AARoads Forum

From the NJ Turnpike Authority Meeting Minutes on June 28:
( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/2012-06-26-Minutes.pdf )

"Chief Engineer Raczynski stated that the Turnpike Widening is progressed and motorists
are already using eighteen (18) new bridges and ramps. In the Northbound direction, the
Authority opened a third lane between Interchanges 8A and 9, making this a full outer roadway.
Another ramp is being opened today from the Pennsylvania Extension through the inner roadway
on the Turnpike at Interchange 6. The public works facility for East Windsor has been completed.
In addition, Raczynski stated around Thanksgiving the new Interchange 8 Toll Plaza will be
opened..."

So while I thought I had read that December was a likely opening date of the new Interchange 8, it appears they are now shooting for a little bit earlier (depending on the definition of 'around' Thanksgiving)!  The new toll plaza probably will be the last one NJ constructs as a manned plaza with individual lanes, with the likelihood of open-road tolling occurring in the future. Even then, the plaza was constructed so that the outer-most islands in both directions can be removed to allow for a wider lane(s).

This will also open NJ's first true SPUI Interchange.  The thru route is NJ 133/NJ Turnpike Interchange 8.  The cross street with the traffic lights will be NJ 33.  NJ currently has one partial SPUI with US 1/130 in the New Brunswick area. 

The reference to Interchange 6 includes the following ramps that are now open: NB (future) inner drive to the NJ/PA WB Turnpike Extension, SB (future) outer driver to the NJ/PA WB Turnpike Extension, and the EB NJ/PA Turnpike Extension to NB NJ Turnpike (future) inner drive.  As you probably know, the inner drive generally is designated for cars; outer drive is generally designated for cars/trucks/buses.  A large "s" curve carries people from the SB Turnpike across the new outer drive pavement to the ramp for the extension.

For those familiar with the turnpike but haven't driven it lately, the roadway was very uniform, especially when it came to overpasses.  Nearly all of them provide about 14 1/2 feet of clearance.  The widening project elevates certain overpasses well above the existing roadway to accommodate the new construction; in some cases 30' or more, such as a new overpass over the turnpike just south of Exit 7A. 

Another visually interesting overpass is at interchange 7.  The SB outer roadway soars over the ramp that one takes entering the NJ Turnpike at interchange 7 (US 206) and heads Northbound.  From this ramp the height of the overpass makes it appear to form a stack interchange or stacked roadway.  This was created due to carry the outer roadway over the existing ramps to/from the current turnpike (future inner drive), but there's never an instance where 3 roadways are stacked in this interchange.  (The NB outer roadway does the same thing, although the height isn't as pronounced.)

Throughout the project limits, there are some areas where the roadwork is done, and some areas where the project has seemingly barely started.  Several of the new VMS and Changable Speed Limit signs are also up; in some cases over both the current and future roadways.  One of the new signs had a test pattern the other day over the new SB outer roadway between Interchange 6 & 5 (in the 2 miles or so prior to the roadways merging).

So anyway...that's my (relatively) quick summary up to this point!

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
The new toll plaza probably will be the last one NJ constructs as a manned plaza with individual lanes, with the likelihood of open-road tolling occurring in the future. Even then, the plaza was constructed so that the outer-most islands in both directions can be removed to allow for a wider lane(s).

As the Parkway continues to grow in volume and people move south, there remains potential for more toll plazas being constructed that way. However, the new edict is "no cash lanes on the Parkway", so you get an E-ZPass/Exact Change only assembly. I don't know of any situation offhand with a toll plaza rebuild or new construction planned, though.

Quote
This will also open NJ's first true SPUI Interchange.  The thru route is NJ 133/NJ Turnpike Interchange 8.  The cross street with the traffic lights will be NJ 33.  NJ currently has one partial SPUI with US 1/130 in the New Brunswick area. 

It's not a partial SPUI at all, it's a combination diamond/folded diamond with a frontage road.

Quote
Another visually interesting overpass is at interchange 7.  The SB outer roadway soars over the ramp that one takes entering the NJ Turnpike at interchange 7 (US 206) and heads Northbound.  From this ramp the height of the overpass makes it appear to form a stack interchange or stacked roadway.  This was created due to carry the outer roadway over the existing ramps to/from the current turnpike (future inner drive), but there's never an instance where 3 roadways are stacked in this interchange.  (The NB outer roadway does the same thing, although the height isn't as pronounced.)

Never noticed this. Maybe I thought it was new ramps being constructed instead of the mainline going over.

Quote from: Steve on July 18, 2012, 07:04:35 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
This will also open NJ's first true SPUI Interchange.  The thru route is NJ 133/NJ Turnpike Interchange 8.  The cross street with the traffic lights will be NJ 33.  NJ currently has one partial SPUI with US 1/130 in the New Brunswick area. 

It's not a partial SPUI at all, it's a combination diamond/folded diamond with a frontage road.

The bridge over US 130 just south of US 1 is a partial SPUI.

Quote from: NE2 on July 18, 2012, 07:20:29 PM

Quote from: Steve on July 18, 2012, 07:04:35 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2012, 02:59:21 PM
This will also open NJ's first true SPUI Interchange.  The thru route is NJ 133/NJ Turnpike Interchange 8.  The cross street with the traffic lights will be NJ 33.  NJ currently has one partial SPUI with US 1/130 in the New Brunswick area. 

It's not a partial SPUI at all, it's a combination diamond/folded diamond with a frontage road.

The bridge over US 130 just south of US 1 is a partial SPUI.

In what universe? It's the end of Carolier Lane. It's a 4-way intersection that happens not to have a way to turn south.

I suppose it looks more like one from the air than it actually is. Do left turns onto 130/171 go simultaneously?

Quote from: Steve on July 20, 2012, 08:06:04 PM
In what universe? It's the end of Carolier Lane. It's a 4-way intersection that happens not to have a way to turn south.

NJDOT considers it a SPUI: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2001/121101a.shtm

More details were on the old project FAQ web page: http://www.state.nj.us/njcommuter/roads/rt130/faq.html

Is there any transportation engineering technique we are using for the first time in New Jersey?
Yes. This is the first modified single point intersection in New Jersey, constructed on structure over Route 130. Its purpose is to separate local from expressway traffic.

A single point intersection combines two separate diamond ramp intersections into one large one. Signalization of one major intersection simplifies coordination on the main road and can significantly increase traffic carrying capacity compared with a conventional diamond interchange.

The principal operational feature is that only one signalized intersection is required in the intersection through which all four left turns operate outside of each other. The conventional intersection has opposing left turns operating inside one another.

This technique proves effective and valuable in areas that have high volumes of traffic and restricted right of way. It is growing in popularity in use across the nation.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 21, 2012, 12:42:45 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 20, 2012, 08:06:04 PM
In what universe? It's the end of Carolier Lane. It's a 4-way intersection that happens not to have a way to turn south.

NJDOT considers it a SPUI: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2001/121101a.shtm

More details were on the old project FAQ web page: http://www.state.nj.us/njcommuter/roads/rt130/faq.html

Is there any transportation engineering technique we are using for the first time in New Jersey?
Yes. This is the first modified single point intersection in New Jersey, constructed on structure over Route 130. Its purpose is to separate local from expressway traffic.

A single point intersection combines two separate diamond ramp intersections into one large one. Signalization of one major intersection simplifies coordination on the main road and can significantly increase traffic carrying capacity compared with a conventional diamond interchange.

The principal operational feature is that only one signalized intersection is required in the intersection through which all four left turns operate outside of each other. The conventional intersection has opposing left turns operating inside one another.

This technique proves effective and valuable in areas that have high volumes of traffic and restricted right of way. It is growing in popularity in use across the nation.

Except that's patently false. The turns to/from US 1 SB occur on the west side of the interchange. The turns to/from US 1 NB are on the east side at the Carolier Lane intersection. US 130-US 1 connectors happen to run under that intersection, but that doesn't make it a SPUI, just a partial grade-separated interchange.

(I didn't want to start a new thread on my question so I figure that posting it in this thread about construction is fine).


Last night, I was driving northbound on the Turnpike and around Exit 8A and saw a couple new VMSs that were put up (those in addition to the standard new VMS/Speed Limit signs which have been up for many months just beyond the P.R.R./CR 535 bridge). Then after the 535 bridge where the highway flattens out, there's a big sign bridge that spans both the inner and outer lanes with three BGSes with embedded VMSs and what looks like lights for a green arrow/red X for lanes. I couldn't find anything about this on the main construction website (http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/) but I'd figure someone around here might know something about this. Is this supposed to be some kind of new way to transfer from the inner to outer lanes or vice versa?

Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 13, 2012, 05:30:13 PM
(I didn't want to start a new thread on my question so I figure that posting it in this thread about construction is fine).


Last night, I was driving northbound on the Turnpike and around Exit 8A and saw a couple new VMSs that were put up (those in addition to the standard new VMS/Speed Limit signs which have been up for many months just beyond the P.R.R./CR 535 bridge). Then after the 535 bridge where the highway flattens out, there's a big sign bridge that spans both the inner and outer lanes with three BGSes with embedded VMSs and what looks like lights for a green arrow/red X for lanes. I couldn't find anything about this on the main construction website (http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/) but I'd figure someone around here might know something about this. Is this supposed to be some kind of new way to transfer from the inner to outer lanes or vice versa?

There is going to be nothing of the sort, and I've never seen this so it must be brand new. I guess you couldn't see the legend on the BGSs, because that would be enlightening.

Yeah, a crossover would be interesting but useless, since all interchanges have off ramps from both sets of lanes, and on ramps into both sets.

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 14, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
Yeah, a crossover would be interesting but useless, since all interchanges have off ramps from both sets of lanes, and on ramps into both sets.

On the "dual-dual" parts of the N.J. Turnpike, I believe that all service plazas can be reached from the inner and outer roadways in all cases.  That means that entering a service plaza is a way to legally cross between the two roadways (otherwise illegal, I think).

Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 13, 2012, 05:30:13 PM
Then after the 535 bridge where the highway flattens out, there's a big sign bridge that spans both the inner and outer lanes with three BGSes with embedded VMSs and what looks like lights for a green arrow/red X for lanes. I couldn't find anything about this on the main construction website (http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/) but I'd figure someone around here might know something about this. Is this supposed to be some kind of new way to transfer from the inner to outer lanes or vice versa?

It could be something unique while they're reconstructing that particular area. 

The majority of the project involves building a new roadway outside of the existing roadway.

In the area just south of 8A, road work involves reconstructing the roadway through the existing merge/diverge area, which means the construction crews will be working much more directly with existing traffic. When the roadwork is completed, this area will simply be mainline roadways, not an area to merge/diverge.  Maybe it's a temporary sign arrangement to assist with detailing which lanes are open while the transition work takes place.

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 14, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
Yeah, a crossover would be interesting but useless, since all interchanges have off ramps from both sets of lanes, and on ramps into both sets.

Not quite useless.  What if one is congested and the other free flowing?

Quote from: deanej on November 14, 2012, 11:41:51 AM

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 14, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
Yeah, a crossover would be interesting but useless, since all interchanges have off ramps from both sets of lanes, and on ramps into both sets.

Not quite useless.  What if one is congested and the other free flowing?

That's what the existing cut-thru openings between the carriageways are for.  ;-)

Quote from: deanej on November 14, 2012, 11:41:51 AM

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 14, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
Yeah, a crossover would be interesting but useless, since all interchanges have off ramps from both sets of lanes, and on ramps into both sets.

Not quite useless.  What if one is congested and the other free flowing?

The Turnpike goes through great pains and expense to keep all interchange and service area ramps with a right lane exit.  It would be cheaper to have one ramp in the middle of the two carriageways, with one merging into it on the right and the other merging into it on the left.  But, it wouldn't be as safe and the ramps would be on the non-preferred left side of the roadway. 

In order to do a crossover based on the Turnpike's specifications, the ramp would have to exit on the right, cross over the outer roadway, and touchdown on the right side of the other roadway.  It would be a very considerable expense for very little benefit.

It's frustrating to be sitting in congestion on one side while the other side is moving at regular speed.  Signs at the diverge point and on-ramps will direct motorists to the free-flowing roadway. But those already in the roadway are SOL, and will just have to sit in the congestion.

Not always.  When I got on the Turnpike on my way to the Central NJ meet, the signs directed all traffic to the car/truck lanes, with the signs for the car-only lanes saying "Congestion Ahead".  The car-only lanes were free-flowing and the car/truck lanes were the congested ones (not that any of that mattered once I got south of exit 8A).

Quote from: deanej on November 15, 2012, 12:48:43 PM
Not always.  When I got on the Turnpike on my way to the Central NJ meet, the signs directed all traffic to the car/truck lanes, with the signs for the car-only lanes saying "Congestion Ahead".  The car-only lanes were free-flowing and the car/truck lanes were the congested ones (not that any of that mattered once I got south of exit 8A).

I believe that Jeffandnichole was referring to a situation when a motorist is already on the NJ Turnpike, not just getting on it.

I was, but I have seen what deanej is talking about also.  It's one of those things where, if you don't see it, you don't know it existed.

That accident could've been cleared and traffic started moving again just before he got to that point of the former accident scene.  Or the sign panel could've flipped back to the regular signage just seconds after he passed by it.

Not sure what it was; I assumed that it was for the 8A merge and someone goofed and put it on the wrong sign.

Quote from: PHLBOS on November 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
I believe that Jeffandnichole was referring to a situation when a motorist is already on the NJ Turnpike, not just getting on it.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2012, 12:58:10 PM
Signs at the diverge point and on-ramps will direct motorists to the free-flowing roadway.

NJ Turnpike does not have crossovers between the two carriageways and therefore if one is closed, but later opened you could be stuck on the congested one, being all six lanes being compacted into three.  Then later new entering traffic will fill the closed roadway after the point of problem or construction.

It would be nice to have legal crossovers, but an expensive proposition.  We have to live with it and  even if that means trucks on the inner carriageway at times when it is supposed to be CARS ONLY at all times!

Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:40:35 PM
It would be nice to have legal crossovers, but an expensive proposition.  We have to live with it and  even if that means trucks on the inner carriageway at times when it is supposed to be CARS ONLY at all times!

Well, not quite at all times.  At any point in time when a ramp leading to the outer (Car/Trucks/Buses) lanes is closed, all traffic is directed to the inner 'Cars Only' lanes, and from that point, trucks and buses can be in the Cars Only lanes.  Even though trucks and buses could enter a Service Area to return to the outer lanes, they're not required to do so.

The new VMS and crossovers about a mile north of Exit 8a will be a temporary merge (southbound) and diverge (northbound) of the inner and outer lanes.  That is, the current start/end to the outer (truck/bus lanes) will be moved from 1 mile south of exit 8a to 1 mile north for a period of about one year to accommodate the construction near the Molly Pitcher Service Area.  There were two factors that necessitated this strategy:  1) the eventual ramp from the inner (Car) lanes southbound sits right in the middle of the current merge and 2) unlike most of the 30 mile widening where the new lanes are added on both outsides of the existing lanes, the closeness of the service area to the Turnpike is forcing the construction of the two new roads to be the eventual northbound lanes in this area only, to the east of the existing mainline.    This new alignment makes it too complex as the start of the outer/inner split. 

It will be interesting to see the lane configurations that lead down to the temporary merge, whether they will be in the current "middle lanes combine" merge or as the old merge near exit 9 where the three right lanes ended in a series one after the other.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 19, 2012, 09:32:45 AM

Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:40:35 PM
It would be nice to have legal crossovers, but an expensive proposition.  We have to live with it and  even if that means trucks on the inner carriageway at times when it is supposed to be CARS ONLY at all times!

Well, not quite at all times.  At any point in time when a ramp leading to the outer (Car/Trucks/Buses) lanes is closed, all traffic is directed to the inner 'Cars Only' lanes, and from that point, trucks and buses can be in the Cars Only lanes.  Even though trucks and buses could enter a Service Area to return to the outer lanes, they're not required to do so.

That is what I was referring to.  When the Truck/ Bus Lanes are closed, they have to use the Cars Only Lanes.  The putting up part was those trucks and buses who have no choice but to use them during those time.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 14, 2012, 12:58:10 PM

Quote from: deanej on November 14, 2012, 11:41:51 AM

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 14, 2012, 07:50:35 AM
Yeah, a crossover would be interesting but useless, since all interchanges have off ramps from both sets of lanes, and on ramps into both sets.

Not quite useless.  What if one is congested and the other free flowing?

The Turnpike goes through great pains and expense to keep all interchange and service area ramps with a right lane exit.  It would be cheaper to have one ramp in the middle of the two carriageways, with one merging into it on the right and the other merging into it on the left.  But, it wouldn't be as safe and the ramps would be on the non-preferred left side of the roadway. 

In order to do a crossover based on the Turnpike's specifications, the ramp would have to exit on the right, cross over the outer roadway, and touchdown on the right side of the other roadway.  It would be a very considerable expense for very little benefit.

It's frustrating to be sitting in congestion on one side while the other side is moving at regular speed.  Signs at the diverge point and on-ramps will direct motorists to the free-flowing roadway. But those already in the roadway are SOL, and will just have to sit in the congestion.

The ramp from the Turnpike NB to the Newark Bay Extension EB is actually in the middle of the ramps from the inner and outer roadways.  From the inner roadway, you bear right to get to the Extension and from the outer roadway, you bear left.

Quote from: Roadgeek999 on November 21, 2012, 09:24:00 PM
The ramp from the Turnpike NB to the Newark Bay Extension EB is actually in the middle of the ramps from the inner and outer roadways.  From the inner roadway, you bear right to get to the Extension and from the outer roadway, you bear left.

All the Exit 14 ramps leave the mainline highway from the right side, there are no left exits there.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 22, 2012, 01:36:56 PM

Quote from: Roadgeek999 on November 21, 2012, 09:24:00 PM
The ramp from the Turnpike NB to the Newark Bay Extension EB is actually in the middle of the ramps from the inner and outer roadways.  From the inner roadway, you bear right to get to the Extension and from the outer roadway, you bear left.

All the Exit 14 ramps leave the mainline highway from the right side, there are no left exits there.

Using the outer drive, the ramp from the mainline is on the right side of the roadway.

When on the ramp, the ramp splits.  Take the left split and you'll meet up with the inner drive, headed to the Extension.  Take the right split and you'll go to the Interchange 14 toll plaza.

But...that's a left/right split on the ramp, not a left exit from the mainline highway.

"Chief Engineer Raczynski stated that the Turnpike Widening is progressed and motorists
are already using eighteen (18) new bridges and ramps. In the Northbound direction, the
Authority opened a third lane between Interchanges 8A and 9, making this a full outer roadway.
Another ramp is being opened today from the Pennsylvania Extension through the inner roadway
on the Turnpike at Interchange 6. The public works facility for East Windsor has been completed.
In addition, Raczynski stated around Thanksgiving the new Interchange 8 Toll Plaza will be
opened..."

The opening of the new Interchange 8 is delayed. The steel work on the SPUI bridge over NJ 33 has not even started.  From what I hear they are splitting the opening of the new interchange into two phases.  The first phase will open around January for traffic exiting the Turnpike, through the new toll booth and SPUI.  Traffic entering the Turnpike will continue to use the old toll booths and ramps until sometime late next year.  The phased approach is due to the overlap of existing and new ramp configurations, however I have not been able to figure out how they can open the new ST (south-to-toll) ramp without crossing the existing ramp from the old toll booth to the Turnpike.

Perhaps the split is different?  Having the traffic to/from the south use the new ramps and traffic to/from the north use the old ramps would fit perfectly.

I see that the old neon REDUCE SPEED signs are finally a thing of the past.  The NJTA is now spending over 3 million to have new VMSes to replace these.  Although, the GSP is having the matrix yellow VMSes replaced under the same contract, so all 3 mill does not go to the Turnpike.

In addition to the pull through signs changes south of Exit 6, I see control cities have been changed at exits.  Philadelphia is now on a tacked on sign for the Exit 4 guide signs at the bottom while "Mount Laurel" covers the old Philadelphia above Camden.  Chester, PA is removed and now replaced with Glassboro on Exit 2 guides.  Also, only Philly and Woodbury are left on the 2 mile guide signs for Exit 3 with the ACE being a control city in place of Woodbury (SB) and Philadelphia (NB) on the 1 mile and at exit guides for NJ 168.

I couldn't really get a good picture of the signage at the new diverge, at least not from 535, just this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGtz0r.jpg%3F1&hash=0bd623e0244379ebb7478aa3551621cac023cf8a)

But in this photo, you can see the actual diverge (photo from the 522 bridge, looking south)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHzQ34.jpg%3F1&hash=3c865f72dff564d24a7036c23eca9250d942de62) (http://i.imgur.com/HzQ34.jpg)
Looks like 8A-->NB traffic is forced into a single lane for a mile and then into the truck lanes though I'm sure if the truck lanes are closed, they can still get to the other side through the existing ramps.

The new "through" signs on the Turnpike are not being done consistently.  South of exit 6, most have been changed from the old "THRU TRAFFIC Next Exit X Miles (with arrows)" to (Turnpike shield) N/S, New York/Wilmington (no arrows).  However, a new sign at Exit 5 northbound is a hybrid - it has the Turnpike Shield/North along with "THRU TRAFFIC" and arrows. Same for the new signs between exits 6 and 8.

I also noticed that several new standards are being used for the exit 6/9 widening.  Overhead exit signs for the 1 and 2 mile approaches are now placed over both the inner and outer roadways, instead of one sign in the middle (butterfly version) as used north of exit 8a.  They do however use the butterfly for supplemental signs such as "Exit 7 for Fort Dix" etc...   Also noticed that most new overpasses do not have a column in the center median, therefore containing only four piers instead of the usual five.

At Hightstown-Cranbury Road, the mainline Turnpike overpass will be demolished and replaced as it was found to be the highest risk overpass on the Turnpike in a seismographic study (wow, they did a study on this?) due in part to the use of risers that support the Turnpike bridge and extend about 30 feet away from the Turnpike (which, by the way, also block the placement of the outer lanes directly next to the Turnpike).  It was built this way in the 1955 widening of the Turnpike from 2 to 3 lanes due to the very tight angle (about 80 degrees) over the road and a rail line below.  The original design for the current widening called for the outer lanes to be raised 11 feet higher than the inner lanes to go over the risers but based on the height difference and the earthquake issue the current approach was selected instead.  Work has already progressed - the local road was closed about a year ago (and still is), the risers were removed, and temporary supports placed to hold up the Turnpike until the outer lanes are finished and traffic diverted to them temporarily in 2013 while the inner lanes are rebuilt.  This is the only mainline overpass to be entirely replaced during the widening.   The unique configuration and risers can be clearly seen on Google Maps overhead view. 

Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
The new "through" signs on the Turnpike are not being done consistently.  South of exit 6, most have been changed from the old "THRU TRAFFIC Next Exit X Miles (with arrows)" to (Turnpike shield) N/S, New York/Wilmington (no arrows).  However, a new sign at Exit 5 northbound is a hybrid - it has the Turnpike Shield/North along with "THRU TRAFFIC" and arrows. Same for the new signs between exits 6 and 8.

Yup, different projects. The ones you saw south of 6 are the future. The ones for 6-9 widening (including 5 NB, apparently) were the last of the old generation, designed before the policy shift.

Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
Work has already progressed - the local road was closed about a year ago (and still is), the risers were removed, and temporary supports placed to hold up the Turnpike until the outer lanes are finished and traffic diverted to them temporarily in 2013 while the inner lanes are rebuilt.  This is the only mainline overpass to be entirely replaced during the widening.   The unique configuration and risers can be clearly seen on Google Maps overhead view. 

Do they plan on shutting down the rest of the old roadway to rebuild it after the new lanes open?

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2012, 06:35:50 PM

Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
Work has already progressed - the local road was closed about a year ago (and still is), the risers were removed, and temporary supports placed to hold up the Turnpike until the outer lanes are finished and traffic diverted to them temporarily in 2013 while the inner lanes are rebuilt.  This is the only mainline overpass to be entirely replaced during the widening.   The unique configuration and risers can be clearly seen on Google Maps overhead view. 

Do they plan on shutting down the rest of the old roadway to rebuild it after the new lanes open?

Yes, they plan on shutting the current (inner) lanes for re-pavement in 2014 for several months before opening both roadways.

Are they going to add NJ 33 (as well as NJ 133) shields for the at exit overhead guides at Exit 8?  For years that particular assembly lacked a NJ 33 shied, and only the 1 mile and 2 mile had shields where the at exit only used Hightstown- Freehold. 

Quote from: Steve D on December 03, 2012, 07:48:42 AM

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2012, 06:35:50 PM

Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
Work has already progressed - the local road was closed about a year ago (and still is), the risers were removed, and temporary supports placed to hold up the Turnpike until the outer lanes are finished and traffic diverted to them temporarily in 2013 while the inner lanes are rebuilt.  This is the only mainline overpass to be entirely replaced during the widening.   The unique configuration and risers can be clearly seen on Google Maps overhead view. 

Do they plan on shutting down the rest of the old roadway to rebuild it after the new lanes open?

Yes, they plan on shutting the current (inner) lanes for re-pavement in 2014 for several months before opening both roadways.

Are they shutting them down completely, or just overnight?  A complete shutdown would require the entire inner roadway network from north of Interchange 14 down to 6 to be closed off, since I would imagine there won't be a way to merge traffic down from 2 roadways to one....unless they are indeed going to build a temporary merge point for this reason.

Quote from: roadman65 on December 10, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Are they going to add NJ 33 (as well as NJ 133) shields for the at exit overhead guides at Exit 8?  For years that particular assembly lacked a NJ 33 shied, and only the 1 mile and 2 mile had shields where the at exit only used Hightstown- Freehold. 

Along the northbound Turnpike, the new & uncovered approach BGS' for that exit bear both shields.  I'm assuming that the replacement assemblies, when erected, will feature similar BGS' w/both NJ 33/133 shields.

For some reason, the overhead Exit 8 BGS' that lacked the NJ 33 shields seemed to be smaller/lower-profile BGS' than the approach BGS'.  One has to wonder if either the designer or fabricator decided to trim costs and opt for these lower-profile boards at the exits.

Speaking of shields on NJ Turnpike BGS'; will there ever be CR 541 shields placed on the Exit 5 BGS' (Burlington-Mt. Holly)?  To my knowledge, this is the only County Route that interchanges w/the Turnpike.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 11, 2012, 09:04:18 AM

Quote from: Steve D on December 03, 2012, 07:48:42 AM

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 02, 2012, 06:35:50 PM

Quote from: Steve D on December 02, 2012, 05:02:02 PM
Work has already progressed - the local road was closed about a year ago (and still is), the risers were removed, and temporary supports placed to hold up the Turnpike until the outer lanes are finished and traffic diverted to them temporarily in 2013 while the inner lanes are rebuilt.  This is the only mainline overpass to be entirely replaced during the widening.   The unique configuration and risers can be clearly seen on Google Maps overhead view. 

Do they plan on shutting down the rest of the old roadway to rebuild it after the new lanes open?

Yes, they plan on shutting the current (inner) lanes for re-pavement in 2014 for several months before opening both roadways.

Are they shutting them down completely, or just overnight?  A complete shutdown would require the entire inner roadway network from north of Interchange 14 down to 6 to be closed off, since I would imagine there won't be a way to merge traffic down from 2 roadways to one....unless they are indeed going to build a temporary merge point for this reason.

They will be using the new temporary merge just north of 8a, which will be retrofitted to connect to the outer lanes instead of the inner lanes south of the merge.  This will allow all operations to proceed normally north of 8a.

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2012, 09:46:36 AM
Speaking of shields on NJ Turnpike BGS'; will there ever be CR 541 shields placed on the Exit 5 BGS' (Burlington-Mt. Holly)?  To my knowledge, this is the only County Route that interchanges w/the Turnpike.

It is certainly possible. Exit 1 signs CR-540 and NJ-140 now. Also Exit 12 leads to Middlesex CR-602, but I doubt a 6XX route would ever be signed on the turnpike. They still haven't gotten around to posting GSP shields at Exit 11 and they maintain that road!

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 11, 2012, 04:13:49 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2012, 09:46:36 AM
Speaking of shields on NJ Turnpike BGS'; will there ever be CR 541 shields placed on the Exit 5 BGS' (Burlington-Mt. Holly)?  To my knowledge, this is the only County Route that interchanges w/the Turnpike.

It is certainly possible. Exit 1 signs CR-540 and NJ-140 now. Also Exit 12 leads to Middlesex CR-602, but I doubt a 6XX route would ever be signed on the turnpike. They still haven't gotten around to posting GSP shields at Exit 11 and they maintain that road!

Yes the NJTP has some very unusual sign standards.  Many are published in a design document available on their web site.  However many are also not mentioned in that document. For example, there seems to be a standard of capitalizing all letters of GARDEN STATE PARKWAY (with the word parkway much larger) for some reason dating back to the 1970s.   Palisades Parkway also received this treatment when the Turnpike took over the I-95 portion past Exit 18E/W in the 1990s.  Yet Pennsylvania Turnpike was downgraded on the new signs to "Pa. Turnpike".

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2012, 09:46:36 AM

Speaking of shields on NJ Turnpike BGS'; will there ever be CR 541 shields placed on the Exit 5 BGS' (Burlington-Mt. Holly)?  To my knowledge, this is the only County Route that interchanges w/the Turnpike.

Policy is to sign 5xx routes, so they should be appearing whenever new signs are installed. They're not going to install new signs just for that though.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 11, 2012, 04:13:49 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on December 11, 2012, 09:46:36 AM
Speaking of shields on NJ Turnpike BGS'; will there ever be CR 541 shields placed on the Exit 5 BGS' (Burlington-Mt. Holly)?  To my knowledge, this is the only County Route that interchanges w/the Turnpike.

It is certainly possible. Exit 1 signs CR-540 and NJ-140 now. Also Exit 12 leads to Middlesex CR-602, but I doubt a 6XX route would ever be signed on the turnpike. They still haven't gotten around to posting GSP shields at Exit 11 and they maintain that road!

It is policy not to sign 6xx routes - even on the Parkway. Yes, they're signed currently, but that's the sporadic practice of the old NJ Highway Authority.

The Garden State Parkway with larger capital PARKWAY chosen wording probably has to do with the fact that New Jersians like to call the GSP as The Parkway. So it makes sense to enlarge that descriptor so it can be seen at first for all locals.  Then when you get closer to the sign and start to see the smaller Garden State name, it helps the out of area motorists who are unfamiliar with the local jargon.

I guess someone later copied the idea when signing the Exit 73 sign recently because the designer thought it looked neat.   To me I think the name and shield for the PIP is redundant  on this particular assembly and it serves no purpose as locals refer to it as the Palisades Parkway and not like the GSP as The Parkway.

This will be the last week of operation for the current Exit 8 tollbooths as the new interchange will be opening in stages over the next couple of days:
http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/pdf/603%20Construction%20Activity%20Notice%20revisions_1-18-13.pdf

For those wondering about the northbound car-truck lane split, it has been completely relocated north of Exit 8A. The southbound merge wasn't modified yet when I drove through there on December 27th. Also traffic entering the Turnpike northbound from Exit 8A can still directly enter the outer roadway even though mainline traffic is limited to the car lanes there still.

Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 21, 2013, 12:42:02 AM
This will be the last week of operation for the current Exit 8 tollbooths as the new interchange will be opening in stages over the next couple of days:
http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/pdf/603%20Construction%20Activity%20Notice%20revisions_1-18-13.pdf

It should be noted that the direct connection thru the toll plaza onto 133 won't be open as of yet...they just completed installing the steel I-beams over 33 a few weeks ago, so the bridge decking has a ways to go before the SPUI is truly completed.

I drove the NJTP last night (1/27) from Exit 11 to 1.  At Exit 8, NB exiting, and all entering traffic was through the new toll plaza, but the SB exiting traffic was actually still using the old tollbooth.  I think this was because of Friday's cold and icy weather.  An portable VMS reading "NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN" said that the final switchover would take place 1/29 at 1 a.m.  So, roadgeek that I am, I got off the Turnpike to bid farewell to the old tollbooth, then went around to check out the Milford Rd. realignment, then got right back on.

After the tollbooth closes, I presume they will set about demolishing the overpass associated with the trumpet interchange on NJ-33/Franklin St. and digging up the ramps.  (By today's standards, a trumpet interchange at that location was arguably overkill for as much traffic as there was, but it seems like lots of toll roads built trumpets where a signalized intersection would have done just as well.)  Does anyone remember how, until about 2004, there was a looming, old-school dark grey water tower just beyond the motel next to the loop ramp?  Or when the Town House Motel's restaurant was called the "Coach and Four"?  Or, if you go way back, remember the other motel located between the cloverleaf and the turnpike overpass?  It was called the "TV Motel" (so named from a time when having a TV in each hotel room was noteworthy), and was demolished in 1974.  It's visible on HistoricAerials.com, and I think the motel's driveway still exists as a small bridge over the Timber Run creek, a tiny waterway which hugs the edge of the loop ramp, and also runs under the new exit ramp.

Just out of curiousity, are there any current I-95 shields anywhere on the Turnpike south of exit 10? I know they don't have to offically sign anything yet, but just womdering. Maybe a lone "To I-95" sign or two somewhere.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on January 31, 2013, 01:09:18 AM
Just out of curiousity, are there any current I-95 shields anywhere on the Turnpike south of exit 10? I know they don't have to offically sign anything yet, but just womdering. Maybe a lone "To I-95" sign or two somewhere.

Yes. They've been there for decades. As a kid I was amused by the fact that 295 and 'to 95' were right next to each other.

What is very interesting is the fact that the plans of the new interchange call for no control cities on the NJ Turnpike itself.  From both NJ 33 and NJ 133 it is just your typical I-95 and NJT green shield and NJ Turnpike on the entrance signs and post toll booth it has the I-95 shields mentioned, but TURNPIKE NORTH & TURNPIKE SOUTH in a separate square beneath it.

I thought control cities would be the issue being that the typical THRU TRAFFIC NEXT EXIT X MILES is being phased out for pull through control points.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on January 31, 2013, 01:09:18 AM
Just out of curiousity, are there any current I-95 shields anywhere on the Turnpike south of exit 10? I know they don't have to offically sign anything yet, but just womdering. Maybe a lone "To I-95" sign or two somewhere.

Officially, it's been 95 for many years from Interchange 10 thru Interchange 6.

The problem is this project and the PA Turnpike/I-95 project were supposed to be constructed simultaneously.  The PA Turnpike is running behind from its originally scheduled construction/completion dates, so the actual traffic flow may not match up with what was projected until that PA project is completed.  Included is the fact that the actual signs at Interchange 6 of the NJ Turnpike do say I-95, but they are covered up, leaving the off-centered I-276 as the routing on those signs, most likely until the PA project is complete.

My thinking is that this will affect Southbound Traffic more than Northbound.  Northbound traffic has been accustomed to using I-95 in Del to I-295 to the NJ Turnpike.  Depending on actual mileage and time, online maps and directions may STILL recommend this as the fastest route after the PA Tpk/95 project is complete.

Driving South though, motorists may see the I-95 signage at Interchange 6 and go that route (even if it's not the shortest or most direct).

One of the main factors that determines continuing driver behavior is the additional traffic that 95 may carry thru Philly & Chester, PA.  The highway there is already congested with many places operating without modern standards (full size shoulders, ramp lengths, etc), and really can't handle the additional traffic the signage from the NJ Turnpike may inflict onto this highway. This effect won't be fully seen for another decade or more from now.

Personally, this is the fault of the DVRPC (the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) which services the greater Delaware Valley, including NJ and PA.  They should be monitoring that the traffic construction in one portion of the region won't harshly affect another portion of the region.  Instead, they seem to be more concerned about bicycle, pedestrian and mass transit projects, and fail to work all of the projects in the region into a comprehensive traffic program.  In a case like the NJ/PA Turnpike construction projects, they fail to even try to encourage the two projects to try to meet a relatively mutual end date, and then fail even further by ignoring areas that may be severely affected by the resulting traffic flow.  This supposedly is why these regional planning commissions exist in the first place.

Quote from: NE2 on January 31, 2013, 03:40:43 AM

Quote from: swbrotha100 on January 31, 2013, 01:09:18 AM
Just out of curiousity, are there any current I-95 shields anywhere on the Turnpike south of exit 10? I know they don't have to offically sign anything yet, but just womdering. Maybe a lone "To I-95" sign or two somewhere.

Yes. They've been there for decades. As a kid I was amused by the fact that 295 and 'to 95' were right next to each other.

When I was a kid my family did the trip from northern NJ to the Philly area on a somewhat regular basis. I remember a few shields that said "To I-95" going southbound. Those are probably long gone now.

Roadman65, you and I must think alike about this stuff. I too am puzzled by the lack of destinations shown on the new Turnpike entrance signs. Interchange 15X is like that too. The MUTCD requires destinations and I'm surprised that the Turnpike Authority considers just north and south to be adequate signing. All the more puzzling considering that the 1950's era signs at interchanges read New York and North / Trenton and South as the standard destinations.

Interesting to also note that the G.S. Parkway is signed as just north and south in some places notably at the I-80 interchange in Saddle Brook. Not sure if that's NJDOT or the NJT Authority's doing.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2013, 05:04:51 PM
Roadman65, you and I must think alike about this stuff. I too am puzzled by the lack of destinations shown on the new Turnpike entrance signs. Interchange 15X is like that too. The MUTCD requires destinations and I'm surprised that the Turnpike Authority considers just north and south to be adequate signing. All the more puzzling considering that the 1950's era signs at interchanges read New York and North / Trenton and South as the standard destinations.

IIRC, those newer signs that don't have the control destinations are likely from contracts that predate NJTA's adoption of the more the MUTCD-type signage.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2013, 05:04:51 PMInteresting to also note that the G.S. Parkway is signed as just north and south in some places notably at the I-80 interchange in Saddle Brook. Not sure if that's NJDOT or the NJT Authority's doing.

Those BGS' that you speak of are at least 10 to 15 years old, so they're likely NJHA's (New Jersey Highway Authority) doing.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on January 31, 2013, 04:20:16 PM
When I was a kid my family did the trip from northern NJ to the Philly area on a somewhat regular basis. I remember a few shields that said "To I-95" going southbound. Those are probably long gone now.

Still there as of today. They somehow survived in the median during all the construction. I believe there are still some at the Exit 3 on-ramp too.

Quote from: SignBridge on January 31, 2013, 05:04:51 PM
All the more puzzling considering that the 1950's era signs at interchanges read New York and North / Trenton and South as the standard destinations.

Can't speak for other exits, but since at least 1970, the signs at Interchange 8 read New York and North / Camden and South.  The sign was still up (and lit?) when I took my swan song trip through the old Exit 8 tollbooth last Sunday, even though by then all traffic entered through the new plaza and the signs no longer served any purpose.

Back in those days there was a small sign reading "Camden↑" just before the SB Exit 8 off ramp.  On the NB side, there were also signs reading "New York XX Miles" at multiples of 10 miles starting with at least 90 miles.  (New York and the miles were on separate lines)

Why are we talking about little things like cities listed on the guide signs?

The big news is that for the first time probably ever, an old sign is being reused in a new location! Remember this sign posted on eastbound 33?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cdn.tripadvisor.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto-s%2F00%2F19%2F7b%2F4c%2Fcaption.jpg&hash=2b06d9d97e877e64914f2bed0d803b96240f2f51)

Instead of being sent to the chipper, it's found a new home at the new onramp to the Turnpike from 33 east! (including the notice about extra gas)

Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 31, 2013, 10:25:51 PM
Instead of being sent to the chipper, it's found a new home at the new onramp to the Turnpike from 33 east! (including the notice about extra gas)

That notice about the extra gas is what people were being ticketed for after Sandy. Now for the big question, did they wire up the light?

"Carrying gas in extra containers prohibited." Trying to make people use the service plazas?

Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 31, 2013, 11:18:13 PM

Quote from: Mr. Matté on January 31, 2013, 10:25:51 PM
Instead of being sent to the chipper, it's found a new home at the new onramp to the Turnpike from 33 east! (including the notice about extra gas)

That notice about the extra gas is what people were being ticketed for after Sandy.

Which never happened. 

People said they saw cop cars on the side of the road pulling people over, and someone told a newspaper they were stopping people for filling up a gas container.  They actually weren't stopped for it...they just decided to make the baseless claim.  Like many other urban legends, no one actually was pulled over, much less getting a ticket.  Why would the cops wait until someone pulled onto the mainline?  They would just sit at the pump, or just after the pump in the parking lot.  And it wasn't just one or two people...we're talking lines' worth of people.

In addition, the turnpike workers at the Sunoco station would be subject to discipline for filing such a container, if the practice remanded prohibited just after Hurricane Sandy.

Even the NJ Turnpike Authority made reference to filing the containers in a press release, advising patrons to use caution while standing in line to get their gas containers filled.  Yes, normally, the practice was prohibited.  In the few weeks following Hurricane Sandy, many prohibitations large and small were temporarily ignored.

Feel free to find someone who can state they actually got a ticket on the Turnpike for filling a gas container after Hurricane Sandy.  I'll wait.

Regarding that notice about carrying extra gas in containers, a notice which I think was there since the '80s.  I seem to recall that in the early '70s, a similar sign at that location read "Hitch hiking prohibited on turnpike".  Not sure if that was one or two words.  But was thumbing really ever that much of a problem on the pike?

There was a sign on the toll booth, facing entering traffic that read "No House Trailers", and "Exits 1 to 18" IIRC.

Quote from: lepidopteran on February 05, 2013, 12:50:05 AM
Regarding that notice about carrying extra gas in containers, a notice which I think was there since the '80s.  I seem to recall that in the early '70s, a similar sign at that location read "Hitch hiking prohibited on turnpike".  Not sure if that was one or two words.  But was thumbing really ever that much of a problem on the pike?

There was a sign on the toll booth, facing entering traffic that read "No House Trailers", and "Exits 1 to 18" IIRC.

This is what you get now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-280%2Fe18p.jpg&hash=6d970a2ec4f5cec6e3ea8bc6cc30e50c11d03c27)

Hmmm.........again we have the Turnpike Authority not following the MUTCD. That is a regulatory sign and is required to be black and white. Green is for directional signs only. But the NJTA is not the only agency to ever make this mistake either.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 05, 2013, 08:21:20 PM
Hmmm.........again we have the Turnpike Authority not following the MUTCD. That is a regulatory sign and is required to be black and white. Green is for directional signs only. But the NJTA is not the only agency to ever make this mistake either.

The District of Columbia likes to install white-on-green regulatory signs in places - especially those that forbid (or maybe I should say discourage) truck traffic.

One exception to the MUTCD om the NJTP that seems to remain, as far as I know:

"No Stopping Except For Repair"   (Repairs?)

I think these were white-on-green, mounted on (or painted on?) bridge piers, usually the farthest right.  I think they got smaller over the years.  But in any event, it's no MUTCD-style freestanding black-on-white "Emergency Stopping Only" or "Emergency Parking Only".

NYSDOT likes white on green as well (varies by region).  NYSTA loves it; I don't think I've every seen them use anything else, though there are two white on brown signs between exits 40 and 41.

The odd sign I always got a kick out of was the one that said something like, "You have left the New Jersey Turnpike. Obey local speed laws." I know it meant that the laws on the Turnpike might be different from elsewhere, but my father and I always laughed at the implication that you could go as fast as you wanted on the Turnpike. Heck, for most of my years as a kid that seemed to be true.

Quote from: lepidopteran on February 06, 2013, 12:45:20 AM
One exception to the MUTCD om the NJTP that seems to remain, as far as I know:

"No Stopping Except For Repair"   (Repairs?)

I think these were white-on-green, mounted on (or painted on?) bridge piers, usually the farthest right.  I think they got smaller over the years.  But in any event, it's no MUTCD-style freestanding black-on-white "Emergency Stopping Only" or "Emergency Parking Only".

No longer an exception... Check out the brand new SL standard drawings at http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/standard-drawings.html (P.S. I drew them :D)

I haven't been through the area in a few months- is the new exit 8 fully open now?  Also, are the new exit 7a toll-to-north ramps open yet?

Thanks...

Quote from: Steve D on February 12, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
I haven't been through the area in a few months- is the new exit 8 fully open now?  Also, are the new exit 7a toll-to-north ramps open yet?

Thanks...

Exit 7A is still using the old ramps.

Quote from: Steve D on February 12, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
I haven't been through the area in a few months- is the new exit 8 fully open now?

All the ramps to and from the Turnpike are now through the new Exit 8 booths now but there's a lot of chicanery in order to get to the mainline itself (at least going to and from the north) and the bridge over Route 33 isn't open yet; Tpke/133 traffic go through the SPUI's traffic lights.

It still seems odd to me that they sign 133 west for East Windsor even though the intersection itself is in E.W., 1/3 of the land in the township is on this side of the Turnpike, and its largest housing development (Twin Rivers, about 25% of the population) is further east of here on 33.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZzIN5ILl.jpg&hash=e7515da64f704879e0d6f1fb4b9861c1fbb10eda) (http://i.imgur.com/ZzIN5IL.jpg)

But as I mentioned before, the old sign remains (albeit with a bunch of 2x4s behind it which doesn't exactly bode well for it):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXXzHo59l.jpg%3F&hash=31a0464279901e81e366647ffde5cbd852e10980) (http://i.imgur.com/XXzHo59.jpg)

How does that work, anyways?  Do they have the SPUI temporarily configured to act like a normal diamond?

Quote from: deanej on February 12, 2013, 09:12:05 PM
How does that work, anyways?  Do they have the SPUI temporarily configured to act like a normal diamond?

Yeah, in a nutshell. Two lanes go through on either side, so the only advantage is that you can run your lefts concurrently for 133 EB and WB and for 33 EB and WB, but you still end up with 4 phases for the time being, plus all the traffic that comes from running a configuration that's not designed for.

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 06, 2013, 01:21:54 PM
The odd sign I always got a kick out of was the one that said something like, "You have left the New Jersey Turnpike. Obey local speed laws."

The one on the southbound side of the Turnpike after the Exit 1 mainline barrier was especially worthy of scorn and odium, for darned close to 100% of that traffic was (and is) headed for I-295 and the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and then back to I-95 and the Delaware Turnpike, though I think it was removed when the old Exit 1 toll plaza was replaced with the new one (a big improvement, though the Turnpike Authority should have made the barrier-separated approach to the E-ZPass only lanes on the southbound side a lot longer) some years ago.

Also rather remarkable that Delaware extensively signs for the New Jersey Turnpike on the northbound side of I-95/Delaware Turnpike and I-295, yet there is not one mention of the Delaware Turnpike on the southbound side of the New Jersey Turnpike (there used to be a sign on  the southbound N.J. Turnpike directing motorists to the  Delaware Turnpike, but  it was removed quite a few years ago).

Quote from: Mr. Matté on February 12, 2013, 06:44:44 PM

Quote from: Steve D on February 12, 2013, 12:52:01 PM
I haven't been through the area in a few months- is the new exit 8 fully open now?

All the ramps to and from the Turnpike are now through the new Exit 8 booths now but there's a lot of chicanery in order to get to the mainline itself (at least going to and from the north) and the bridge over Route 33 isn't open yet; Tpke/133 traffic go through the SPUI's traffic lights.

It still seems odd to me that they sign 133 west for East Windsor even though the intersection itself is in E.W., 1/3 of the land in the township is on this side of the Turnpike, and its largest housing development (Twin Rivers, about 25% of the population) is further east of here on 33.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZzIN5ILl.jpg&hash=e7515da64f704879e0d6f1fb4b9861c1fbb10eda) (http://i.imgur.com/ZzIN5IL.jpg)

But as I mentioned before, the old sign remains (albeit with a bunch of 2x4s behind it which doesn't exactly bode well for it):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXXzHo59l.jpg%3F&hash=31a0464279901e81e366647ffde5cbd852e10980) (http://i.imgur.com/XXzHo59.jpg)

Thanks for the pictures.  I grew up 1/4 mile from there in Twin Rivers.

I'm also surprised the signs say "East Windsor" (use the highway) when you are actually in East Windsor and there is no official downtown.  I'm surprised the mayor hasn't made a fuss about this; she usually is vocal with Turnpike and sign issues from what I've read.

Steve - which "quad" in Twin Rivers did you live?  I was in Quad I from 1970 to '74; we were the original owners of a house on Bennington.  All the schools I went to were in Hightstown, which means my school buses passed under the Turnpike and the trumpet ramps every day.   Amazing how close the interchange is to Twin Rivers now.

Quote from: lepidopteran on February 14, 2013, 12:45:18 AM
Steve - which "quad" in Twin Rivers did you live?  I was in Quad I from 1970 to '74; we were the original owners of a house on Bennington.  All the schools I went to were in Hightstown, which means my school buses passed under the Turnpike and the trumpet ramps every day.   Amazing how close the interchange is to Twin Rivers now.

We lived in quad 3 (haven't heard that term in years).  Here's some trivia - when I was in first grade our school bus driver pointed out a small house being loaded onto a trailer.  She said it was to make way for "a road".  That house was removed almost 40 years ago but the land stood vacant almost 25 years before they finally built route 133 (instead of planned route 92, another story).  The house sat right where the base of the SPUI overpass is in the picture on the north side of 33.  There was also a Sunoco on that site that closed in the 1970s. 

To complement Mr. Matté's photos of the new temporary diverge north of exit 8A, here are some direct shots from a Feb 16 trip between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and Exit 14C.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8100%2F8493442792_8a37e05519_c.jpg&hash=5653437a2f4980cd3e88e3da46a03fc0ce297bc9)
2 Mile Guide

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8087%2F8493442766_c771c93270_c.jpg&hash=dc67e4bd19c702491950e507f9a3430bf5737910)
1 Mile Guide

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8524%2F8492340875_54b8facac6_c.jpg&hash=34db9b9907fff8a9dde28d9bc5657e1ef59910af)
Diverge Point

The beloved rotating drum signs are covered over and being prep'ed for removal.

At Exit 7A, the last of the remaining button copy signs were the gore signs in both directions, and the one southbound at the start of the deceleration lane.  Its replacement was already mounted on a gantry to the side of the roadway, awaiting installation.

The art deco-ish sign structures are still in place along the PA Turnpike extension.  The construction cones in the vicinity make for a comfy place to pull behind, stop, roll down the window, and take a few shots from a still vehicle.  Turnpike reg's say no stopping, so I don't endorse this, but I did find it convenient nonetheless.

Is it fair to assume the psychedelic green-and-black look of those signs is simply a function of the camera rather than the actual color?

BTW, interesting to note it's now "Trucks/Buses/Cars" rather than "Cars/Trucks/Buses."

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2013, 04:34:09 PM
Is it fair to assume the psychedelic green-and-black look of those signs is simply a function of the camera rather than the actual color?

yes.  it all has to do with the refresh rate of the display subcomponents vs. the shutter speed.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 20, 2013, 04:44:32 PM

Quote from: 1995hoo on February 20, 2013, 04:34:09 PM
Is it fair to assume the psychedelic green-and-black look of those signs is simply a function of the camera rather than the actual color?

yes.  it all has to do with the refresh rate of the display subcomponents vs. the shutter speed.

Thanks. Figured as much. It's similar to the reason why photos of video boards in sports venues often don't come out well either. I must say the mottled green and black DOES look kinda cool, though. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthebumperboards.com%2Fbumperboards%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fobscene%2Fsmokingjoint.gif&hash=d9a14e263b3854c956ac900d216acbc295c708c0)

It could be a side effect of rolling shutter on newer CMOS sensor digital cameras. One of these days I'll get a shot of these signs using my CCD sensor digital camera and see if it creates the same effect.

Those diverge signs look awfully permanent for what's supposed to be a temporary diverge point.

Quote from: deanej on February 20, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
Those diverge signs look awfully permanent for what's supposed to be a temporary diverge point.

Notice that there are 3 signs there.  And the one to the right is not used.  The middle sign might just be temporary.  But the other two will serve the inner and outer roadway.

Notice also in the second photo there is already a VMS for the outer roadway.

Damn! With the green squares, I thought H&R Block was sponsoring this part of the highway! :P

Quote from: Steve D on February 14, 2013, 09:34:18 PM

Quote from: lepidopteran on February 14, 2013, 12:45:18 AM
Steve - which "quad" in Twin Rivers did you live?  I was in Quad I from 1970 to '74; we were the original owners of a house on Bennington.  All the schools I went to were in Hightstown, which means my school buses passed under the Turnpike and the trumpet ramps every day.   Amazing how close the interchange is to Twin Rivers now.

We lived in quad 3 (haven't heard that term in years).  Here's some trivia - when I was in first grade our school bus driver pointed out a small house being loaded onto a trailer.  She said it was to make way for "a road".  That house was removed almost 40 years ago but the land stood vacant almost 25 years before they finally built route 133 (instead of planned route 92, another story).  The house sat right where the base of the SPUI overpass is in the picture on the north side of 33.  There was also a Sunoco on that site that closed in the 1970s.

I do remember a gas station across the T-intersection with Milford Rd., but I didn't know what brand it was.  There was also an Exxon station inside the gore area with Monmouth St. which closed sometime before NJ-133 was built.  Not to mention the Exxon on the corner of Milford which was open right until it had to make way for the new NJTP ramps.  Of course, both stations were Esso originally.

Since you lived in Quad 3, did you know that originally, Probasco Rd. ended at a T-intersection with Wyckoffs Mill Rd.?  Wyckoffs Mill ran to the right for about 100 yards before making a 90° turn to the (approximate) north, as shown here:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aerials.php?scale=4E-06&lat=40.2727476014195&lon=-74.4935789999999&year=1970

When they started building Quad 3, Probasco was re-aligned.  40 years later, you can still see a trace of where Probasco originally ran slightly to the west:
http://binged.it/ZhSdfe

My father worked at the research lab on Wyckoffs Mill that abutted the NJTP.  It was called "National Lead", until about 1971 when it was renamed "NL Industries"; a ground-level sign reading one then the other faced the Turnpike.  Although that building was apparently abandoned some 25 years ago (still standing, though all but rotting away; "Weird NJ" anyone?) a spheroid water tower with a faded "NL" logo is still plainly visible from the NJTP.
http://binged.it/ZhTLpB

Although I have no official proof of this, I think Twin Rivers got its name from the "twin" rivers that abut the development; Rocky Brook to the south, and the Millstone River to the north.  Looking at the old maps, I suspect that the ill-fated NJ-92 was supposed to pretty much follow the Millstone all the way to Princeton.  Anyone know for sure?

P.S.:  Steve D -- check your messages

Quote from: deanej on February 20, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
Those diverge signs look awfully permanent for what's supposed to be a temporary diverge point.

They are going to be there for awhile. Once the new lanes are complete, traffic will be diverted to them while the inner lanes get rehabbed. I wouldn't be surprised if these signs get moved to the new dual-dual split south of Exit 6 when construction is complete as they are pretty expensive.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 20, 2013, 07:30:42 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 20, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
Those diverge signs look awfully permanent for what's supposed to be a temporary diverge point.

... I wouldn't be surprised if these signs get moved to the new dual-dual split south of Exit 6 when construction is complete as they are pretty expensive.

Why not just move the same rotating-drum signs they were using until recently at the Exit 8A split down to Exit 6?  I remember when the split was moved from Exit 10 to Exit 9, and it looked to me like the same signs were used, just moved.

There are still quite a few variable signs with the rotating drums at several exits, not to mention service plazas, at the point where the on-ramp diverges.  I wonder if their days are numbered?  Or what type of signs were ordered for the dividing on-ramps for Exits 6-8, and 8A SB?

I would take a guess that the rotating drum signs are antiquated by today's standards, and those old ones are probably worn out anyway. Ever notice those drums sometimes a little out of position and hard to read? Mechanical devices are less preferable in this electronic era. I wouldn't be surprised if NJTA uses electronic VMS similar to the those shown in the above photos.

Steve seems to know a lot about what's going on with the signing. Maybe he could fill us in on what signs are planned for the new northbound split.

Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:27:45 PM
I would take a guess that the rotating drum signs are antiquated by today's standards, and those old ones are probably worn out anyway. Ever notice those drums sometimes a little out of position and hard to read? Mechanical devices are less preferable in this electronic era. I wouldn't be surprised if NJTA uses electronic VMS similar to the those shown in the above photos.

Steve seems to know a lot about what's going on with the signing. Maybe he could fill us in on what signs are planned for the new northbound split.

Can't actually help you on that one.

What I know is that the NJTA advertised, for a March 5 letting, contract number A600.277, for signing improvements on the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway.  The bid quantities include 55,000 SF of sign panel (48,000 SF overhead and 7,000 SF ground-mounted), and the construction plans have over 500 sheets.  This is unusually large as signing contracts go.  The last signing contract I have seen with this sheet count was the MoDOT signing contract for I-49.

Unfortunately, as of January 1 this year, the NJTA has changed its advertising and bidding procedures for construction contracts.  Under the old system, the NJTA would pass bidding plans to a blueprint company, which would put TIFF scans online for casual viewing (a set of paper plans could be ordered for a fee).  Under the new system, NJTA passes the construction plans to Bid Express to put online as part of their premium plansheet service, which used to be--and may still be--$100 a month on top of the $35 monthly subscription fee.

I am looking for better options for getting a continuing feed of NJTA construction plans but, so far, it is not looking good.  It is really quite unfortunate and inconvenient that neither transportation agency in New Jersey makes construction plans available online for hassle-free download.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 21, 2013, 12:57:27 AM
What I know is that the NJTA advertised, for a March 5 letting, contract number A600.277, for signing improvements on the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway.  The bid quantities include 55,000 SF of sign panel (48,000 SF overhead and 7,000 SF ground-mounted), and the construction plans have over 500 sheets.  This is unusually large as signing contracts go.  The last signing contract I have seen with this sheet count was the MoDOT signing contract for I-49.

Unfortunately, as of January 1 this year, the NJTA has changed its advertising and bidding procedures for construction contracts.  Under the old system, the NJTA would pass bidding plans to a blueprint company, which would put TIFF scans online for casual viewing (a set of paper plans could be ordered for a fee).  Under the new system, NJTA passes the construction plans to Bid Express to put online as part of their premium plansheet service, which used to be--and may still be--$100 a month on top of the $35 monthly subscription fee.

I am looking for better options for getting a continuing feed of NJTA construction plans but, so far, it is not looking good.  It is really quite unfortunate and inconvenient that neither transportation agency in New Jersey makes construction plans available online for hassle-free download.

I wonder what's available under OPRA? I know that's a terrible hassle to go through each time but it may actually work.

Going Northbound on the NJ Turnpike prior to the future diverge, the bases for new signage in the median and right shoudler have been constructed at approximately the 2 mile ahead and 1 mile ahead point.  At the future diverge point itself (about where there would be 4 or 5 lanes), there's a new variable message sign there, although only the same size as the others found along the road.

This would make a great location for one of those extra large VMS, such as the ones found at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Quote from: Steve on February 21, 2013, 08:03:54 AMI wonder what's available under OPRA? I know that's a terrible hassle to go through each time but it may actually work.

I will go through OPRA if I have to, but it is a last resort.  I have no firsthand experience with the process, but Randy Hersh did, and shared with me the results and his correspondence with NJDOT officials.  It is my understanding that under OPRA, structural plans are not considered public record, and it is NJDOT policy not to provide them.  Bridge plans are considered structural, but I am not sure whether this applies to sign structures (a point which is relevant for this contract since the bid quantities list 57 full-width gantries and 15 cantilever structures).  In the case of the NJTA, a more serious problem may be that the agency does not have the plans in electronic format, as was the case several years ago when Randy inquired as to the possibility of obtaining the 6-9 widening plans in electronic format.  (He took the inquiries no further when I discovered we had the access for viewing which we have just lost.)  I am not sure availability on paper only still prevails, but in the bid proposal NJTA lists a number of past projects which are relevant to this one and advises contractors that they may obtain prints of them from the NJTA's records person.

My personal philosophy is that these plans are not going to go away, so I can play a long game if I have to.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2013, 08:57:33 AM
This would make a great location for one of those extra large VMS, such as the ones found at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

I  agree.  Those VMS units at the bridge approaches are superb. 

Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 20, 2013, 07:30:42 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 20, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
Those diverge signs look awfully permanent for what's supposed to be a temporary diverge point.

They are going to be there for awhile. Once the new lanes are complete, traffic will be diverted to them while the inner lanes get rehabbed. I wouldn't be surprised if these signs get moved to the new dual-dual split south of Exit 6 when construction is complete as they are pretty expensive.

So how many years until the diverge point is at exit 6?

2014 is the projected construction end date.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
2014 is the projected construction end date.

I think summer 2014 for completing all of the new work.  Then traffic will be shifted to the new outer lanes while the inner lanes are repaved only (no bridges re-built) by fall 2014. 

From what I remember reading the old drum-style variable signs are not going to be used for new signs in the 6-9 section but this is not confirmed.

Quote from: Steve D on February 21, 2013, 01:10:29 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
2014 is the projected construction end date.

I think summer 2014 for completing all of the new work.  Then traffic will be shifted to the new outer lanes while the inner lanes are repaved only (no bridges re-built) by fall 2014. 

From what I remember reading the old drum-style variable signs are not going to be used for new signs in the 6-9 section but this is not confirmed.

Wow, that's a lot different from how it would go in NY.  It would take 2-3 years to get the inner lanes rebuilt here.  And we use construction zone signage for anything that's not permanent, even if the sign will be up for 10 years.

It appears the old ramps at Interchange 7A are now closed.  A temporary loop ramp from the 'pike NB to the toll plaza is now open, along with the long flyover/under/over ramp from the toll plaza to the Turnpike's future inner lanes NB.

Quote from: Steve D on February 21, 2013, 01:10:29 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
2014 is the projected construction end date.

I think summer 2014 for completing all of the new work.  Then traffic will be shifted to the new outer lanes while the inner lanes are repaved only (no bridges re-built) by fall 2014. 

From what I remember reading the old drum-style variable signs are not going to be used for new signs in the 6-9 section but this is not confirmed.

There will be new hybrid signs on ramps with a combination of drums and a VMS.

Took a quick roadgeeking ride at lunch between 7A & 8:

A few notes: 

The new long flyover ramp from the Exit 7A toll plaza northbound definitely has a feel of a roller coaster dipping down and back up again, albeit at 50 mph over several hundred feet, it's not quite Rolling Thunder at Great Adventure (and without the creaking of the wooden coaster structure).

At Exit 8, the toll lanes are surprisingly narrow considering a few of them are set up for EZ Pass only.  I'm sure it's to keep speeds down thru the toll plaza, and I believe the outer lanes are set up in a temporary configuration so they can easily be converted when the Turnpike eventually goes all-electronic.

Off Exit 8, at the SPUI intersection with 33/133, unlike the majority of the Eastern US which uses 'upward arrows' on gore signs to point traffic towards a ramp, the Turnpike is using downward arrows, more commonly found in Nevada, California and elsewhere out west. Personally, I always liked the look of these arrows better.

It's hard to tell how complete the 133 overpass is over 33.  And the traffic lights, at least currently, are arkwardly far away for a SPUI configuration, especially on 33.  They would look a bit better if they were underneath the overpass.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2013, 01:48:45 PM
At Exit 8, the toll lanes are surprisingly narrow considering a few of them are set up for EZ Pass only.  I'm sure it's to keep speeds down thru the toll plaza, and I believe the outer lanes are set up in a temporary configuration so they can easily be converted when the Turnpike eventually goes all-electronic.

Yes, and yes. The islands I believe are bolt-down instead of cast so that they can just be picked up with minimal resurfacing below. They settled on a "medium-speed" (my own term, NOT theirs) E-ZPass that's better than the 15 mph at most booths - doable because there's no toll booth on the island, so they can make the lane that much wider.

Quote
Off Exit 8, at the SPUI intersection with 33/133, unlike the majority of the Eastern US which uses 'upward arrows' on gore signs to point traffic towards a ramp, the Turnpike is using downward arrows, more commonly found in Nevada, California and elsewhere out west. Personally, I always liked the look of these arrows better.

Not sure when those entered the MUTCD - if it was there by the 2003 edition, that would explain it, as the sign designs I think were done before the 2009 came out. (Do not quote me on that.) I would have to drive by to see how the arrows are oriented relative to Route 33 and the ramps.

It has been two months since someone posted to this topic.  Does anyone have any major observations to share?

Of the sections I go thru most often (Interchange 7 and south), Interchange 6 and slightly below that has a lot of work to do.  They've been working on a few of the ramps, although the work on the Turnpike South Inner Lanes to the PA Turnpike Extension ramp has been at a standstill for several months now.  Just below the interchange, a LOT of work needs to be done to raise the level of the land to construct the SB Outer lanes.  A local road that goes thru the interchange still needs a new bridge structure, and it appears very little work has been done to start that as well.

The merge/diverge area below Interchange 6 is complete, except for a few signs and sign structures.  I'm a little disappointed they have this area where the road curves and on a hill, rather than extending it about another mile south where the road is straight for over a mile with excellent site lines.

North of Interchange 7, there are areas where the new roadway is complete, and some areas where construction is ongoing.  Most of the new overpasses have been constructed or nearing completion.  The SPUI interchange off Interchange 8 should be close to completion.  One of these days, I'll have to take a ride up to around 8A to see the temporary merge/diverge point there.

Building on jeffandnicole's post, the southbound temporary merge is open.  Lane drops occur in the same fashion as before.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7284%2F8744508976_066cd7351c_z.jpg&hash=ce24e1d040f7d89bf1b3c59ef0acc78b7ea61410)
I've been taking a series of photos showing samples of what the Turnpike is displaying on the new VMSes.  This is the first time I've seen a VMS used like a guide sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)
Those in the truck lanes get (2) chances to exit at 8A -- one prior to the merge and one about 1¼ miles further at the ramp for the car lanes.  It's kind of trippy at first when one exit is listed as 2 miles for the car lanes and ¾ mile in the truck lanes, but when you realize that it's due to the temporary merge point, it makes sense.  It's my guess that the "¾" is a green-out on the 2 mile guide sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7292%2F8743389749_f5abbd5113_z.jpg&hash=c1e1370d6e84c151e35dd22cfbad6e7676c27437)
Signage related to the merge is simple and crisp.  As was mentioned upthread, the construction methods of many sign structures related to the temporary merge don't seem so "temporary".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7292%2F8744509032_c625c43e57_z.jpg&hash=937f3a60cea586e1d7896973ff20c7b858d0a59e)
The merge occurs about 1¼ miles prior to Exit 8A.

For the signs that are in place at the temporary merge, the structures they're attached to look permanent.  Obviously, the gantries will be used for other guide signs or information I would assume.

Geez, they are already rusty :)

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on May 16, 2013, 07:44:24 PM
Geez, they are already rusty :)

No, the NJTA uses these type of assemblies that look that part on both the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway.

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)
Those in the truck lanes get (2) chances to exit at 8A -- one prior to the merge and one about 1¼ miles further at the ramp for the car lanes.  It's kind of trippy at first when one exit is listed as 2 miles for the car lanes and ¾ mile in the truck lanes, but when you realize that it's due to the temporary merge point, it makes sense.  It's my guess that the "¾" is a green-out on the 2 mile guide sign.

NJTA doesn't do greenout.

Actually, from what those signs and assemblies look to me, we are seeing the actual assemblies with the actual signage!  The 3/4 mile ahead message will simply revert to 2 miles ahead.  But otherwise, the only thing needed to be done is removing the Lanes Merge Ahead signs.

For the median sign, that assembly looked like it will become a blue Lodging sign for the upcoming Interchange 8A.

Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2013, 11:49:51 PM

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
Those in the truck lanes get (2) chances to exit at 8A -- one prior to the merge and one about 1¼ miles further at the ramp for the car lanes.  It's kind of trippy at first when one exit is listed as 2 miles for the car lanes and ¾ mile in the truck lanes, but when you realize that it's due to the temporary merge point, it makes sense.  It's my guess that the "¾" is a green-out on the 2 mile guide sign.

NJTA doesn't do greenout.

The new Exit signs for Interchange 6 have greened out the 'South 95', which is why 'West 276' is well off-centered.

Actually I was referring to the final photo.

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
Building on jeffandnicole's post, the southbound temporary merge is open.  Lane drops occur in the same fashion as before.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7284%2F8744508976_066cd7351c_z.jpg&hash=ce24e1d040f7d89bf1b3c59ef0acc78b7ea61410)
I've been taking a series of photos showing samples of what the Turnpike is displaying on the new VMSes.  This is the first time I've seen a VMS used like a guide sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)
Those in the truck lanes get (2) chances to exit at 8A -- one prior to the merge and one about 1¼ miles further at the ramp for the car lanes.  It's kind of trippy at first when one exit is listed as 2 miles for the car lanes and ¾ mile in the truck lanes, but when you realize that it's due to the temporary merge point, it makes sense.  It's my guess that the "¾" is a green-out on the 2 mile guide sign.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7292%2F8743389749_f5abbd5113_z.jpg&hash=c1e1370d6e84c151e35dd22cfbad6e7676c27437)
Signage related to the merge is simple and crisp.  As was mentioned upthread, the construction methods of many sign structures related to the temporary merge don't seem so "temporary".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7292%2F8744509032_c625c43e57_z.jpg&hash=937f3a60cea586e1d7896973ff20c7b858d0a59e)
The merge occurs about 1¼ miles prior to Exit 8A.

Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2013, 11:49:51 PM
NJTA doesn't do greenout.

I saw some greenout on the NJTP once, albeit some 39 years ago.  At Exit 8, the SB pull-through sign read:

THRU TRAFFIC
Next Exit 13 Miles

This is how it was signed until we moved out of NJ in early 1974.  But when we visited the old neighborhood that summer, Exit 7A had been completed.  The sign now read "Next Exit 7 Miles", with the 7 on a greenout rectangle.  (Not sure how long it lasted, though; the next time we would visit the area, in 1978, it seemed like the whole sign -- along with several others on the pike -- had been replaced with one in a darker shade of green.)

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)

I'm a bit surprised that nobody yet noticed/commented that the new Exit 8A BGS' now have route shields.  Previous variants only listed the control destinations.

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 17, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
I'm a bit surprised that nobody yet noticed/commented that the new Exit 8A BGS' now have route shields.  Previous variants only listed the control destinations.

Yet, they aren't MUTCD compliant.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2013, 03:44:44 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 17, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
I'm a bit surprised that nobody yet noticed/commented that the new Exit 8A BGS' now have route shields.  Previous variants only listed the control destinations.

Yet, they aren't MUTCD compliant.

Good.

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 17, 2013, 01:00:35 PM

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)

I'm a bit surprised that nobody yet noticed/commented that the new Exit 8A BGS' now have route shields.  Previous variants only listed the control destinations.

It only took them 48 years to put NJ 32 on the sign. 

Quote from: Steve D on May 17, 2013, 07:31:20 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 17, 2013, 01:00:35 PM

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)

I'm a bit surprised that nobody yet noticed/commented that the new Exit 8A BGS' now have route shields.  Previous variants only listed the control destinations.

It only took them 48 years to put NJ 32 on the sign. 

Actually I was going to.  I was even going to point out that they went even further and included US 130 as well.  I wonder if NJ 81 will make it to Exit 13A signs or even NJ 495 for Exit 16E someday?

No CR 612? Fuck 'em.

Quote from: NE2 on May 17, 2013, 11:49:08 PM
No CR 612? Fuck 'em.

Its in the signing standards to not sign 600 series county routes. Whats interesting is that NJDOT finally decided to sign NJ-81 complete with big, clear, BEGIN and END assemblies. Prior to that, there was zero signing that the route even existed.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 18, 2013, 01:50:34 AM

Quote from: NE2 on May 17, 2013, 11:49:08 PM
No CR 612? Fuck 'em.

Its in the signing standards to not sign 600 series county routes. Whats interesting is that NJDOT finally decided to sign NJ-81 complete with big, clear, BEGIN and END assemblies. Prior to that, there was zero signing that the route even existed.

Unless you used ex-NJ 164 (Dowd Avenue), where even new NJDOT signage says 81 runs on Dowd.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2642%2F3691014595_85b3d11841_z.jpg&hash=b9ed2e92429cce98c577c00d3237f397b1d073a6)

Quote from: Steve D on May 17, 2013, 07:31:20 PM
It only took them 48 years to put NJ 32 on the sign.

(for NJTP Exit 8A)

There was a plan for a time to build a turnpike extension from Exit 8A to US-1.   I think this was to be the now-cancelled NJ-92.  Perhaps the sign was kept blank until the plan was finalized.

Quote from: lepidopteran on May 18, 2013, 11:37:12 PM
There was a plan for a time to build a turnpike extension from Exit 8A to US-1.   I think this was to be the now-cancelled NJ-92.  Perhaps the sign was kept blank until the plan was finalized.

There wasn't room for shields on the old signs...?

Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2013, 07:39:32 PM

Quote from: Steve D on May 17, 2013, 07:31:20 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 17, 2013, 01:00:35 PM

Quote from: ChezeHed81 on May 16, 2013, 12:40:11 PM(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm8.staticflickr.com%2F7293%2F8744508740_dddaeddda2_z.jpg&hash=93c5261f2bd59b476ce549a3878feafa49ec2301)

I'm a bit surprised that nobody yet noticed/commented that the new Exit 8A BGS' now have route shields.  Previous variants only listed the control destinations.

It only took them 48 years to put NJ 32 on the sign. 

Actually I was going to.  I was even going to point out that they went even further and included US 130 as well.  I wonder if NJ 81 will make it to Exit 13A signs or even NJ 495 for Exit 16E someday?

By the way, exit 8A opened in 1965, not in 1968 as Wikipedia says. 

Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2013, 11:49:51 PM
NJTA doesn't do greenout.

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/7ag.jpg
The 195 West sign has greenout. They added Hamilton to the sign about 10 years ago.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 19, 2013, 11:31:30 AM

Quote from: Steve on May 16, 2013, 11:49:51 PM
NJTA doesn't do greenout.

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/7ag.jpg
The 195 West sign has greenout. They added Hamilton to the sign about 10 years ago.

It's odd, because I've worked on more than one project where greenout would have been by far the easiest solution, and we were told not to. It might depend on the project engineer, it might depend on who's in charge of the entire Engineering Department at the given time.

I drove the NJT and the east end of the Penn. Turnpike this week. It's interesting that the new southbound Exit-7 signs have a blank space to eventually put a "95" shield. They might as well not have bothered. Pennsylvania appears not to have even started construction on their new bridge or the 95/276 interchange yet. At the snail's pace they're moving it'll be time to replace the NJT signs before Pennsylvania gets this job done! I'm wondering if I will actually live long enough to see it completed and drive on it.

Penna. is about 35 years behind the times to begin with. I still remember the first time I ever drove to Philadelphia circa 1976, and was in disbelief as I drove west on the Pennsy Pike through the I-95 underpasses not understanding how there was not an interchange between those 2 major highways, considering that the New York Thruway has interchanges with toll-free interstates all along its length.

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 07:50:34 PM
I drove the NJT and the east end of the Penn. Turnpike this week. It's interesting that the new southbound Exit-7 signs have a blank space to eventually put a "95" shield. They might as well not have bothered. Pennsylvania appears not to have even started construction on their new bridge or the 95/276 interchange yet. At the snail's pace they're moving it'll be time to replace the NJT signs before Pennsylvania gets this job done! I'm wondering if I will actually live long enough to see it completed and drive on it.

2018 is the current plan. We'll see.

I'll believe it when construction starts! LOL

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 08:30:24 PM
I'll believe it when construction starts! LOL

Look how long it took for them to get I-676 done in Philadelphia.

Quote from: Steve on May 19, 2013, 08:23:53 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 07:50:34 PM
I drove the NJT and the east end of the Penn. Turnpike this week. It's interesting that the new southbound Exit-7 signs have a blank space to eventually put a "95" shield. They might as well not have bothered. Pennsylvania appears not to have even started construction on their new bridge or the 95/276 interchange yet. At the snail's pace they're moving it'll be time to replace the NJT signs before Pennsylvania gets this job done! I'm wondering if I will actually live long enough to see it completed and drive on it.

2018 is the current plan. We'll see.

PTC appears to claim 2017 for "Stage 1" of the project here (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/stages.htm), but probably a good idea to assume an extra year, given the slow pace of this project.

Quote from: Steve on May 19, 2013, 08:23:53 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 07:50:34 PM
I drove the NJT and the east end of the Penn. Turnpike this week. It's interesting that the new southbound Exit-7 signs have a blank space to eventually put a "95" shield. They might as well not have bothered. Pennsylvania appears not to have even started construction on their new bridge or the 95/276 interchange yet. At the snail's pace they're moving it'll be time to replace the NJT signs before Pennsylvania gets this job done! I'm wondering if I will actually live long enough to see it completed and drive on it.

2018 is the current plan. We'll see.

The PTC's projected start dates are like speed limits: Take what they say, add 10, and that's what they mean.

The PTC is almost as slow as Quebec's MTQ.  :-D How long we had waited for the missing gaps of A-50, A-30 and A-25 to be opened.

From what I see on Google maps aerial pics, 2 overpasses had been replaced as an anticipating of the upcoming interchange. One at Galloway road and the other at Bristol-Oxford Valley road.

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 07:50:34 PM
I drove the NJT and the east end of the Penn. Turnpike this week. It's interesting that the new southbound Exit-7 signs have a blank space to eventually put a "95" shield. They might as well not have bothered.

It's there.  It's just covered.

For fun, on the back of the greenout, they should have written their names and the dates when they think the greenout would be removed.

Otherwise, I'm surprised no one is kicking PA's roadass to get that project moving.  With all the seemingly needless construction on the PA Turnpike (really...how many times do they need to rebuild the center median wall?), that they can't get them to put the workers to work on this project?

Isn't there a video on YouTube out with a simulation of the completed I-95/Penna Turnpike interchange out there? I know I've seen one, but each time I do a search, I come up empty.

There was definitely greenout on the I-195 sign when I went to Trenton on July 26, 2012. Sorry that I posted this before I saw the link earlier in the thread.  :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMtUs3ZP.jpg&hash=47f8bdb4b6ced5910c5057bd3397b71198e12045)

I stand corrected. As Stephane pointed out, technically construction has begun on the Pa. Tpk. I did see those two new, wider overpasses at the locations mentioned. But at the point where I-95 crosses over the Turnpike there is no evidence that I could see of any beginning of construction of an interchange. And that's what's annoying after all these years........

Quote from: ATLRedSoxFan on May 20, 2013, 02:34:05 PM
Isn't there a video on YouTube out with a simulation of the completed I-95/Penna Turnpike interchange out there? I know I've seen one, but each time I do a search, I come up empty.

I don't know about YouTube, but there are video simulations here:

http://www.paturnpikei95.com/visualizations.htm

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 07:50:34 PM
I drove the NJT and the east end of the Penn. Turnpike this week. It's interesting that the new southbound Exit-7 signs have a blank space to eventually put a "95" shield. They might as well not have bothered. Pennsylvania appears not to have even started construction on their new bridge or the 95/276 interchange yet. At the snail's pace they're moving it'll be time to replace the NJT signs before Pennsylvania gets this job done! I'm wondering if I will actually live long enough to see it completed and drive on it.

Penna. is about 35 years behind the times to begin with. I still remember the first time I ever drove to Philadelphia circa 1976, and was in disbelief as I drove west on the Pennsy Pike through the I-95 underpasses not understanding how there was not an interchange between those 2 major highways, considering that the New York Thruway has interchanges with toll-free interstates all along its length.

It seems to me that PA and the PA Turnpike seem to have been the most reluctant to connect their toll roads to toll-free interstate highways.

Quote from: swbrotha100 on May 20, 2013, 06:01:44 PM
It seems to me that PA and the PA Turnpike seem to have been the most reluctant to connect their toll roads to toll-free interstate highways.

From the state that invented the breezewood.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2013, 06:38:19 PM
From the state that invented the breezewood.

New Jersey? The Pulaski Skyway non-connection predates any such gaps in Pennsylvania.

Funny, I've been using the NJT and the Skyway for a lifetime and never even thought of that.......LOL. I guess I'm too used to it. You just took the Turnpike or the Skyway.

Another similar location in Penna. is at Bedford where the Pa. Tpk. and I-99 meet. It's obvious both there and Breezewood, that supporting the local economy is the issue. If interchanges were built, all those restaurants and motels would lose some of their business.

Quote from: NE2 on May 20, 2013, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2013, 06:38:19 PM
From the state that invented the breezewood.

New Jersey? The Pulaski Skyway non-connection predates any such gaps in Pennsylvania.

Long Island Motor Parkway and anything without an interchange.

Quote from: Steve on May 20, 2013, 08:55:14 PM

Quote from: NE2 on May 20, 2013, 07:05:58 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2013, 06:38:19 PM
From the state that invented the breezewood.

New Jersey? The Pulaski Skyway non-connection predates any such gaps in Pennsylvania.

Long Island Motor Parkway and anything without an interchange.

Neither of those are quite the same thing since the missing direct connection is not a through movement for any given route.

It's one thing to say you have to use a surface street to go between the route 1 freeway and the route 2 freeway for some or all movements. There are countless examples of this all over the place (New York City is notorious for them). It's another thing entirely to say that, in order to continue following route 1, you must get off of one freeway and then use a surface street to get to another one.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 20, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
Neither of those are quite the same thing since the missing direct connection is not a through movement for any given route.

Neither is the interchange we're talking about, currently, at I-95 and the PA Turnpike.

Quote from: Duke87 on May 20, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
It's one thing to say you have to use a surface street to go between the route 1 freeway and the route 2 freeway for some or all movements. There are countless examples of this all over the place (New York City is notorious for them). It's another thing entirely to say that, in order to continue following route 1, you must get off of one freeway and then use a surface street to get to another one.

Nobody would complain about Breezewood if I-70 had been routed to Philly and instead an I-68 went from Breezewood to Baltimore. Riiiight.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on May 20, 2013, 05:16:44 PM
There was definitely greenout on the I-195 sign when I went to Trenton on July 26, 2012. Sorry that I posted this before I saw the link earlier in the thread.  :pan:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMtUs3ZP.jpg&hash=47f8bdb4b6ced5910c5057bd3397b71198e12045)

That green-out's on the I-195 West BGS have been there for a few years.  The original message (w/button-copy, text, arrow & I-shield) simply read 195 WEST Trenton with a downward arrow located bottom-center (oriented like a single-lane pull-through BGS).  The green-outs and newer I-shields were erected at/around the same time.

Not sure why NJTA modified the BGS as such?  OTOH, replacing the old, faded button-copy shields (1971 1974 vintage) I can see.  The red part of the shields looked more like rust orange/brown when they were finally replaced.

Found an old photo of the original 195 WEST TRENTON BGS message layout but with the current shields.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-95%2F7ar.jpg&hash=f56163ab8eb53c4e7662424d7a2bb3132eb62bea)

Is the Shore Points legend also an addition on the Eastbound sign, or was it just mounted that way...

Quote from: Flyer78 on May 21, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
Is the Shore Points legend also an addition on the Eastbound sign, or was it just mounted that way...

Judging by the photo, it looks like it was an addition or replacement for another destination.  Given the fact that most of the lettering is button-copy; it was likley added when the BGS was only a few years old (someone else here can confirm).  The first time I saw that BGS in 1985 (while heading the then-Great Adventure); I believe the Shore Points lettering was already there.

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 21, 2013, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Flyer78 on May 21, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
Is the Shore Points legend also an addition on the Eastbound sign, or was it just mounted that way...

Judging by the photo, it looks like it was an addition or replacement for another destination.  Given the fact that most of the lettering is button-copy; it was likley added when the BGS was only a few years old (someone else here can confirm).  The first time I saw that BGS in 1985 (while heading the then-Great Adventure); I believe the Shore Points lettering was already there.

I remember when exit 7A opened in 1974, I-195 originally went only a few exits eastbound (i.e., not opened westbound) past the Turnpike.  The mainline Turnpike BGS listed Allentown (NJ) which was then quickly greened-over for Hamilton as new exits on 195 (both west and east) opened.  It's very strange that Lakewood is on the directional sign after the toll as it is not on the mainline signs.  There are a few other examples of this on other exits (Highland Park off exit 10, Princeton off exit 8, etc..)

Quote from: Steve D on May 21, 2013, 02:28:30 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 21, 2013, 01:45:31 PM

Quote from: Flyer78 on May 21, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
Is the Shore Points legend also an addition on the Eastbound sign, or was it just mounted that way...

Judging by the photo, it looks like it was an addition or replacement for another destination.  Given the fact that most of the lettering is button-copy; it was likley added when the BGS was only a few years old (someone else here can confirm).  The first time I saw that BGS in 1985 (while heading the then-Great Adventure); I believe the Shore Points lettering was already there.

I remember when exit 7A opened in 1974, I-195 originally went only a few exits eastbound (i.e., not opened westbound) past the Turnpike.  The mainline Turnpike BGS listed Allentown (NJ) which was then quickly greened-over for Hamilton as new exits on 195 (both west and east) opened.  It's very strange that Lakewood is on the directional sign after the toll as it is not on the mainline signs.  There are a few other examples of this on other exits (Highland Park off exit 10, Princeton off exit 8, etc..)

Its not strange that Lakewood is on the sign at all.  Years ago, the I-195 EB ramp from CR 537 near Great Adventure had Lakewood instead of Shore Points back in the 80's.  It was because I-195, like you said was opened eastward in segments and there was a time when I-195 ended at CR 527 ( I think) and later on US 9 in Howell.  In fact I remember in the late 80's when the current cloverleaf was the eastern terminus  for a long time.  When the segment from US 9 to NJ 34 did finally open, I was of driving age of course and drove that section just days after its initial opening that had to be in the mid or late 80's.

What you see is reminants of the old days.  By the way, you have a good memory as I remember Allentown once being used at Exit 7A as a kid and did not know then that NJ also had an Allentown as well as PA.  So, I actually thought it was referring to Allentown, PA and that I-195 somehow went there, until I learned otherwise as I got older.

Quote from: SignBridge on May 20, 2013, 08:26:06 PM
Another similar location in Penna. is at Bedford where the Pa. Tpk. and I-99 meet. It's obvious both there and Breezewood, that supporting the local economy is the issue. If interchanges were built, all those restaurants and motels would lose some of their business.

While I can agree with that statement for Breezewood, I think cost vs. traffic counts is probably the primary reason Bedford hasn't changed. 
Breezewood only needs 2 ramps that would seem relatively simple and not *too* expensive, but the topography of where the current Bedford interchange, I-99 crosses the TPK, and the I-99 trumpet with Bus-220 seems like it would be pretty expensive to weave together.

195 West used to just be signed "Trenton". Completely logical, but I think the reasoning for adding Hamilton is that its population now exceeds Trenton proper!

Quote from: roadman65 on May 19, 2013, 10:31:54 PM

Quote from: SignBridge on May 19, 2013, 08:30:24 PM
I'll believe it when construction starts! LOL

Look how long it took for them to get I-676 done in Philadelphia.

Yeah well we're STILL waiting for NJ to build the Somerset Freeway... it's just been delay after delay... :D

Update:

-- You know how, about 2 miles north of Interchange 8, the turnpike goes up over Hightstown-Cranbury Station Rd. and some parallel railroad tracks?  For that bridge only, the traffic moves over to the new outer lanes while the bridges in the middle are reconstructed.  (Funny how they need such a large overpass for a lightly-used railroad track that dead-ends just south of the turnpike; a "backwards" switch on the south side does lead to a warehouse complex, but the spur was not in use when the widening project began.  The tracks are active nonetheless.  The rail line was cut back to that point in 1983, before which they ran all the way through Hightstown, I think as far as the now-demolished overpass that took the tracks and EB NJ-33 (Mercer St.) under US-130.  Until some time in the 1960s, the tracks were a thru line to Bordentown.)

-- A few miles south of Interchange 8A, the NB traffic moves over to the new outer roadway and stays there all the way through; "Cars Only" traffic has to go left at the current divergence point.  Cars getting on at 8A can go directly to the middle lanes, though.   But for a couple of miles south of 8A, the original inner NB roadway is being dug up and rebuilt.

-- At Interchange 8, a lot of sound wall has already been replaced.  The old trumpet overpass piers are still standing in the turnpike median, but not much else seems to be left of it.  It was hard to get a good look to tell for certain, but the trumpet overpass that served NJ-33 seems to be history.

-- Construction continues on the flyover ramps to and from the SB service plaza near Interchange 7.  Is it just me, or do those exit ramps seem quite long.

There's history in them tracks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_New_Jersey_Railroad_and_Canal_Company#Camden_and_Amboy:_1830-1834

Quote from: lepidopteran on August 13, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Update:

-- You know how, about 2 miles north of Interchange 8, the turnpike goes up over Hightstown-Cranbury Station Rd. and some parallel railroad tracks?  For that bridge only, the traffic moves over to the new outer lanes while the bridges in the middle are reconstructed.  (Funny how they need such a large overpass for a lightly-used railroad track that dead-ends just south of the turnpike; a "backwards" switch on the south side does lead to a warehouse complex, but the spur was not in use when the widening project began.  The tracks are active nonetheless.  The rail line was cut back to that point in 1983, before which they ran all the way through Hightstown, I think as far as the now-demolished overpass that took the tracks and EB NJ-33 (Mercer St.) under US-130.  Until some time in the 1960s, the tracks were a thru line to Bordentown.)

-- A few miles south of Interchange 8A, the NB traffic moves over to the new outer roadway and stays there all the way through; "Cars Only" traffic has to go left at the current divergence point.  Cars getting on at 8A can go directly to the middle lanes, though.   But for a couple of miles south of 8A, the original inner NB roadway is being dug up and rebuilt.

-- At Interchange 8, a lot of sound wall has already been replaced.  The old trumpet overpass piers are still standing in the turnpike median, but not much else seems to be left of it.  It was hard to get a good look to tell for certain, but the trumpet overpass that served NJ-33 seems to be history.

-- Construction continues on the flyover ramps to and from the SB service plaza near Interchange 7.  Is it just me, or do those exit ramps seem quite long.

A while back I posted some details of the construction at Hightstown - Cranbury Road.  The old (now inner) lanes bridge had risers to the sides, extending a good 20 or 30 feet away from the Turnpike, over that rail line used to support the third lane built in the 1954 widening.  The risers were chopped off during the early stage of the current widening project while the bridge was supported underneath by temporary supports (causing the local road to be closed to traffic).  Therefore, the old bridge had to be re-constructed which is happening now.  Also, that bridge was determined to be the worst risk on the Turnpike in case of an earthquake, likely due to those risers hanging away from the bridge.  I know a lot about this because I lived in the area when I was a teenager and rode my bike under that bridge many times.

Quote from: lepidopteran on August 13, 2013, 07:21:18 PM
Construction continues on the flyover ramps to and from the SB service plaza near Interchange 7.  Is it just me, or do those exit ramps seem quite long.

I think the ramps from takeoff point to the current gore area approaching the plaza will be nearly 3/4 mile long. I'm still not clear on the need for such long ramps, especially when the overpass to the north of the plaza appears to be about the same distance away as the overpass to the south, but the ramps are tucked in between the plaza and that overpass.

Also not sure if that Sunoco Gas Price sign approaching the new ramp is in its permanent position, and why they aren't switching to an automated, LED sign.

Does anyone know what the new Exit 8 signs are going to display (or are dispaying)?  I am curious to know if NJ 133 and Princeton were added in addition to NJ 33 (that was left off the original Exit 8 overhead) and Hightstown- Freehold- East Windsor?

Nope. http://goo.gl/maps/ETPlr

Quote from: roadman65 on August 15, 2013, 08:50:11 PMDoes anyone know what the new Exit 8 signs are going to display (or are displaying)?  I am curious to know if NJ 133 and Princeton were added in addition to NJ 33 (that was left off the original Exit 8 overhead) and Hightstown- Freehold- East Windsor?

Per the construction plans for NJTA contract no. T869.120.605 (June 2010), the northbound pull-through is to say say "[NJTP] NORTH/THRU TRAFFIC/NEXT EXIT 6 MILES," while the exit direction sign is to say "[SR 33] [SR 133]/Hightstown/Freehold."  Similar messages are to be used in the southbound direction.  Princeton and East Windsor are not to be mentioned anywhere on the Turnpike mainline.  However, the NJTA is carrying out work on NJDOT infrastructure as part of contract no. T869.120.603 (plans dated April 2010), and the signing on SR 133 references East Windsor and Princeton.  (And before you ask, some signs have the NJDOT black border around state route shields, while some don't, the distinction apparently being based on location in relation to the closed zone where tolls are charged.)

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/turnpike_connection_bridge_set_to_open_in_east_windsor.html

The SPUI interchange (33/133) at Exit 8 should open next Thursday.  The article neglects to mention anything about the actual SPUI, which will be NJ's first full SPUI (a partial one, in NJDOT's eyes, exists on US 130 near US 1).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 09, 2013, 09:51:02 AM
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/turnpike_connection_bridge_set_to_open_in_east_windsor.html

The SPUI interchange (33/133) at Exit 8 should open next Thursday.  The article neglects to mention anything about the actual SPUI, which will be NJ's first full SPUI (a partial one, in NJDOT's eyes, exists on US 130 near US 1).

Like the comment from the mayor--
"The New Jersey Turnpike created many local traffic issues by opening the new East Windsor Interchange 8 earlier this year without the accompanying planned and needed infrastructure and improvements in place, such as this bridge, left-turning lanes and clear signing and road markings,"  Mironov said.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 09, 2013, 09:51:02 AM
http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/turnpike_connection_bridge_set_to_open_in_east_windsor.html

The SPUI interchange (33/133) at Exit 8 should open next Thursday.  The article neglects to mention anything about the actual SPUI, which will be NJ's first full SPUI (a partial one, in NJDOT's eyes, exists on US 130 near US 1).

I fail to see how NJDOT considers anything about US 130/NJ 171/US 1 to be close to a SPUI instead of a messed-up partial diamond with a frontage road.

Quote from: Steve on September 09, 2013, 09:37:06 PM
I fail to see how NJDOT considers anything about US 130/NJ 171/US 1 to be close to a SPUI instead of a messed-up partial diamond with a frontage road.

The Carolier Lane overpass looks like a duck, but its quack is closer to a honk, and its walk is totally gimpy.

Quote from: NE2 on September 09, 2013, 09:47:34 PM

Quote from: Steve on September 09, 2013, 09:37:06 PM
I fail to see how NJDOT considers anything about US 130/NJ 171/US 1 to be close to a SPUI instead of a messed-up partial diamond with a frontage road.

The Carolier Lane overpass looks like a duck, but its quack is closer to a honk, and its walk is totally gimpy.

All I can see is that you can make NB U-turns at the same time as SB left turns. That counts the 130-171 mainline as ramps and the 130-1 ramps as mainline. The side roads are nowhere near set up for SPUI action.

Per the press release, the Interchange 8 SPUI over NJ 33 is now open:

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2013/091713ta.shtm

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 19, 2013, 02:00:39 PM
Per the press release, the Interchange 8 SPUI over NJ 33 is now open:

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2013/091713ta.shtm

Fielded a complaint from a friend who drove east on 133 the way he always does; he suddenly found himself on the Turnpike. See, they said it'd be easier.

For the brain-fried commuter, I guess you just can't make a BGS B enough...

I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Quote from: mrsman on October 08, 2013, 09:26:26 AM
I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Now all they need to do is connect the Turnpike with NJ 42 and all the NJ Breezwood's would be removed.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2013, 09:34:57 AM

Quote from: mrsman on October 08, 2013, 09:26:26 AM
I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Now all they need to do is connect the Turnpike with NJ 42 and all the NJ Breezwood's would be removed.

Which might get tricky, considering that the current I-295/I-76/NJ 42 interchange is being redone.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 08, 2013, 09:34:57 AM

Quote from: mrsman on October 08, 2013, 09:26:26 AM
I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Now all they need to do is connect the Turnpike with NJ 42 and all the NJ Breezwood's would be removed.

The Parkway asks why it's so difficult to get to NJ 18.

Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 11:42:53 PM
Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

Rt. 38 is 14 miles from Rt. 42, and wouldn't serve the needs of those on or near Rt. 42, many of whom use the Turnpike to bypass the congestion that already exists on 295 between 38 & 42.  Motorists can already get directly from the Turnpike to 42 via Exit 7A, and can easily get between the two with just a few traffic lights at 7, 5, 4 & 3.

Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 11:42:53 PM
Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

A direct connection between the Turnpike and Route 42 might also face some environmental hurdles. I'm pretty certain there would be wetlands issues to overcome. Heck, VDOT had to get federal approval just to widen barely two-tenths of a mile of road near my house because the road crosses Dogue Creek, which feeds into the Potomac and thence to the Chesapeake. The area around where Route 42 crosses the Turnpike has a lot more wetlands than the area near my house.

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 11:09:05 AM

Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 11:42:53 PM
Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

A direct connection between the Turnpike and Route 42 might also face some environmental hurdles. I'm pretty certain there would be wetlands issues to overcome. Heck, VDOT had to get federal approval just to widen barely two-tenths of a mile of road near my house because the road crosses Dogue Creek, which feeds into the Potomac and thence to the Chesapeake. The area around where Route 42 crosses the Turnpike has a lot more wetlands than the area near my house.

There's a very rare project in NJ that doesn't have some sort of wetlands issues.  Even in the example above of taking a parking lot, wetlands issues would be drainage from the parking lot to the retention pond.

Of course, a 42/Turnpike connection would have many more major issues compared to partial taking of a parking lot.  But, it's usually nothing that can't be overcome. It generally requires that wetlands be created (at a 2:1 ratio) to offset the wetlands that are destroyed.  The 295/42/76 project hits a lot of wetlands, but a good majority of the wetlands will be recreated where the Aljo curve currently sits.  The Garden State Parkway Interchange 9-10-11 project was delayed some time due to wetlands mitigation issues, as there was no suitable area nearby to reconstruct wetlands that were affected due to the construction.  The NJDEP finally permitted wetlands to be reconstructed about 7 miles away on land that used to be a formal rail line going into Wildwood.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 09, 2013, 11:24:26 AM

Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2013, 11:09:05 AM

Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 11:42:53 PM
Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

A direct connection between the Turnpike and Route 42 might also face some environmental hurdles. I'm pretty certain there would be wetlands issues to overcome. Heck, VDOT had to get federal approval just to widen barely two-tenths of a mile of road near my house because the road crosses Dogue Creek, which feeds into the Potomac and thence to the Chesapeake. The area around where Route 42 crosses the Turnpike has a lot more wetlands than the area near my house.

There's a very rare project in NJ that doesn't have some sort of wetlands issues.  Even in the example above of taking a parking lot, wetlands issues would be drainage from the parking lot to the retention pond.

Of course, a 42/Turnpike connection would have many more major issues compared to partial taking of a parking lot.  But, it's usually nothing that can't be overcome. It generally requires that wetlands be created (at a 2:1 ratio) to offset the wetlands that are destroyed.

Sometimes that becomes a 3:1 ratio. I don't recall the triggers offhand.

Quote from: NE2 on October 08, 2013, 11:42:53 PM
Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

Is that so?  I never heard of any new connections between I-295 and the NJTP.

I think he was just theorizing where to put new ramps. 

Yes, I was. I kind of doubt there's been anything official about direct Turnpike-NJ 42 ramps either.

Quote from: NE2 on October 11, 2013, 10:06:15 AM
Yes, I was. I kind of doubt there's been anything official about direct Turnpike-NJ 42 ramps either.

I'm sure if there were it would have been posted here by now!

Quote from: NE2 on October 11, 2013, 10:06:15 AM
Yes, I was. I kind of doubt there's been anything official about direct Turnpike-NJ 42 ramps either.

I'm sure it has been studied by the NJTA at some point, if not by NJDOT, but probably just on an internal/conceptual level. Then again, it's possible someone prepared a study or two on it - maybe for SJTPO?

Access to Exit 6 from the NJ Turnpike NB is now via the new outer drive.  The 2 Mile Ahead sign was modified to serve as the temporary BGS for that movement.  The "2 Miles" was greened out.  The arrow was placed overtop the greenout covering "South 95".

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd144%2Froadnut%2FTempExit6s.jpg&hash=450752a1c8b0085a830658025b23a7a322b1c86f) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/TempExit6s.jpg.html)

You can see both old and new on the GSV images of SB NJT at Exit 6.  If you go to the lanes for the PA Turnpike, you can still see the old art deco sign bridge.  If you go to the SB Through lanes, you can see the new sign assemblies with both Camden and Wilmington as SB pull though destinations and the many blank spaces for the future I-95.  Also US 130 to Florence is moved to a supplemental sign with the NJT fashion of EXIT X FOR instead of the usual EXIT X at the bottom of the sign.

What gets me is the fact that the NB pull through signs do not list NYC, but THRU TRAFFIC Next Exit X Miles as the control points where SB is using Wilmington and or Camden like at Exit 6.

Also the new NB Exit 7A onramp that flies over I-195 has the designing engineers compromising the typical NJT bridge piers for the typical NJDOT design for bridge piers, which I think is cool.  Not that I dislike the NJT bridge designs at all, which I do not, but I thought it was a generous thought to do that.

I drove the NJTPK from NYC to the PATPK and back today as I had to speak at an event at Villanova University.  What a difference!  I cannot remeber all the places where I was on the new outer roadway, but it felt like a fair amount.  The road is so modern with LED VMS and flyovers galore.  It does not feel like the northeast's typical antiquated infrastructure. I am very proud on the polictal will it took to fund this project during a difficult time (2009).  This will definitely produce economic growth for central and south jersey (AKA Sprawl).   Now the the bottleneck is removed, commuting to and from areas around exits 6 to 9 will be much easier. 

Drove the NJ Turnpike North this morning, exiting at Exit 7A.  There is a rather permanent-looking pole with a overturn truck warning diamond, flashing yellow lights, and a 15 mph advisory speed.  Is this truly permanent, or a temporary issue because the ramp isn't properly banked due to ongoing construction?  I'd be a bit surprised they would design a modern exit ramp with such a design (advisory 15 mph for trucks).

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2013, 07:27:04 PM
Drove the NJ Turnpike North this morning, exiting at Exit 7A.  There is a rather permanent-looking pole with a overturn truck warning diamond, flashing yellow lights, and a 15 mph advisory speed.  Is this truly permanent, or a temporary issue because the ramp isn't properly banked due to ongoing construction?  I'd be a bit surprised they would design a modern exit ramp with such a design (advisory 15 mph for trucks).

It may be that the sign and its electronic warning system are heavy enough to require such a pole. I don't believe such a low speed is in the plans, but it just might be that they've discovered trucks having issues. (I can't comment on the ramp being banked, not having traveled the ramp.)

Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 25, 2013, 07:27:04 PM
Drove the NJ Turnpike North this morning, exiting at Exit 7A.  There is a rather permanent-looking pole with a overturn truck warning diamond, flashing yellow lights, and a 15 mph advisory speed.  Is this truly permanent, or a temporary issue because the ramp isn't properly banked due to ongoing construction?  I'd be a bit surprised they would design a modern exit ramp with such a design (advisory 15 mph for trucks).

That ramp from the widened NJTP to exit 7A is unique - it is the only one on the entire Turnpike (both present and under construction) to use the inside loop of the trumpet (270 degree turn, not sure of the technical term) after traffic merges from both roadways.  All other ramps from the Turnpike on the dual/dual section use the outside ramp of the trumpet or shorter ramps.  I'm not sure if that sign is temporary or permanent but that loop will definitely surprise a lot of drivers coming from the two high-speed ramps.  I think the design was constrained by the closeness of I-195 on one side and that local road (which now rises about 30 feet over the Turnpike) on the other.

Its likely a compromise to get the high speed northbound ramp. Otherwise they would have had to build a full semi-directional T interchange which might not have been easy given how high the northbound ramp had to be to clear I-195.

Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 26, 2013, 03:32:22 PM
Its likely a compromise to get the high speed northbound ramp. Otherwise they would have had to build a full semi-directional T interchange which might not have been easy given how high the northbound ramp had to be to clear I-195.

That ramp is the standard height for overpasses.  It is so far away from the turnpike mainline that it meets the accel/decal lanes for I-195's Exit 7.  http://goo.gl/maps/eBj79