AARoads Forum

The NJ Turnpike BGS are pre-Interstate Design! Should The New Jersey Turnpike Standardize BGS and Exit Signs?
Is There any Other Interstate Highway, Freeway or Expressway with this BGS Design.

Unless the feds force them to, its not likely. The only section that the feds can withhold funding for non-compliance is the section north of US-46. It would be nice to get some standard signing and mileage based exit numbers for I-95, but it will likely never happen.

Mod note revised - this is too NJ centric.

Only after the Turnpike/95 connection in PA is built will we know whether I-95 will be signed along Exit 6 / PA Extension or not.  But yes, because the Turnpike is self-funded, they get to decide what they want without interference.

As for other highways with unique signage, you have some very interesting fonts on the Atlantic City Expressway (sorry, couldn't even leave the state with another example).  But at least they use exit tabs and are mileage based.  (Garden State Parkway, although owned by the Turnpike Authority, remains basically to DOT standards or at least former standards in BGS design - but there is a lot of variation about what is acceptable.)

The Interchange 6 guide signs will include I-95 in their final design when the Interchange 6 to 9 Widening is complete (at least based on the design plans), but the shields and other "incriminating" information will be covered until the Pa interchange is complete, whenever that is . . . 

The widening program is also supposed to include I-95 shields on the pull-through signs, again subject to the prerequisite interchange completion.

Actually, i kind of like the NJ Tpke BGS signs and would like to see them left alone for as long as possible....

For me at least, for so many years, the various Northeast toll roads have unique signage which allowed me to take a nap in my parents car back in the day....then wake up, and tell where i was just by the sign design


The NJ Tpke signs are a last vestige to those long-gone days when states didnt have to be THAT uniform in their signage, and in my mind,should be preserved for as long as they are actually usable in service.

I honestly think they should keep their current unique signage, since ya know, its unique. Where else today can you find freeway signage where the exit number and the distance to said exit on the same line? I am so-so on weather they should change their exit numbers to mile based, since I am fine with both. I also think that the turnpike should be signed as I-95 a little bit better. Occasional median I-95 shields are ok, but a little more ressurance could be acceptable. Otherwise, leave the turnpike be, and leave the classic button copy signs until they rot ;-).

Before the current ones, NJ Turnpike had even older more unique hump sign designs

The signage, while non-standard, is perfectly understandable. Thus, there really isn't anything wrong with it. Indeed, changing it out for standard signage would be a huge loss of character for the Turnpike (as would using standard lane striping).

As for the exit numbers... the New Jersey Turnpike is the one highway I will excuse for being sequential. The numbers themselves are just too culturally ingrained to change. Do we really want a turnpike that has Giants Stadium at exit 113W, the Holland Tunnel at exit N6 (or 65, using I-78 mileage), Six Flags off exit 61, etc.?

I also wouldn't make an utilty argument for getting rid of the Turnpike's existing signing system.  It diverges from that diagrammed in the MUTCD, but it actually conforms fairly closely to MUTCD signing principles, and the Turnpike is its own closed corridor so the Turnpike signs are seen on their own and are unlikely to cause confusion as a result of different design.

I would observe, though, that many designers have trouble composing fully pattern-accurate sign designs for the Turnpike, just because the arrows are so different.  It is not uncommon, for example, for designers to use the arrow on the reverse-curve warning sign to fake the Turnpike Type D arrow.

Judging from the signing plans I have seen, the GSP has a pretty vanilla MUTCD implementation, but there is extensive use of yellow bottom panels for toll-related messages.

Regarding the arrow - one thing the Authority is much better about than other agencies, at least as far as the Turnpike goes, is making sure everything appears correctly.  (The Parkway, I'm leaving that matter alone for now - too much to discuss in this space.)  Regarding lane striping, the Authority came up with the 25/25 back well before lane striping was standardized, part of the same experimentation that led to the Jersey barrier (see the median of US 322 west of US 40 for perhaps the last remaining stretch of experiment).  The reason they still hang on to 25/25 is that according to them, it's more visible by the high volumes of truckers on the Turnpike.  (Oh yeah, and they're 6" wide instead of 4".)  They also claim that there is no loss of visibility caused by the lane lines being too long and seeming to be solid instead of dashed, something that I would dispute from personal experience, but hey, it's one of the safest roads around, so who am I to argue?

I typically like things to be standardized, especially road signs. So I would say the signs should eventually be standardized.

The operative word there being "eventually". As long as the signs have messages which are readily understood or unlikely to cause driver confusing, and are clear and readable according to modern standards, there's no need to go replacing serviceable signage.

I think that if they ever modernize their signage, they should at least keep that cool arrow J N Winkler mentioned. It's one of the reasons why I like the Turnpike's signage so much.

VERY cool NJ Tpke signs
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FNE%2520Vacation%252010-09%2FDSCF0124.jpg&hash=e01ab3414c27461bec7c3773c70be165ec09cef7)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FNE%2520Vacation%252010-09%2FDSCF0123.jpg&hash=4c0085fe182673321436d19198b0c361b191996a)

UN-cool NJ Tpke signs
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi166.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu102%2Fctsignguy%2FNE%2520Vacation%252010-09%2FDSCF0121.jpg&hash=ee89a92c10b0dd69c3e7f95de8dbd0f9bedc666d)

Quote from: AlpsROADS on May 11, 2010, 08:10:27 PM
Regarding lane striping, the Authority came up with the 25/25 back well before lane striping was standardized, part of the same experimentation that led to the Jersey barrier (see the median of US 322 west of US 40 for perhaps the last remaining stretch of experiment).  The reason they still hang on to 25/25 is that according to them, it's more visible by the high volumes of truckers on the Turnpike.  (Oh yeah, and they're 6" wide instead of 4".)  They also claim that there is no loss of visibility caused by the lane lines being too long and seeming to be solid instead of dashed, something that I would dispute from personal experience, but hey, it's one of the safest roads around, so who am I to argue?

It has the side effect of making one drive faster. Everyone is used to the "standard" skip lines. Longer lines make it appear that you are crawling along at 65mph. Its interesting to hear that pull through signs on the mainline will finally have I-95 shields (south of the spurs anyway), control cities would be nice too instead of TURNPIKE NORTH/SOUTH. I also found it ironic that a well funded toll road has some of the oldest worn out signs in the state. I guess one can say its fiscal responsibility.

The NJTA does not get to operate "without interference".  They are under the umbrella of the same chairman that runs the NJDOT.  Funding may be withheld from the DOT for the actions of the NJTA.  It has been threatened twice before - in 1990 and 1994.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 10, 2010, 06:51:20 PM
Unless the feds force them to, its not likely. The only section that the feds can withhold funding for non-compliance is the section north of US-46. It would be nice to get some standard signing and mileage based exit numbers for I-95, but it will likely never happen.

That makes no sense how funding can be held for certain corridors.  Whatever.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 10, 2010, 11:22:42 PM
The signage, while non-standard, is perfectly understandable. Thus, there really isn't anything wrong with it. Indeed, changing it out for standard signage would be a huge loss of character for the Turnpike (as would using standard lane striping).

As for the exit numbers... the New Jersey Turnpike is the one highway I will excuse for being sequential. The numbers themselves are just too culturally ingrained to change. Do we really want a turnpike that has Giants Stadium at exit 113W, the Holland Tunnel at exit N6 (or 65, using I-78 mileage), Six Flags off exit 61, etc.?

The W suffix is not permitted per Sec. 2E.17.  So, that being said if the Turnpike was to renumber its exits, one of the spurs has to change in its entirety.  You can't have Exit 109W (or whatever 15 W would become) and Exit 110 E (for Exit 15 X or whatever they are).  That's AASHTO policy.  In fact, it's AASHTO policy now, oh right, Turnpike can do whatver it wants.

AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2010, 10:14:25 PM
AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

I think this situation is unique, in that the E and W represent not halves of an interchange on the same road, but rather two separate roads.  Logically, the two exits are best explained as E15 and W15.  I can't think of another road offhand that has this.

Technically, the MUTCD *IS* FHWA policy...

Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 12, 2010, 08:33:43 PMIt has been threatened twice before - in 1990 and 1994.

What were the issues at stake in those instances?

I always liked the Southbound Art-deco style gantry for the PA Turnpike connector exit (Exit 6, I think?) on the NJTP. With all the improvements made over the years, that gantry AFAIK is still in existance. I hope they find a way to keep it when 95 is rerouted.

Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on May 13, 2010, 03:20:00 PM
I always liked the Southbound Art-deco style gantry for the PA Turnpike connector exit (Exit 6, I think?) on the NJTP. With all the improvements made over the years, that gantry AFAIK is still in existance. I hope they find a way to keep it when 95 is rerouted.

It is infact Exit 6 and it was still standing last month when I passed under it.  I like it also and hope it survives 95's southward rerouting.  However, with the ongoing widening project, I fear it will one day be removed.

Yeah its still there, and only one of the few left.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2010, 10:14:25 PM
AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

Incorrect.  You are referred to Item 7 of the PURPOSE AND POLICY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAYS by AASHTO. 

And try not to get into that policy says US Routes.  Item 7 holds true for both US Routes and Interstates Highways.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 13, 2010, 10:57:24 AM

Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 12, 2010, 08:33:43 PMIt has been threatened twice before - in 1990 and 1994.

What were the issues at stake in those instances?

The story goes like this which you'll have to trust me comes on good authority — been in the game a long time.  

In 1968, a structure located on the grounds of what is now the PNC Bank Arts Center was called the Celebrity House.  At the time, the Executive Director noticed that it attracted over 400,000 visitors that summer.  Although original legislation creating the Highway Authority and the Arts Center grounds required it to provide only "cultural and recreation"  facilities and activities only, the leaders of the Authority quickly realized that they could be making money off of the site in some way shape or form.  In order to mask the finances that would be trading hands, the Commissioners always required that parking remain free so as to insinuate that visitation was free since events were free.  Although the nature trials, picnic areas and amphitheater events were free, the Celebrity House was not.  

The Celebrity House was a structure with maximum capacity of 70 people that would be rented out to any individual interested before attending another free event that day.  It was then realized that a reception center would better suffice.  However, making money from a reception center would be against the original legislation rendering the grounds no longer cultural and recreational, but more commercial.  Remember, the original legislation was to build and engineer a roadway, not to run a commercial pseudo-mall.  The reception center never came into being until 1983 for fear of violating the original legislation.  

The part of the story I don't actually know or have ever heard is how the reception center ever came to finally exist.  How did that fear get overcome?  I guess it didn't matter — what was done was done.  

However, the Township of Holmdel started to get wind that money was changing hands and wanted to tax it (this was just a pre-thought at this time. Holmdel didn't get really annoyed until about the mid-1990's and actually sued the Turnpike Authority in 2004/5).  A special NJ Senate Investigation Committee was organized and met in the late 1980s to discuss the operation of the reception center.  It concluded that the reception center violated state law.  

Then, NJHA got it from another angle in 1990 when using their glowcube variable message signs within the roadway right-of-way to advertise the concerts at the amphitheater.  FHWA got wind — I don't know how that happened either.  FHWA sent a memorandum to the NJDOT telling them that the DOT risked losing funds if they somehow couldn't figure out a way to have the HA knock it off.  The HA was advised and stopped, but only momentarily.  Since the culture was that they operated the way they did since 1955 without having to answer to anyone, and as long as they avoided public scrutiny at all costs, then how could they be forced to stop?  So they started up the advertisements again and a second FHWA memo was written in 1994 this time spelling out the amount and the funds to be withheld.  NJDOT got the HA to stop again and successfully had the FHWA rescind their 2nd memo (or whatever it was - i don't know if it was catually a memo).  

This was the beginning of the end as 1 year later Holmdel slapped the HA with a $2M tax lien on the grounds.  They did this annually for about 4 years.  The HA never paid and was sued.  Shortly thereafter, the HA decided to lease the grounds long term and collect funds that way rather than being scrutinized for every move.  This long term lease expires at 11:59p.m., October 31, 2017.

In 2003, the NJ Authorities merged and public meetings were held to determine the fate of the reception center.  Essentially no one showed up and it was ruled that the arts center grounds violate no rules pertaining to the original legislation (even though the Senate Committee did some 15 years earlier).  This is why it continues to operate as it does.  You may or may not have figured out my perspective on the whole thing, but after this ruling, I became apathetic to the arrangements that run in and out of that place on an annual basis.  Look at the roadside advertisements on the existing signs, which as all advertising is illegal all up and down the GSP, but not interestingly on their own property.  Since the 2003 ruling, I've lost interest so I don't even know who won the lawsuit between Holmdel and the TA.

Sorry for the huge tangent, but you asked.  If I'm still alive, I'll attend the public hearing in about 5 years for the reauthorization of the long term lease.  I've got nothing else better to do.

holy Hell, paragraph breaks are your friend!

maybe they can put up federal standard signs if they absolutely need replacement, but this sign gantry serves its purpose and looks downright awesome, so it should be kept as long as possible.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NJ/NJ19704003i1.jpg)

(okay, the interstate shields could use a little help...)

Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 12, 2010, 08:38:55 PM

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 10, 2010, 06:51:20 PM
Unless the feds force them to, its not likely. The only section that the feds can withhold funding for non-compliance is the section north of US-46. It would be nice to get some standard signing and mileage based exit numbers for I-95, but it will likely never happen.

That makes no sense how funding can be held for certain corridors.  Whatever.

I-95 north of US-46 (the original end of the NJ Turnpike) was built using federal Interstate Highway funds. As such, it is eligible for federal interstate maintenance funds. Prior to 1992 the road was 100% maintained by NJDOT, they "sold" it to the NJTA to fill a budget gap.

I don't know how any withholding of funds would work with the GSP since none of it was built using Interstate funds. I think all the free sections (maintained by NJDOT prior to 1987) at MM 9-11, MM 80-83 (multiplexed with US-9) and MM129-140 are eligible for federal funding. I know the traffic light elimination project received some TEA-21 funding, so its very likely that FHWA's memo affected funding for those sections.

Quote from: signalman on May 13, 2010, 03:31:16 PM

Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on May 13, 2010, 03:20:00 PM
I always liked the Southbound Art-deco style gantry for the PA Turnpike connector exit (Exit 6, I think?) on the NJTP. With all the improvements made over the years, that gantry AFAIK is still in existance. I hope they find a way to keep it when 95 is rerouted.

It is infact Exit 6 and it was still standing last month when I passed under it.  I like it also and hope it survives 95's southward rerouting.  However, with the ongoing widening project, I fear it will one day be removed.

There are three of them in the Interchange 6 area:  one on the southbound mainline, two on the eastbound extension.  Unfortunately, none of them will survive the interchange modifications.

There is still one entering the Turnpike at Interchange 14A in Bayonne, though.


(Pictured above . . .)

Quote from: akotchi on May 13, 2010, 09:44:52 PM
There are three of them in the Interchange 6 area:  one on the southbound mainline, two on the eastbound extension.  Unfortunately, none of them will survive the interchange modifications.

There is still one entering the Turnpike at Interchange 14A in Bayonne, though.


(Pictured above . . .)

Some of those signs are even backlit still. Did they finally take out the signs at Exit 14C? I seem to recall them still hanging around, heck NJDOT even (erroneously) replicated the design for a gantry on the NJ-139 viaduct they recently rebuilt.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.nj.us%2Ftransportation%2Fcommuter%2Froads%2Fjcviaducts%2Fimages%2F0073lg.jpg&hash=64122cc06376a5450bc7c69147829a8dbadb0059)

It replaced this gantry: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_139/wu.jpg

Also the original gantry at the NJ-139/I-78 split remain albeit with new BGSes: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Route_139_split.jpg

edit: actually come to think of it, that one might be a reproduction too! The original clearly didn't span the entire roadway: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_139/w78.jpg

Quote from: akotchi on May 13, 2010, 09:44:52 PM
There is still one entering the Turnpike at Interchange 14A in Bayonne, though.

one at 14B as well. 

The mainline one at exit 6:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F8518%2Fdscn6698web.jpg&hash=1d6f977bec36046a6725b3f8b0fba1f68172ab20)

The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

Quote from: Duke87 on May 13, 2010, 11:48:14 PM
The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

See the reproductions above ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Route_139_split.jpg ), wouldn't look so bad if they didn't make the BGSes larger then the height of the gantry and didn't have all that exposed metal framework. Thankfully Clearview seems not be taking over NJ at all.

Aside from those neon VMS signs, one feature I've always found unique about New Jersey Turnpike's BGS's are the interchangeable lines.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/4023350575/

How can you look at the creases in these and not realize that the signs are designed to read something else in some situations? I don't know if or when those signs have ever had to change, but there must've been some reason they had those additional features. I don't think I'd want to lose that.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 14, 2010, 12:17:20 AM

Quote from: Duke87 on May 13, 2010, 11:48:14 PM
The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

See the reproductions above ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Route_139_split.jpg ), wouldn't look so bad if they didn't make the BGSes larger then the height of the gantry and didn't have all that exposed metal framework. Thankfully Clearview seems not be taking over NJ at all.

Clearview is on 676

Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 14, 2010, 06:37:28 AM
How can you look at the creases in these and not realize that the signs are designed to read something else in some situations? I don't know if or when those signs have ever had to change, but there must've been some reason they had those additional features. I don't think I'd want to lose that.

I can speak from experience that one of the options on these signs is white-on-red reading "ROAD CLOSED".

And at the northern split between the spurs the sign for the western spur has an option that says something like "Exit 16W - Meadowlands Traffic Only". ..although I doubt that was actually physically true. The NJTP treats recommendations as commands all the time with regards to the spurs.  Northbound, you can get to the GWB going the way that says "Lincoln Tunnel", and southbound the eastern spur isn't exit 17 for it. The signs lie!

Quote from: Duke87 on May 13, 2010, 11:48:14 PM
The mainline one at exit 6:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg191.imageshack.us%2Fimg191%2F8518%2Fdscn6698web.jpg&hash=1d6f977bec36046a6725b3f8b0fba1f68172ab20)

The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

I was thinking the same thing. To me, the unique signing was one of the more enjoyable experiences of driving the NJTP. And that gantry has always facinated me since I was a kid from summers driving back and forth from Atlanta to Montreal. Of course, you'd never know I'm a road geek..lol!

Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 14, 2010, 07:59:51 AM
Clearview is on 676

I don't know if its a contract error or a test install. Looks like Exit 3 1 mile advance southbound has Clearview, while Exit 4 has the new FHWA 2000 fonts, both appear to have been installed at the same time. Can't find any other signs in Streetview with it... hopefully it was a mistake.  :-o Here it is in HD quality:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Camden,+NJ&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.601981,56.601563&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Camden,+New+Jersey&ll=39.930858,-75.113611&spn=0.005422,0.006909&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.930786,-75.113689&panoid=pGWerAFkn_cPpdJHkbU3JA&cbp=12,210.23,,1,-14.08 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Camden,+NJ&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.601981,56.601563&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Camden,+New+Jersey&ll=39.930858,-75.113611&spn=0.005422,0.006909&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.930786,-75.113689&panoid=pGWerAFkn_cPpdJHkbU3JA&cbp=12,210.23,,1,-14.08)

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 14, 2010, 07:04:23 PMI don't know if its a contract error or a test install. Looks like Exit 3 1 mile advance southbound has Clearview, while Exit 4 has the new FHWA 2000 fonts, both appear to have been installed at the same time. Can't find any other signs in Streetview with it... hopefully it was a mistake.

I wonder if that length of I-676, which is essentially a connector between the Walt Whitman and Ben Franklin Bridges, is owned by the DRPA.  Both bridges are DRPA-owned.

Quote from: J N Winkler on May 15, 2010, 02:07:39 AM
I wonder if that length of I-676, which is essentially a connector between the Walt Whitman and Ben Franklin Bridges, is owned by the DRPA.  Both bridges are DRPA-owned.

DRPA jurisdiction ends at the I-676/US-30 split just east of the toll plaza. NJDOT maintains the rest and the signs are definitely classic NJDOT issue. Almost all of the signs on that road have been replaced in the past 10 years with a few older button copy signs remaining.

Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 13, 2010, 06:27:49 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2010, 10:14:25 PM
AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

Incorrect.  You are referred to Item 7 of the PURPOSE AND POLICY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAYS by AASHTO. 

And try not to get into that policy says US Routes.  Item 7 holds true for both US Routes and Interstates Highways.

AASHTO is a group made up of state highway departments through a voluntary association. It is not a governmental body and cannot set policy. If there is a "policy," which would be more accurately referred to as a guideline or rule, there is no penalty for violating it and no enforcement mechanism. AASHTO cannot fine a state or withhold money.

FHWA is an agency of the federal government and it can set policy, withhold money, etc.

Compliant mileage numbers would be nice, but I hope that the non-standard signage remains.

Quote from: hbelkins on May 16, 2010, 12:51:09 AM

Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on May 13, 2010, 06:27:49 PM

Quote from: hbelkins on May 12, 2010, 10:14:25 PM
AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

Incorrect.  You are referred to Item 7 of the PURPOSE AND POLICY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAYS by AASHTO. 

And try not to get into that policy says US Routes.  Item 7 holds true for both US Routes and Interstates Highways.

AASHTO is a group made up of state highway departments through a voluntary association. It is not a governmental body and cannot set policy. If there is a "policy," which would be more accurately referred to as a guideline or rule, there is no penalty for violating it and no enforcement mechanism. AASHTO cannot fine a state or withhold money.

FHWA is an agency of the federal government and it can set policy, withhold money, etc.

Sort of.  I should have originally referred you to the Establishment of a Marking System of the Routes Comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways policy since the Turnpike is Interstate 95 where the suffixes would apply.  See Number 2 of the Policy, which by the way is taken from the AASHTO Transportation Policy dated 2000.  AASHO was the orginal policy maker prior to the birth of FHWA.  FHWA absorbed and retained the policy

To answer D-Dey's question above about the variable message signs on NJTP entrance ramps. Sometimes one set of lanes will be closed for an emergency situation or maintenance. In that case one sign will say "ROADWAY CLOSED" and the other will say "ALL TRAFFIC". I don't know if there are any other possible messages.

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2010, 09:45:22 PM
To answer D-Dey's question above about the variable message signs on NJTP entrance ramps. Sometimes one set of lanes will be closed for an emergency situation or maintenance. In that case one sign will say "ROADWAY CLOSED" and the other will say "ALL TRAFFIC". I don't know if there are any other possible messages.

These signs are called Changeable Message (CM) signs, and are changed due to reasons already mentioned. In addition, the signs can read "Roadway Congested," which is also white text on red background, usually used during holidays or weekends with heavy traffic volumes. My experience is during these times the inner roadway (cars only) is overloaded as all the cars cram into this roadway. When the signs read "congested," the ramp is not physically blocked, so sometimes it's better to take that roadway instead, since everyone else will take the other roadway because that's what the sign says. :)

The Authority is planning on replacing these signs, with the addition of a small VMS under it, I assume to describe the reason for the closure. The CM sign will be the same design, with the VMS underneath. I wondered at first why they wouldn't just use VMS's to display the same messages, but I don't think it would catch the driver's eye as quickly. Even with lighted gates blocking the ramps, and conelines and maintenance trucks blocking the mainline approaches to the closed roadway, vehicles can and do sometimes enter the closed roadway, obviously endangering the workers inside it.

BTW, here is a shot of the new pull through BGSes south of Exit 6. Hopefully these make their way north with I-95 shields. The "Next Exit XX Miles" information has been tacked onto the bottom of the advance BGSes for the exit.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2FPC280001-Copy.jpg&hash=2518888e68862e705a0e985fdfe62df771976ebb)

Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 13, 2011, 09:56:14 PM
BTW, here is a shot of the new pull through BGSes south of Exit 6. Hopefully these make their way north with I-95 shields. The "Next Exit XX Miles" information has been tacked onto the bottom of the advance BGSes for the exit.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2FPC280001-Copy.jpg&hash=2518888e68862e705a0e985fdfe62df771976ebb)

Wilmington is being used as a control city for the exits south of 6, and New York (or New York City on some) for northbound. I saw a pull-through at Interchange 4 with New York, and also noticed last week the signs coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge at the southern end have been replaced, and the second one, on the 295 overpass, before the US 40 uses New York City.

I say standardize upon replacement, unless there's some special need for NJ to do things differently. I know road geeks tend to favor the unique signs, but I say out with the weird arrows, mechanical signs, neon VMS, etc. - it just looks like NJ is trying too hard to be different.

On the contrary, the NJ Turnpike Authority tries to be the best, and they do a pretty good job of it. I agree the signs should be standardized, but the rest of the country would do well to imitate the NJ Turnpike.

Quote from: SignBridge on April 16, 2011, 08:15:10 PM
On the contrary, the NJ Turnpike Authority tries to be the best, and they do a pretty good job of it. I agree the signs should be standardized, but the rest of the country would do well to imitate the NJ Turnpike.

Are you suggesting the other 49 states should apply a standard that converges with New Jersey's? Which part do you think they "do a pretty good job of?" In what way is their signage superior compared to the standard used everywhere else?

Quote from: connroadgeek on April 16, 2011, 08:50:25 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on April 16, 2011, 08:15:10 PM
On the contrary, the NJ Turnpike Authority tries to be the best, and they do a pretty good job of it. I agree the signs should be standardized, but the rest of the country would do well to imitate the NJ Turnpike.

So you're suggesting the other 49 states should apply a standard that converges with New Jersey's? Which part do you think they "do a pretty good job of?" In what way is their signage superior compared to the standard used everywhere else?

It's totally not a standard anyone else should follow. They do things their own way because it works for them. And I really can't argue whether that's good or bad, because they do indeed have a unique traffic mix and unique conditions (widely spaced exits, tolls, different roadways and spurs), and managing a very few roadways with specialized conditions is a lot different than developing standards for national roadways with a lot of different conditions. State agencies need to adopt broad standards, whereas individual toll agencies can be much more specific. For the Turnpike conditions, they not only do a good job, but when competent engineers point out ways they can do better, yes it takes a lot of discussion, but ultimately they do tend to improve and go in the right direction. I would say that other toll agencies would do well to mimic the Turnpike Authority's procedures if not the exact signing policies.

(Chuckle!) That's what I was trying to say! Other states would do well to mimic the NJ Turnpike Authority's quality of road operation, not specifically the sign system.

Quote from: connroadgeek on April 16, 2011, 07:08:32 PM
I say standardize upon replacement, unless there's some special need for NJ to do things differently. I know road geeks tend to favor the unique signs, but I say out with the weird arrows, mechanical signs, neon VMS, etc. - it just looks like NJ is trying too hard to be different.

The neon signs (referred to as RSA's, or Reduce Speed Ahead signs, at the Authority) were installed back in the 1960's and state of the art for the time. Now they're so old it's impossible to find replacement parts for them, and that's why most of them only work sporadically. In fact, when a trooper or Turnpike employee asks us to light one up, they usually say, "light any WORKING RSAs." :) They are now being replaced with full-color overhead VMS boards and new variable speed limit signs.

IMHO, the unique exit signage doesn't have a specific useful intent, just that it's unique. Personally, I prefer it to stay that way. I have especially always been impressed with how well the Northern Mixing Bowl (convergence of inner/outer car and truck lanes, eastern/western spurs and Hudson Bay extension) works, with such a sheer volume of vehicles and alignments coming together and moving seamlessly between themselves. The inner/outer design is particularily helpful, IMO, allowing for traffic flow in the event of accidents, congestion, construction, etc. Similar to this is the signage allowing closure of the eastern/western spurs, which works much the same way. We've done this before during construction or during events at the Meadowlands for traffic control, for example.

I apologize if I repeated anything in this post I or someone else already discussed. To summarize, I agree 100% with what Alp said. These designs wouldn't be practical everywhere, but definitely works for such a congested corridor.

Quote from: tollboothrob on April 16, 2011, 09:39:12 PM


The neon signs (referred to as RSA's, or Reduce Speed Ahead signs, at the Authority) were installed back in the 1960's and state of the art for the time. Now they're so old it's impossible to find replacement parts for them, and that's why most of them only work sporadically. In fact, when a trooper or Turnpike employee asks us to light one up, they usually say, "light any WORKING RSAs." :)

But I like knowing when there is RED.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 16, 2011, 11:26:18 PM

But I like knowing when there is RED.

My favorite is when they just flash "SPEED", especially in snow and ice... "I mean it, Mr. Trooper, sir, the sign told me to!" Most of the speed limit signs don't work, anyway... lol

I think it's cool too how they light up everything in the surrounding landscape at night... it's interesting, to me at least. :)

 I think mileage signs are needed post interchange and some interchanges should add or drop control cities.  All of exits south of Exit 7 (except Exit 5) have interchanges along I-295.  Yet there are different control cities on I-295.  For examlple NJ 73 is signed Berlin- Tacony Bridge on I-295 and on the NJT it is signed Philadelphia- Camden.

On Exit 3 Woodbury should be dropped as NJ 168 does not go there and Bellmawr should be added instead.

On Exit 2- Glassboro needs to be added on its signs.  Swedesboro and Chester are fine and do not need dropping. 

Exit 11 - NB should have Albany, NY used as a control Point for GSP NB.

Other than this the signs should stay the same and use the new style of pull through listed on another post.

Exit 5 also has an interchange with I-295.

I don't really have a problem with the control cities being different on the two roadways.  The differences in control cities to me reflect the different characters of the roadways.  The Turnpike's exits are more regional because there are fewer of them.  I-295 has more exits and more different ways (in some cases more direct) to get to the same places.

The prime example for me is that Turnpike Exit 3 is the only way to exit the Turnpike and get to Philadelphia and Camden, while I-295 has a group of exits (most noteworthy I-76) to get to the same places.

Quote from: roadman65 on April 18, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
I think mileage signs are needed post interchange and some interchanges should add or drop control cities.  All of exits south of Exit 7 (except Exit 5) have interchanges along I-295.  Yet there are different control cities on I-295.  For examlple NJ 73 is signed Berlin- Tacony Bridge on I-295 and on the NJT it is signed Philadelphia- Camden.

Well, sure, there are multiple Philly/Camden exits on I-295. I'm fine with this.

Quote
On Exit 3 Woodbury should be dropped as NJ 168 does not go there and Bellmawr should be added instead.

Yes and no - Bellmawr would probably be added if Benigno Boulevard ties in directly to Int 3 (which may never happen), but what other exit do you use for Woodbury? Then again, same could be said for Cherry Hill. That's the problem with so few exits.

Quote
On Exit 2- Glassboro needs to be added on its signs.  Swedesboro and Chester are fine and do not need dropping.  

Exit 11 - NB should have Albany, NY used as a control Point for GSP NB.

Other than this the signs should stay the same and use the new style of pull through listed on another post.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on April 21, 2011, 12:28:52 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on April 18, 2011, 12:22:53 PM
I think mileage signs are needed post interchange and some interchanges should add or drop control cities.  All of exits south of Exit 7 (except Exit 5) have interchanges along I-295.  Yet there are different control cities on I-295.  For examlple NJ 73 is signed Berlin- Tacony Bridge on I-295 and on the NJT it is signed Philadelphia- Camden.

Well, sure, there are multiple Philly/Camden exits on I-295. I'm fine with this.

Quote
On Exit 3 Woodbury should be dropped as NJ 168 does not go there and Bellmawr should be added instead.

Yes and no - Bellmawr would probably be added if Benigno Boulevard ties in directly to Int 3 (which may never happen), but what other exit do you use for Woodbury? Then again, same could be said for Cherry Hill. That's the problem with so few exits.

Quote
On Exit 2- Glassboro needs to be added on its signs.  Swedesboro and Chester are fine and do not need dropping. 

Exit 11 - NB should have Albany, NY used as a control Point for GSP NB.

Other than this the signs should stay the same and use the new style of pull through listed on another post.

The point is you cannot get to them all!

Quote from: akotchi on April 18, 2011, 01:18:32 PM
Exit 5 also has an interchange with I-295.

I don't really have a problem with the control cities being different on the two roadways.  The differences in control cities to me reflect the different characters of the roadways.  The Turnpike's exits are more regional because there are fewer of them.  I-295 has more exits and more different ways (in some cases more direct) to get to the same places.

The prime example for me is that Turnpike Exit 3 is the only way to exit the Turnpike and get to Philadelphia and Camden, while I-295 has a group of exits (most noteworthy I-76) to get to the same places.

Exit 5 has the same cities on both roadways.  Yes, both highways have different characteristics and the signs show that effect!  The Turnpike has fewer interchanges and needs to be regional while I-295 has many other exits for Camden and Philadelphia, so local places can be used there unlike the NJT!