AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM

Title: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
So far these have only been installed south of Exit 6. The NJTP now has proper pull through BGSes wth control cities at interchanges. The "next exit XX miles" banner has been moved to under the actual exit signs (a few other toll roads already do this). The pull through signs that used to say "Thru Traffic/Next Exit XX Miles" signs have been replaced with "(NJTP Shield) South/Wilmington" or "(NJTP Shield) North/New York". Interesting that they use Wilmington as a control city. NJDOT sticks with "Del Mem Bridge" or "Delaware" on I-295. Adding Baltimore would have been logical for the Turnpike (DRBA does it on the Delaware side of the bridge) but I guess that won't happen. Hopefully Newark makes an appearance northbound eventually.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: akotchi on December 29, 2010, 10:13:23 AM
^ ^ ^ I saw this at Interchange 5, but did not get any further south.  Have all of the southern interchanges been changed out?  I have yet to see any changes north of Interchange 9 (6 to 8A are being taken care of through the current widening construction).

Interestingly, the proposed Interchange 6 signing for southbound includes Camden (at least on the plans), but it immediately disappears at the next interchange south.  Do the northbound signs say New York or New York City?  BTW, Newark did not appear on the proposed Interchange 6 northbound signing plans.

I say Bravo!  Many of those signs down south were older and needed to be changed out anyway.

Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
Hopefully Newark makes an appearance northbound eventually.

I would put NYC.  Yes, Newark is in the same state, but really, nobody cares about Newark.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/047704.jpg)

except maybe SAS Scandinavian Airlines...
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: akotchi on December 29, 2010, 10:13:23 AM
Do the northbound signs say New York or New York City?  BTW, Newark did not appear on the proposed Interchange 6 northbound signing plans.

Just New York. Newark is more important to airlines due to its airport.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 12:18:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 11:52:31 AM
Just New York. Newark is more important to airlines due to its airport.

right, there are no airports in NYC.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:37:49 PM
I
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
So far these have only been installed south of Exit 6. The NJTP now has proper pull through BGSes wth control cities at interchanges. The "next exit XX miles" banner has been moved to under the actual exit signs (a few other toll roads already do this). The pull through signs that used to say "Thru Traffic/Next Exit XX Miles" signs have been replaced with "(NJTP Shield) South/Wilmington" or "(NJTP Shield) North/New York". Interesting that they use Wilmington as a control city. NJDOT sticks with "Del Mem Bridge" or "Delaware" on I-295 adding Baltimore would have been logical for the Turnpike (DRBA does it on the Delaware side of the bridge) but I guess that won't happen. Hopefully Newark makes an appearance northbound eventually.

I agree with Baltimore as Control City on SB NJTP and I-295 south of Camden.

If it were up to me it would be Baltimore and Washington DC  NB would be Newark and New York
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
Hopefully Newark makes an appearance northbound eventually.

I would put NYC.  Yes, Newark is in the same state, but really, nobody cares about Newark.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/047704.jpg)

except maybe SAS Scandinavian Airlines...

Poor NJ.  No one cares about any of the cities.  Everyone only cares about NYC. ON I-95 in Maryland they use New York as the control city North of Baltimore.

I havent spent a lot of time in PA but I recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?

Or NC using Dunn or Benson when really it should be Richmond on I-95
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 01:55:50 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PMI recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?


or Delaware Water Gap.  There really isn't much in the way of large cities on I-80 west of NY until you get to Cleveland. 
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 04:49:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 12:18:02 PM
right, there are no airports in NYC.

Closest airport to Manhattan is Newark. Its also Continental....eh.. United's east coast hub.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Brandon on December 29, 2010, 05:54:26 PM
"Delaware" and "New York" would be fine, IMHO, as the control cities.  If "Wisconsin" and "Indiana" are good enough for the ISTHA...  :sombrero:
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: njroadhorse on December 29, 2010, 06:43:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 01:55:50 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PMI recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?


or Delaware Water Gap.  There really isn't much in the way of large cities on I-80 west of NY until you get to Cleveland. 
It gets worse when you get into Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NE2 on December 29, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 01:55:50 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PMI recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?


or Delaware Water Gap.  There really isn't much in the way of large cities on I-80 west of NY until you get to Cleveland. 

Scranton would work.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Michael in Philly on December 31, 2010, 09:26:54 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
Hopefully Newark makes an appearance northbound eventually.

I would put NYC.  Yes, Newark is in the same state, but really, nobody cares about Newark.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/047704.jpg)

except maybe SAS Scandinavian Airlines...

Poor NJ.  No one cares about any of the cities.  Everyone only cares about NYC. ON I-95 in Maryland they use New York as the control city North of Baltimore.

I havent spent a lot of time in PA but I recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?

Or NC using Dunn or Benson when really it should be Richmond on I-95

[snarls at Maryland for not realizing that 95 goes through Philadelphia, which is actually quite a large city.]    Seriously, would it kill American highway authorities to occasionally use two "control cities" on a sign - "95 North, Philadelphia, New York"?  "Control cities" is in quotes because it might make sense to actually think of them as destinations, which is what I imagine they are to most motorists.

I've said so before, but New Jersey is remarkably resistant to posting out-of-state points as control cities/destinations.  Even New York and Philadelphia are rare.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Michael in Philly on December 31, 2010, 09:29:55 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 29, 2010, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 01:55:50 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PMI recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?


or Delaware Water Gap.  There really isn't much in the way of large cities on I-80 west of NY until you get to Cleveland. 

Scranton would work.

Scranton would only work until 380, and then you'd have people here complaining about how "indirect" it is.  :-)
As suggested in my previous post, we could do pairs.  Between 380 and 81, for example, "Bloomsburg, Cleveland" going west and "Stroudsburg, New York" going east.  The Cleveland and New York could be the same all the way across the state while the local points change.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: hbelkins on December 31, 2010, 02:41:00 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on December 31, 2010, 09:29:55 AM

Scranton would only work until 380, and then you'd have people here complaining about how "indirect" it is.  :-)
As suggested in my previous post, we could do pairs.  Between 380 and 81, for example, "Bloomsburg, Cleveland" going west and "Stroudsburg, New York" going east.  The Cleveland and New York could be the same all the way across the state while the local points change.

Not Cleveland. Youngstown.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: njroadhorse on December 31, 2010, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 31, 2010, 02:41:00 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on December 31, 2010, 09:29:55 AM

Scranton would only work until 380, and then you'd have people here complaining about how "indirect" it is.  :-)
As suggested in my previous post, we could do pairs.  Between 380 and 81, for example, "Bloomsburg, Cleveland" going west and "Stroudsburg, New York" going east.  The Cleveland and New York could be the same all the way across the state while the local points change.

Not Cleveland. Youngstown.
Cleveland would make more sense because it's the bigger hub for people.  Youngstown would make sense after about the Oil City exit maybe, or after Mercer.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: hbelkins on January 01, 2011, 01:05:10 AM
Quote from: njroadhorse on December 31, 2010, 05:47:59 PM

Cleveland would make more sense because it's the bigger hub for people.  Youngstown would make sense after about the Oil City exit maybe, or after Mercer.

Well, I-80 doesn't really go to Cleveland, and Youngstown is an intersection point for two 2di's so IMNSHO it's  more logical than Cleveland for I-80.

[/quote]
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NE2 on January 01, 2011, 02:35:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2011, 01:05:10 AMWell, I-80 doesn't really go to Cleveland
So? It's still the best way to get to Cleveland. It doesn't really go to Youngstown either (or NYC for that matter).
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Michael in Philly on January 01, 2011, 02:50:56 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 01, 2011, 02:35:21 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 01, 2011, 01:05:10 AMWell, I-80 doesn't really go to Cleveland
So? It's still the best way to get to Cleveland. It doesn't really go to Youngstown either (or NYC for that matter).

Exactly.  That's my point.  If the place names that appear on signs are meant to be informative to motorists trying to get to the next major city, which is what I'm suggesting, rather than to...well, whatever the point of "control cities" currently is, passing through suburbs is close enough.  If you're in Toledo or Des Moines, does the fact that I-80 actually misses the city of Chicago by five miles, and the downtown by 20, mean that "Chicago" is not a reasonable indication of where it goes? 
(And I-80 gets closer to Cleveland than 76 does; if "Cleveland" can appear as a westbound destination on 76 in the Pittsburgh area - which it does - why can't it appear on I-80?  For that matter, there are plenty of signs for Pittsburgh on 76 even though it doesn't enter the city limits....)
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Michael in Philly on January 01, 2011, 03:27:47 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on December 29, 2010, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 29, 2010, 10:22:57 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2010, 09:42:32 AM
Hopefully Newark makes an appearance northbound eventually.

I would put NYC.  Yes, Newark is in the same state, but really, nobody cares about Newark.

(//www.aaroads.com/shields/blog/photos/047704.jpg)

except maybe SAS Scandinavian Airlines...

Poor NJ.  No one cares about any of the cities.  Everyone only cares about NYC. ON I-95 in Maryland they use New York as the control city North of Baltimore.

I havent spent a lot of time in PA but I recall control cities on I-80 of Stroudsburg who the hell is going there?

Or NC using Dunn or Benson when really it should be Richmond on I-95

Actually, you'd be surprised about Stroudsburg - with US 209 and PA 611 passing through, and the Poconos being a resort area, at least regionally, a lot of people coming from New York and North Jersey - and not just from there - will be getting off 80 there, I'd think.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: signalman on January 01, 2011, 10:14:19 AM
^ You're right.  I-80 across northern NJ carries a lot of traffic from NYC and North Jersey to the Pocono mountains around the year.  It's a major weekend escape destination. During the week I-80 is loaded with commuters who live in the Poconos, but work in North Jersey or New York. So, with that said Delaware Water Gap and Stroudsburg aren't bad control cities.  One that is within New Jersey and useless is Netcong.  It's not directly along the interstate and it definitely is not a major town.  There really aren't any big places that I-80 passes through in NJ west of Paterson.  They're mostly small bedroom communities of NYC that grew because of I-80.  Farming used to predominate, now they're McMansion communities.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: The Premier on January 02, 2011, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 01, 2011, 02:35:21 AM
It doesn't really go to Youngstown either.

That's I-680's job. :-P
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: SSOWorld on January 03, 2011, 12:35:17 AM
When I took the NJTP from NY to PA TPK Ext, I saw no new signs.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: PAHighways on January 03, 2011, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 01, 2011, 02:50:56 AM
(And I-80 gets closer to Cleveland than 76 does; if "Cleveland" can appear as a westbound destination on 76 in the Pittsburgh area - which it does - why can't it appear on I-80?  For that matter, there are plenty of signs for Pittsburgh on 76 even though it doesn't enter the city limits....)

Like we'd acknowledge Cleveland. :-D

"Ohio," "Ohio and West," and "Youngstown OH" are the only control "cities" that are used on I-76 or its intersecting routes.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:12:29 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on January 03, 2011, 01:52:00 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 01, 2011, 02:50:56 AM
(And I-80 gets closer to Cleveland than 76 does; if "Cleveland" can appear as a westbound destination on 76 in the Pittsburgh area - which it does - why can't it appear on I-80?  For that matter, there are plenty of signs for Pittsburgh on 76 even though it doesn't enter the city limits....)


Like we'd acknowledge Cleveland. :-D

"Ohio," "Ohio and West," and "Youngstown OH" are the only control "cities" that are used on I-76 or its intersecting routes.


I could have sworn there's a "76 West - Cleveland" for non-exiting traffic at Monroeville.  (And a "Columbus Ohio [sic]" on a supplemental sign approaching New Stanton.)  Of course, our beloved Commonwealth won't even acknowledge its largest city west of Harrisburg.  I mean, it won't acknowledge, west of Harrisburg, its largest city.  As opposed to its largest city that's west of Harrisburg, which is like a fifth as large as the former.  :-P
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: PAHighways on January 03, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:12:29 PMI could have sworn there's a "76 West - Cleveland" for non-exiting traffic at Monroeville.  (And a "Columbus Ohio [sic]" on a supplemental sign approaching New Stanton.)

The pull-thru sign there says "Ohio and West (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Monroeville,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.38984,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Monroeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.432216,-79.745985&spn=0.001899,0.004823&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.432147,-79.745893&panoid=Si0xPP4lFp2hr72hbEEuKQ&cbp=12,319.62,,0,-12.52)."

Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:12:29 PMOf course, our beloved Commonwealth won't even acknowledge its largest city west of Harrisburg.  I mean, it won't acknowledge, west of Harrisburg, its largest city.  As opposed to its largest city that's west of Harrisburg, which is like a fifth as large as the former.  :-P

Guides east of Harrisburg use Philadelphia/Harrisburg and guides west use Pittsburgh/Harrisburg, which is appropriate since those are the largest cities along the Turnpike.  There is no reason to add "Philadelphia" to ones west, nor a reason to add "Pittsburgh" to ones east of the capital.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:45:39 PM
Quote from: PAHighways on January 03, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:12:29 PMI could have sworn there's a "76 West - Cleveland" for non-exiting traffic at Monroeville.  (And a "Columbus Ohio [sic]" on a supplemental sign approaching New Stanton.)

The pull-thru sign there says "Ohio and West (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Monroeville,+PA&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.38984,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Monroeville,+Allegheny,+Pennsylvania&ll=40.432216,-79.745985&spn=0.001899,0.004823&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.432147,-79.745893&panoid=Si0xPP4lFp2hr72hbEEuKQ&cbp=12,319.62,,0,-12.52)."

Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:12:29 PMOf course, our beloved Commonwealth won't even acknowledge its largest city west of Harrisburg.  I mean, it won't acknowledge, west of Harrisburg, its largest city.  As opposed to its largest city that's west of Harrisburg, which is like a fifth as large as the former.  :-P

Guides east of Harrisburg use Philadelphia/Harrisburg and guides west use Pittsburgh/Harrisburg, which is appropriate since those are the largest cities along the Turnpike.  There is no reason to add "Philadelphia" to ones west, nor a reason to add "Pittsburgh" to ones east of the capital.

Well, I've already said how I feel about American BGS's not being informative enough.  20 years ago, the entry sign for the Turnpike westbound at either US 1 or US 13 (I forget) read "Harrisburg, Pittsburgh & Ohio."  That's more like it!

UPDATE/EDIT:
On further research, I knew I'd seen a "Cleveland" somewhere:  https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/pennsylvania075/i-076_wb_exit_075_04.jpg
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alex on January 03, 2011, 05:50:17 PM
Quote from: Michael in Philly on January 03, 2011, 02:45:39 PM

Well, I've already said how I feel about American BGS's not being informative enough.  20 years ago, the entry sign for the Turnpike westbound at either US 1 or US 13 (I forget) read "Harrisburg, Pittsburgh & Ohio."  That's more like it!


Indeed. Here is an original sign (http://www.pahighways.com/graphics/gallery/alexnitzman/I76-I276-PA9.jpg) from the Germantown Pike (old U.S. 422) interchange with I-276.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NE2 on January 04, 2011, 04:14:32 AM
Quote from: AARoads on January 03, 2011, 05:50:17 PM
Indeed. Here is an original sign (http://www.pahighways.com/graphics/gallery/alexnitzman/I76-I276-PA9.jpg) from the Germantown Pike (old U.S. 422) interchange with I-276.
403...
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: hbelkins on January 04, 2011, 08:25:39 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 04, 2011, 04:14:32 AM
Quote from: AARoads on January 03, 2011, 05:50:17 PM
Indeed. Here is an original sign (http://www.pahighways.com/graphics/gallery/alexnitzman/I76-I276-PA9.jpg) from the Germantown Pike (old U.S. 422) interchange with I-276.
403...

Appears as if Jeff doesn't allow hotlinking.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: vdeane on January 04, 2011, 11:38:39 AM
I think that one's just plain blocked.  I can't even get to it by pasting in the url after navigating to PA Highways first!
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: PAHighways on January 04, 2011, 01:51:13 PM
All of the Gallery pictures are hotlinked protected.

Go here (http://www.pahighways.com/gallery/guides.html) and the picture in question is the second of the three from Alex under the 8/1993 entry.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NE2 on January 04, 2011, 01:56:51 PM
I still got a 403 until I cleared my cache. Gotta love the overkill.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: bzakharin on April 28, 2011, 12:28:44 PM
I hope this isn't late or discussed elsewhere, but what's up with the Exit 5 Northbound pullthrough sign? It looks like a hybrid of the old and the new signage. It has "[turnpike shield] North" at the top and then "Thru Traffic\Next Exit 7 Miles" below it.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: HighwayMaster on June 15, 2011, 08:39:44 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 04, 2011, 01:56:51 PM
I still got a 403 until I cleared my cache. Gotta love the overkill.

404 here.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on June 15, 2011, 11:01:54 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on April 28, 2011, 12:28:44 PM
I hope this isn't late or discussed elsewhere, but what's up with the Exit 5 Northbound pullthrough sign? It looks like a hybrid of the old and the new signage. It has "[turnpike shield] North" at the top and then "Thru Traffic\Next Exit 7 Miles" below it.
Working on that. Up to the Turnpike Authority to decide whether they're ready to move beyond THRU TRAFFIC.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: newyorker478 on June 19, 2011, 05:30:52 PM
Anybody have any pics of the new NJTP pull-throughs? Personally I kinda liked THRU TRAFFIC ONLY and I hope they don't get rid of the exit signs, as they did on the Western Spur SB at the Sports Complex exit and the tollboooth :D
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 20, 2011, 10:53:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2FPC280001-Copy.jpg&hash=6cf4cc6ac295b3aa55adc629d482a98e261114c1)

Northbound signs say "New York".
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on June 21, 2011, 07:36:21 PM
Not even Del Mem Bridge. Interesting. New York is used all the way up the Turnpike, probably even past the exits that start to go there (10, 13, 14, 16E)
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: 1995hoo on June 21, 2011, 09:23:10 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 20, 2011, 10:53:52 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2FPC280001-Copy.jpg&hash=6cf4cc6ac295b3aa55adc629d482a98e261114c1)

Northbound signs say "New York".

No more info on distance to the next exit? I always liked having that info.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: J N Winkler on June 21, 2011, 10:28:57 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 21, 2011, 09:23:10 PMNo more info on distance to the next exit? I always liked having that info.

They are still doing it, just not at Exit 4.  The signs photographed were installed in NJTA contract T600.156, which also installed another "THRU TRAFFIC" sign with distance to next exit northbound at Exit 5 (in fact, the same sign as that mentioned by bzakharin upthread).
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 22, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
The "next exit xx miles" has been added to the bottom of the BGSes of the current exit.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on June 23, 2011, 10:31:37 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 22, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
The "next exit xx miles" has been added to the bottom of the BGSes of the current exit.
Soon it'll be going as a separate panel per MUTCD
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: HighwayMaster on July 30, 2011, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 23, 2011, 10:31:37 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on June 22, 2011, 03:21:52 PM
The "next exit xx miles" has been added to the bottom of the BGSes of the current exit.
Soon it'll be going as a separate panel per MUTCD.

Says who?
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2011, 01:03:22 PM
Says the MUTCD. And before you continue to be snippity, I may have influence regarding these signs... I don't want to elaborate on forum.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: hbelkins on August 01, 2011, 12:09:29 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 31, 2011, 01:03:22 PM
Says the MUTCD. And before you continue to be snippity, I may have influence regarding these signs... I don't want to elaborate on forum.

Should that be "Parsnippity?"  :-D
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
What's funny about the separate panel conforming to MUTCD standards is that there is so little of the NJ Turnpike conforming to MUTCD standards!  From the Exit # appearing in the main sign panel rather than a tab at the top, to the 25' skip lines in the roadway, there are so many things out of conformity!
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on August 02, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
What's funny about the separate panel conforming to MUTCD standards is that there is so little of the NJ Turnpike conforming to MUTCD standards!  From the Exit # appearing in the main sign panel rather than a tab at the top, to the 25' skip lines in the roadway, there are so many things out of conformity!

25' isn't out of conformance. 10/30 is a suggestion, but by no means a requirement for lane striping. In terms of a lot of the signage, you'll notice it start to comply over the coming years as signs get replaced thanks to the requirements of the MUTCD. Keep your eyes peeled.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: mtantillo on August 03, 2011, 11:40:15 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 02, 2011, 09:00:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
What's funny about the separate panel conforming to MUTCD standards is that there is so little of the NJ Turnpike conforming to MUTCD standards!  From the Exit # appearing in the main sign panel rather than a tab at the top, to the 25' skip lines in the roadway, there are so many things out of conformity!

25' isn't out of conformance. 10/30 is a suggestion, but by no means a requirement for lane striping. In terms of a lot of the signage, you'll notice it start to comply over the coming years as signs get replaced thanks to the requirements of the MUTCD. Keep your eyes peeled.

Thank goodness!  I was quite blown away when old, but compliant signs were replaced with Jersey Turnpike style signs on I-95 between I-80 and the GWB. 
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 03, 2011, 02:47:59 PM
According to Section 3A.06 of the MUTCD, you are right - the 10/30 is a guidence.  However, it states this specifically: "Broken lines should consist of 10-foot line segments and 30-foot gaps, or dimensions in a similar ratio of line segments to gaps as appropriate for traffic speeds and need for delineation."  On the NJ Turnpike, there is certainly not a 75 foot space between skip lines.  In fact, often times the unmarked portion is smaller than the marked portion (say, 25 feet of line, followed by 15 - 20 feet of unmarked pavement, followed by 25 feet of marked pavement, etc)
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NE2 on August 03, 2011, 03:17:13 PM
The word 'should', which is guidance, applies to the whole section. (Broken lines) should ([10/30] or [similar ratio]).
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on August 04, 2011, 05:52:16 PM
They are 25-25, not 25-10 or 25-15. That's the standard, and the NJTA is pretty good about upholding standards. Is 2:2 a similar ratio to 3:1? Maybe not. Is 2:4 a similar ratio to 1:4? A little closer. The fact is that you clearly have lane stripes and blank spaces. As long as there isn't confusion between solid and dashed, it should be okay. (Note that dotted lines use a 1:2 stripe:space ratio, which is even closer to the Tpk's lane lines.)
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 11, 2011, 09:52:16 PM
Thanks to YouTube, someone got a good shot of the "Next Exit" legends.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fnextexit.jpg&hash=2d2cc894c5b2282e537333dd13a9f3404fef71db)
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: jwolfer on August 12, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 01, 2011, 10:57:34 AM
What's funny about the separate panel conforming to MUTCD standards is that there is so little of the NJ Turnpike conforming to MUTCD standards!  From the Exit # appearing in the main sign panel rather than a tab at the top, to the 25' skip lines in the roadway, there are so many things out of conformity!

more than anywhere else the NJTP exit number is important.  So I guess it makes sense to have it on the main BGS.  I grew up off of the GSP exit 98 but there are so few NJTP exits the numbers are that much more important.  I was exit 7a or 4 if you wanted a 2 lane ride thru the Pine Barrens
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 09:48:42 PM
It's moving off the BGS though, in case they're ever forced to upgrade to mile-based exit numbers. Just a guess that they don't like patching with greenout on their signs.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: vdeane on August 12, 2011, 10:12:56 PM
I wonder why the number became so important on the NJ Turnpike but not anywhere else.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 10:54:47 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 12, 2011, 10:12:56 PM
I wonder why the number became so important on the NJ Turnpike but not anywhere else.
Because you have to read that number off your toll ticket on only the Turnpike.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: vdeane on August 13, 2011, 06:57:24 AM
I take it they didn't post the towns/routes served on the ticket as well?  The Thruway doesn't have the exit number culture the Turnpike has.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2011, 08:25:34 AM
The turnpike used to have the towns on the ticket, back when each class of vehicle had their own ticket.  Now that there's one ticket for all vehicle classes, I can't recall if they still do.  The font is so small anyway, people couldn't read it anyway.

Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Brandon on August 13, 2011, 03:48:43 PM
Quote from: Steve on August 12, 2011, 10:54:47 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 12, 2011, 10:12:56 PM
I wonder why the number became so important on the NJ Turnpike but not anywhere else.
Because you have to read that number off your toll ticket on only the Turnpike.

So you did on the Indiana Toll Road and Ohio Turnpike, but that didn't make the numbers all that important.
Title: Re: NJ Turnpike upgrading signing
Post by: Alps on August 14, 2011, 12:01:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 13, 2011, 08:25:34 AM
The turnpike used to have the towns on the ticket, back when each class of vehicle had their own ticket.  Now that there's one ticket for all vehicle classes, I can't recall if they still do.  The font is so small anyway, people couldn't read it anyway.



old and new tickets: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/