Well, how far off of the standards is the darn road? And does it actually improve on the standards at all?
I don't know much about the standards, but the Turnpike surely has a unique look and feel to it, for better or worse. I work just off the turnpike, but thankfully, don't need to use it daily.
I didn't even know the turnpike was off interstate standards, I just thought the signs were.
I wonder how much of the interstate standards are based off of the NJ turnpike which opened in Nov 1951.
Lane skips are 25 on, 15 off instead of 10 on, 30 off. Signs don't have separate exit tabs and sequential numbering will never be undone. Shoulder widths and roadway design are uniformly high on the mainline Turnpike, but left shoulders are lacking on the Newark Bay Extension (I-78), especially on the Casciano Bridge, and also the Delaware River Bridge on the PA Extension. There is a different set of radius-speed tables used than the FHWA, and I don't know offhand which is more conservative - I don't think that comes into play on the freeway though, just the ramps. Keep in mind that the Turnpike is already an Interstate from Exit 6 on up (starting at the Delaware River), including the substandard I-78 part, and there is NO difference between north of 6 and south of 6.
And the PA Extension is soon-to-be interstate (or rather, "soon", given the PA Turnpike taking forever on the I-95 interchange). For that matter, why isn't it already? Why does I-276 end at the state line?
There were already Interstate standards in 1943. The real question is the extent to which toll roads already built by 1956, like the NJ Turnpike and the Ohio Turnpike, influenced changes in the suggested standards. The impression I have is that the 1943 standards (which allowed, e.g., 3° curves at 70 MPH in flat terrain) were designed to head off disasters like the Pennsylvania Turnpike but facilities like the Ohio Turnpike (additional-width shoulders on bridges, for example) were considered showboaters and their standards were not widely copied.
^^^
I think disaster my be a little harsh for the original Pennsylvania Turnpike. What other long distance freeways were there in 1940? IMHO, the pike suffered for being on the "bleeding edge."
However, the fact that the extensions to the main pike and the northeast extension were built to the same "standard" probably should merit some strong words like disaster or incompetence. Add to that the fact that the PTC has been very slow at upgrading the roads to modern standards. Most of the Northeast Extension is still to that standard and the upgrade plans AFAIK run no farther north than Allentown. (This still make me nervous when I drive it and I'm glad when I get to the free section of I-476 on the south or I-80 where I get off on the north end of my travels.)
Anyway, I think I know what you mean.
1) Narrow grass median later upgraded to guardrails and now Jersey barriers in non-upgraded sections.
2) An almost nonexistent left shoulder and a right shoulder that's often quite narrow as well.
3) Bridges on the original pike that had inadequate clearance at the shoulders.
I'm sure you have some more, if you wouldn't mind clarifying.
4: The merge lanes for the original main line service centers, too short.
5: The lack of climbing lanes for trucks in the mountans on the original sections, the bypasses of the 1960s have them.
Quote from: deanej on December 03, 2010, 09:26:34 AM
And the PA Extension is soon-to-be interstate (or rather, "soon", given the PA Turnpike taking forever on the I-95 interchange). For that matter, why isn't it already? Why does I-276 end at the state line?
Not true - it's already I-95, has been for a couple dozen years once the Somerset Freeway plans were atomized. I couldn't say why I-276 has always ended at the state line instead of ending at the Turnpike mainline, though (pre-95).
Only the FHWA route log shows I-95 south of Interstate 287. NJ State legisaltion still has to move I-95 onto the NTP south of Interstate 287, so you're not entirely correct. That same legislation still has I-95 ending at US 1. Don't confuse everyone.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 04, 2010, 09:20:34 AM
Only the FHWA route log shows I-95 south of Interstate 287. NJ State legisaltion still has to move I-95 onto the NTP south of Interstate 287, so you're not entirely correct. That same legislation still has I-95 ending at US 1. Don't confuse everyone.
You're wrong. See the NJDOT Straight Line Diagrams.
You're wrong. It's a straight line diagram dude! Come on, really? You talk too much with your 1360 posts too. NJDOT is wrong with a lot of things. They have to be one of the worst states with their attempts at roads. See Title 27.
Quote from: Don'tKnowYet on December 04, 2010, 03:59:37 PM
You're wrong. It's a straight line diagram dude!
NJDOT sources aren't acceptable for determining what NJDOT considers the highway numbering to be? :hmmm:
I think it is entirely possible that both are right. The NJDOT SLDs could very well incorporate mileage covered by intergovernmental agreements and not part of the legislatively defined state highway system per se. But that isn't really the point, is it? A fight has been asked for and is being given.
There is no legislatively defined highway system in NJ to the extent that it would establish a route for I-95. This is what Title 27 of the statutes has to say about the Turnpike south of I-287:
QuoteROUTE NO. 300. Beginning at a point on Route No. 100 in Middlesex county, and thence in a generally southerly and westerly direction through the counties of Middlesex, Monmouth or Mercer or both, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and into the county of Salem to connection with a proposed new bridge across the Delaware river at or near Deepwater, Lower Penns Neck township, Salem county.
There is no reference to any Interstate by number except in the definitions of other routes (e.g. "a point of intersection with Interstate route 80 in Bergen county"). The statutes only define what highways the state should possibly maintain, without forcing them to use certain numbers.
And:
Quote from: 27:7-2. Additional routesThe commissioner may lay out routes in continuation of, connecting with, and in addition to the routes prescribed by section 27:6-1 of this title.
Getting back to the original questions re: NJT vs. Interstate standards: a couple of points. Those longer lane stripes that Alps mentioned earlier, I believe are also wider than the standard spec. And I think NJT's shoulders may also be wider than standard. Maybe 12 ft. vs. 10 ft?
And SteveG asked if Interstate standards were based on the NJT; I don't think they actually were. Much more likely they were based on New York's Thruway standards, for a couple of reasons. The original administrator of the Interstate System appointed by Pres. Eisenhower was chairman of the NY Thruway Authority, and it's reasonable to assume that he patterned the Interstates after his road in NY. Most Interstates built in the early years of the program actually looked more like the Thruway, and less like the NJT, especially re: concrete vs. asphalt and the wide median width. (Just a depressed grass area in those days, with no barrier protection)