in jurisdiction. What is AASHTO's–or anybody's–rationale for choosing control cities, and why doesn't it lead them towards a solution like the old billboard in the photo?
This isn't a direct answer, but a modern analogue for the usage of boroughs in that sign...is the continued practice of local destinations along Los Angeles freeways, particularly the usage of "Hollywood" and "Echo Park" (and to some extent "San Pedro"), all locales in the Los Angeles city limits. (This along with "Los Angeles" being used generally as a control destination referring to downtown specifically)
Are there other places where sub-sections of cities are used as primary control destinations along with or in lieu of the actual city name itself?
White River Junction, Vermont is a village within the town of Hartford, Vermont. WRJ is an I-91 control city, Hartford, VT is not.
Yes and no. White River Junction might be a CDP, but it is significantly more notable than Hartford, which in itself is not a notable destination. Going back in history, the area's rail station was (and still is) White River Junction. Hartford is also a town. That would be like NYSDOT having all of its exits in the town of Colonie use "Colonie" as the control instead of the hamlets currently used.
It would also be more akin to using a neighborhood name (such as in NYC) rather than the city name than it is to using a borough instead of the city. It comes down to the difference between place names that are areal in nature vs. those that are point-based. A New England-style town is really a further subdivision of the county–an areal division of the land. So you wouldn't tend to direct someone to this broad area of land, any more than you might expect to see a county as a signed destination. Instead, you'd use some localized, concentrated settlement, which often has the same name as the town, but in this case it doesn't.
(That's paragraph 1 of what could become a very long discussion of the topic, and one we're no strangers to around here.)
Precisely. New York towns are the same way. There's a decent example of a similar situation on the US 9 stub expressway (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6668204,-73.7536138,3a,75y,86.81h,80.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUSIodbqyeOi7OqDVhAcYmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Albany. Control city on US 9 is Loudonville, which is an unincorporated community in the town of Colonie. Similar to the New England towns, in this part of New York, people typically use hamlet/neighborhood names instead of the town because a town in New York is little more than a county subdivision.
Heck, look at Long Island. Nassau County only has 3 towns and people
only use village and hamlet names. People living in the town of Hempstead, for example,
never use "Hempstead" unless referring to the village of the same name.
NJDOT on US 202 North as it splits from NJ 23 in Wayne, NJ uses "Ramapo" instead of "Suffern" as a control city for its mileage sign. Ramapo is the town and Suffern is a village in that town. More people are familiar with the village name over the town.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 11:43:04 AM
NJDOT on US 202 North as it splits from NJ 23 in Wayne, NJ uses "Ramapo" instead of "Suffern" as a control city for its mileage sign. Ramapo is the town and Suffern is a village in that town. More people are familiar with the village name over the town.
This is one of those nonsensical things that results from overadhering to regulation. Nobody uses "Ramapo" as a place name. It would be akin to saying "I am going out to buy groceries in United States." If someone asks how far to the Town of Ramapo, they are an alien from space trying to infiltrate our society. Report them immediately.
Quote from: cl94 on December 04, 2015, 11:38:29 AM
Precisely. New York towns are the same way. There's a decent example of a similar situation on the US 9 stub expressway (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6668204,-73.7536138,3a,75y,86.81h,80.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUSIodbqyeOi7OqDVhAcYmA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Albany. Control city on US 9 is Loudonville, which is an unincorporated community in the town of Colonie. Similar to the New England towns, in this part of New York, people typically use hamlet/neighborhood names instead of the town because a town in New York is little more than a county subdivision.
The signs from I-90 also reference Arbor Hill, a neighborhood in Albany (and a rather notorious one).
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 12:31:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 11:43:04 AM
NJDOT on US 202 North as it splits from NJ 23 in Wayne, NJ uses "Ramapo" instead of "Suffern" as a control city for its mileage sign. Ramapo is the town and Suffern is a village in that town. More people are familiar with the village name over the town.
This is one of those nonsensical things that results from overadhering to regulation. Nobody uses "Ramapo" as a place name. It would be akin to saying "I am going out to buy groceries in United States." If someone asks how far to the Town of Ramapo, they are an alien from space trying to infiltrate our society. Report them immediately.
Ramapo is only used as a destination when referring to the service area or
maybe the tiny hamlet just north of Thruway Exit 15A (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1406461,-74.168388,3a,24.9y,372.34h,79.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVzwy7t1U01tYa9XZw2sYVQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DVzwy7t1U01tYa9XZw2sYVQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D93.411179%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656).
Its like the other way on US 202 where they use "Solebury" instead of "New Hope" for the same reason. PA has townships instead of towns, but they are both the same in nature. In this case, this is overadhering once again as whomever designed the sign just used what he researched on paper and did not take into consideration what the public uses when driving to the destination.
The mileage signs in NJ on cross state routes use the towns on both sides of the State Lines as reference points. In case of US 202 its Mahwah and Ramapo on the north end and Lambertville and Solebury on the south end. Mahwah is the last community US 202 enters in NJ before crossing the border into Ramapo, NY where Suffern is in. Lambertville is the last place US 202 is before leaving NJ into PA and Solebury is the first community after crossing the Delaware. Apparently, US 202 does not enter New Hope proper after crossing the state line, so the records will show Solebury. With Ramapo over Suffern, I will bet someone in NJDOT does not know what a village is even though Ridgefield Park, NJ is one of them.
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
Correct. There is no organized sub-municipal government in New Jersey like there is New York. Village, borough, city, and township are all municipalities organized differently but on the same level.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
I think Iselin was actually signed on the Garden State Parkway until very recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5618144,-74.3219323,3a,75y,334.03h,84.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUKU1-EsCLycs8i8H_j8Byw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1!6m1!1e1
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
Ridgewood is a village.
"To a NJ thinker" in this case misuses the word "thinker," since it's sort of the opposite–applying something based on a rule instead of finding out what people know and use.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 11:09:24 AM
For a long while Toms River in NJ was unincorporated until they decided to name the township it was part of as it. It used to be a community inside the now defunct Dover Township. So the situation of White River Junction is not unique as there are many others out there that use unincorporated towns and cities for control destinations.
Even Toms River is not the only other scenario, there is one other that I cannot remember at this time. I had one yesterday to mention, but now it moved to the tip of my tongue.
The township name changed I would not say defunct, implies that the township was annexed by Toms River. ( I know you know that, just clarification)
Cherry Hill Township was named Delaware Township
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:43:59 PM
Its like the other way on US 202 where they use "Solebury" instead of "New Hope" for the same reason. PA has townships instead of towns, but they are both the same in nature.
Yes, in essence. However, PA's townships tend not to develop as much of a public identity as, to some extent, NY's towns, and to a great extent, the municipalities of NJ and New England. This is where Chapter 1 starts to get more complicated, as areal divisions in those states are often referred to in the same context as "localized" places, depending on how strongly the residents relate to them.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
That sounds plausible. I can picture somebody referring to a municipal map of New Jersey, and if it happened to show civil boundaries in the adjoining states as well, it's easy to imagine that person seeing a NY town or a PA township and thinking they would make a good parallel to NJ's various municipalities.
Quote from: empirestate on December 04, 2015, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:43:59 PM
Its like the other way on US 202 where they use "Solebury" instead of "New Hope" for the same reason. PA has townships instead of towns, but they are both the same in nature.
Yes, in essence. However, PA's townships tend not to develop as much of a public identity as, to some extent, NY's towns, and to a great extent, the municipalities of NJ and New England. This is where Chapter 1 starts to get more complicated, as areal divisions in those states are often referred to in the same context as "localized" places, depending on how strongly the residents relate to them.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
That sounds plausible. I can picture somebody referring to a municipal map of New Jersey, and if it happened to show civil boundaries in the adjoining states as well, it's easy to imagine that person seeing a NY town or a PA township and thinking they would make a good parallel to NJ's various municipalities.
In PA, villages aren't incorporated at all. They usually do have bigger name recognition than the townships they're apart of though. In PA they tend to use village names as control cities instead of township names for that very reason.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2015, 04:23:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
Ridgewood is a village.
"To a NJ thinker" in this case misuses the word "thinker," since it's sort of the opposite–applying something based on a rule instead of finding out what people know and use.
I did not mean no pun in that word. I was just saying that when a smaller community lies within a larger one, to a New Jerseyan, we would think that its just all synonymous. The same with Suffern with its parent Ramapo, however NY does things differently where the smaller area inside an incorporated community can have its own government and still be part of it which is what Suffern is inside Ramapo.
Each state is different and we all think the norm is what each of us do in our own state. Organization of towns are quite different by state and just so you know, I never knew of unincorporated areas without municipal governments until I moved to Florida. Being from New Jersey, I always thought that all parts of a state had to be under some sort of municipal jurisdiction because in New Jersey we have no areas that are unincorporated. The term unincorporated is used for area names that are considered towns that are only part of a township, like Iselin is considered unincorporated because it has no government of its own and is part of Woodbridge Township.
My point is that I'd expect there to be some research into useful terms before putting them on a sign. I may overestimate the resources available for such work.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 05, 2015, 03:55:50 PM
My point is that I'd expect there to be some research into useful terms before putting them on a sign. I may overestimate the resources available for such work.
Just as the placement of them. Look at the sign on US 202 southbound in Flemington as its where the route enters the traffic circle there and not after it.
Also look at US 1 & 9 Southbound's first sign in Palisades Park. Its where US 1 & 9 is the frontage road for US 46 and not after it turns the corner onto Broad Avenue.
Then you also have:
US 9 North in Lakewood. Assembly at the CR 526 junction and NOT after it.
I-195 West in Wall. Between the NJ 34 SB exit and SB NJ 34 entrance ramp.
Then you have:
Ewing for I-295 instead of Trenton on all NB signs.
Plainsboro, instead of Princeton for US 1 SB on its signs.
It was not carefully thought out as you say.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2015, 03:46:59 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 02, 2015, 12:55:29 AM
Also at Wayne, where US 46 has an exit for those wishing to head east to Clifton and NJ 3, still has NYC as pull through along with the GWB as US 46 E Bound at Exit 52 uses Clifton and Lincoln Tunnel as control destinations without New York, despite most motorists from the west bound for Midtown would exit here.
Things were simpler in the old days:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nj.gov%2Fstate%2Farchives%2Fimages%2Fstr00001%2FRoutesRt61950.jpg&hash=ddff6c5ee22900be1fb4e143e93bd21ee7a0a3f6)
Yes, New England was once used in New Jersey! Gotta love that deco style billboard that likely lit up at night.
I remember there was a billboard on US 13 north after entering Maryland advertising the Cape May- Lewes Ferry advising motorists to use US 113 north from Pocomoke City, MD. I do not know if its still there or not, but the last time I was there MDSHA did have one of their highway signs directing motorists to that crossing via US 113.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
I think Iselin was actually signed on the Garden State Parkway until very recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5618144,-74.3219323,3a,75y,334.03h,84.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUKU1-EsCLycs8i8H_j8Byw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1!6m1!1e1
It was. It was removed to a secondary ground mount BGS for MUTCD compliance (they discourage more than 2 place names on a BGS). That's happened with numerous signs on the Parkway as part of the MUTCD sign replacement project.
Quote from: storm2k on December 07, 2015, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
I think Iselin was actually signed on the Garden State Parkway until very recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5618144,-74.3219323,3a,75y,334.03h,84.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUKU1-EsCLycs8i8H_j8Byw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1!6m1!1e1
It was. It was removed to a secondary ground mount BGS for MUTCD compliance (they discourage more than 2 place names on a BGS). That's happened with numerous signs on the Parkway as part of the MUTCD sign replacement project.
But Iselin is directly served by that exit. If it were just the number of place names, I'd bump off Rahway, since it's better served by exit 135 or, better yet, exit 12 on the Turnpike. If the problem is that it isn't incorporated, then sign Woodbridge.
Quote from: bzakharin on December 07, 2015, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: storm2k on December 07, 2015, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 04:10:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on December 04, 2015, 03:49:43 PM
NJ villages these days are no different from townships. They are fully incorporated and have local government. They are not inside any larger political entity (that isn't a county).
I rest my case.
Obviously when NJDOT selected control points for mileage signs, they were looking at the large entity beneath the county level, so they came up with Ramapo and being Suffern is part of that it would be like considering Iselin, which is part of Woodbridge Township, as one if a road went there to terminate which I am sure they would use Woodbridge. Even though Suffern has a government of its own and Iselin does not, to a NJ thinker it may not be realized.
BTW, I think NJ only has three villages. Ridgefield Park, South Orange, and Loch Arbour are the only ones incorporated as such.
I think Iselin was actually signed on the Garden State Parkway until very recently:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5618144,-74.3219323,3a,75y,334.03h,84.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUKU1-EsCLycs8i8H_j8Byw!2e0!5s20121001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1!6m1!1e1
It was. It was removed to a secondary ground mount BGS for MUTCD compliance (they discourage more than 2 place names on a BGS). That's happened with numerous signs on the Parkway as part of the MUTCD sign replacement project.
But Iselin is directly served by that exit. If it were just the number of place names, I'd bump off Rahway, since it's better served by exit 135 or, better yet, exit 12 on the Turnpike. If the problem is that it isn't incorporated, then sign Woodbridge.
Iselin is served by 3 consecutive exits on the NB Parkway (131A, 131B, and 132) and 2 SB (132 and 131). The supplemental signs reflect this, so I think this was the right change.