Is the Garden State Parkway secretly designated NJ 444? Secret or not real at all, Google's gone overboard again with "correctness."
http://goo.gl/maps/35Z7K (http://goo.gl/maps/35Z7K)
(Is there a secret designation tag in OSM? Like how PA 283 is really PA 300?)
(For the record, this is solved. :P)
The answer to your first question is easily researched. There's no reason for a secret designation tag on a map, because maps are for following, and no one's following a secret number.
Yeah, I forgot. :P
But I thought I saw a "penndot_ref" tag somewhere in OSM, for a secret designation. (Maybe SR 6001 for the outer lanes of the Boulevard in Philly?) But it's certainly a fake tag for reference, since "penndot" can only refer to one state.
unsigned_ref is used sometimes. But isn't there already a NJDOT_SRI or something?
Quote from: NE2 on October 24, 2012, 08:45:15 AM
unsigned_ref is used sometimes. But isn't there already a NJDOT_SRI or something?
NJDOT does have the SLD for the GSP itself the link is http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000444__-.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000444__-.pdf) :D
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 24, 2012, 08:16:34 AM
Is the Garden State Parkway secretly designated NJ 444? Secret or not real at all, Google's gone overboard again with "correctness."
Yes, that's the secret designation for it. There's a couple of others as well. NJ 445 is the Palisades Parkway, and NJ 700 is the portion of the New Jersey Turnpike south of where I-95 splits off.
Makes sense.
Semi-on-topic: I hear the Merritt Parkway was once CT 999. :D
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 25, 2012, 09:08:57 AM
Makes sense.
Semi-on-topic: I hear the Merritt Parkway was once CT 999. :D
Same theme - Virginia's Colonial Parkway (National Park Service maintenance) is "secret" SR 90003.
The Dulles Airport Access Road (always maintained by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority) (
not to be confused with the adjacent Va. 267, the Dulles Toll Road) is "secret" SR 90004.
The Virginia portion of the George Washington Memorial Parkway (also National Park Service maintenance) is "secret" SR 90005.
Cool, five-digit ones!
Any particular reason the SRI has five extra zeroes before the 444?
I'd tell you but you're a sheep.
Quote from: NE2 on October 25, 2012, 11:53:32 AM
I'd tell you but you're a sheep.
Play nice.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 25, 2012, 11:45:45 AM
Cool, five-digit ones!
Any particular reason the SRI has five extra zeroes before the 444?
Format: 00000444__-.pdf
First 2 digits: County code. 00 for statewide routes - all state highways and 500 series CRs. Otherwise, 01 to 21 alphabetically by county.
Next 3 digits: Town code. 000 for state or county routes. Otherwise, in general there seems to be a numerical increase by town alphabetically. Keep in mind many towns have changed names, so there are rulebreakers.
Next 3 digits: Route number. Obviously.
First underscore: Letter designation. A=Alt, S=Spur, B=Business, T=Truck.
Second underscore: Normally blank. Sometimes two directions of a route are on two completely different roads, and this becomes a Z. It used to be a directional letter (N,S,E,W), but you had confusion with 508S being Spur and 508_S being South (typical example).
Dash: Always a dash.
Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.
It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed. Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike. At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.
What is it about secret highways named 444?
Quote from: Steve on October 24, 2012, 08:22:50 AM
The answer to your first question is easily researched. There's no reason for a secret designation tag on a map, because maps are for following, and no one's following a secret number.
What about maps of the internal designations of highways?
In my perfect world, "secret" route numbers on freeway- and arterial-class roads (except for those that are clearly redundant, like I-595 in Maryland) would be posted.
I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 02:40:43 PM
I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.
What about all the NY parkways? They're already ingrained in everyone's minds as names with no number, and are posted with the name in a shield, which is just as easy to identify as a number in a shield. Would you consider acronyms acceptable, i.e. "TSP" in a shield for the Taconic?
And what about short connecting routes? Do you think it should then still be acceptable to sign them as "TO [other highway]" or should they be required to have numbers too?
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 19, 2012, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 02:40:43 PM
I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.
What about all the NY parkways? They're already ingrained in everyone's minds as names with no number, and are posted with the name in a shield, which is just as easy to identify as a number in a shield. Would you consider acronyms acceptable, i.e. "TSP" in a shield for the Taconic?
The New York State Parkways are fine just the way they are.
That "TSP" shield is plenty good enough, even though it has a "secret" route number (according to Steve Anderson). Added advantage to the shields on the parkways - they help to distinguish the parkways from general-purpose NYSDOT highways.
I don't feel that way about the Garden State Parkway.
The GSP shield is not clear enough, even though it is frequently used in the same way that a route number shield would be used.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 19, 2012, 02:59:43 PM
And what about short connecting routes? Do you think it should then still be acceptable to sign them as "TO [other highway]" or should they be required to have numbers too?
Most have route numbers already, don't they? Maryland's I-270 Spur ("secret" I-270Y) is less than two miles long, and is not posted with any route number.
On the other hand, Maryland's I-370 is only slightly longer, and is signposted like any other Interstate highway.
My feeling is that if it is long enough to have a route number, then it is probably long enough to be signed.
^ I agree with your last point, although I'm not sure how VA 90003 (the Colonial Parkway) would fit in a 3-digit shield. (The other two 9000x routes are at least partially redundant: VA 90004 inside VA 267 and VA 90005 overlapping VA 400 within Alexandria city limits, so they at least can remain hidden.)
Quote from: Takumi on November 19, 2012, 11:38:02 PM
^ I agree with your last point, although I'm not sure how VA 90003 (the Colonial Parkway) would fit in a 3-digit shield. (The other two 9000x routes are at least partially redundant: VA 90004 inside VA 267 and VA 90005 overlapping VA 400 within Alexandria city limits, so they at least can remain hidden.)
Va. 90004 is a distinct road from Va. 267 (with a different purpose from 267), even though it is "inside" the Va. 267 lanes.
As far as fitting 90003 inside a Virginia secondary highway shield, I would assume that an oval-shaped shield would be needed to accommodate all those digits (please see crude example below I just cooked-up with Photoshop).
There were once a few of those oval-shaped shields on Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway) in the days when it was 7100, though not as "extreme" looking as this one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fvas90003.jpg&hash=53dc9e0a28b586559fd1cab668cb12f318b96d7d)
Because the Colonial Parkway is owned and maintained by the National Park Service, maybe it should look like this (and yes, I know that NPS is no longer using Clarendon as its "official" font):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fnps90003.jpg&hash=6bb6ee9095d84496b56290952988162c369aad6b)
Baltimore-Washington Parkway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.toward.com%2Fcpz%2Fnps295.jpg&hash=c4c6e0b510379e6e30bb37fb8f3b86fbf2c5aba1)
Both the Turnpike and Parkway don't have reassurance markers posted at on-ramps. I-95 is sparingly signed on Exit 6-18E/W of the Turnpike mainline. US-9 in the areas that it is multiplexed with the GSP is poorly signed as well. The only roadway that has decent signing is the Newark-Bay Extension. Every on-ramp is clearly signed as being part of I-78.
We'll see if the NJ Turnpike Authority's new found respect for the MUTCD includes posting reassurance markers! They did post some reassurance markers for "Temporary" US-9 over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, which included GSP markers, so there is some hope!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 20, 2012, 07:38:47 PM
Both the Turnpike and Parkway don't have reassurance markers posted at on-ramps. I-95 is sparingly signed on Exit 6-18E/W of the Turnpike mainline. US-9 in the areas that it is multiplexed with the GSP is poorly signed as well. The only roadway that has decent signing is the Newark-Bay Extension. Every on-ramp is clearly signed as being part of I-78.
We'll see if the NJ Turnpike Authority's new found respect for the MUTCD includes posting reassurance markers! They did post some reassurance markers for "Temporary" US-9 over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, which included GSP markers, so there is some hope!
Not every ramp. The Grand Street/Montgomery Street/Columbus Drive on ramp does not have any I-78 shields. The Liberty State Park entrance has them beyond the tolls, but I do not think it is mentioned on the park road approaching the Exit 14B Interchange.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on November 20, 2012, 07:38:47 PM
Both the Turnpike and Parkway don't have reassurance markers posted at on-ramps. I-95 is sparingly signed on Exit 6-18E/W of the Turnpike mainline. US-9 in the areas that it is multiplexed with the GSP is poorly signed as well. The only roadway that has decent signing is the Newark-Bay Extension. Every on-ramp is clearly signed as being part of I-78.
We'll see if the NJ Turnpike Authority's new found respect for the MUTCD includes posting reassurance markers! They did post some reassurance markers for "Temporary" US-9 over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, which included GSP markers, so there is some hope!
I really wish the NJTP would adopt some new (for them) standards regarding reassurance markers and mileage signs.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:45:16 PM
Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.
It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed. Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike. At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.
The designations for Florida's Turnpike are actually posted on its website, so they aren't so secret. http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system.cfm
Quote from: Roadgeek999 on November 24, 2012, 11:51:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:45:16 PM
Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.
It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed. Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike. At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.
The designations for Florida's Turnpike are actually posted on its website, so they aren't so secret. http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system.cfm
Out in the field, though, is another story.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 02:40:43 PM
In my perfect world, "secret" route numbers on freeway- and arterial-class roads (except for those that are clearly redundant, like I-595 in Maryland) would be posted.
I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.
Names are hardly a source of confusion for the general public when they are used for the road. The problem lies with the idiotic mapping services that can't figure them out.
Quote from: roadman65 on November 24, 2012, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek999 on November 24, 2012, 11:51:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:45:16 PM
Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.
It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed. Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike. At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.
The designations for Florida's Turnpike are actually posted on its website, so they aren't so secret. http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system.cfm
Out in the field, though, is another story.
Doesn't "S.R. 91" appear on traffic signals at some entrances/
Quote from: Steve on November 24, 2012, 11:49:18 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 24, 2012, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek999 on November 24, 2012, 11:51:47 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:45:16 PM
Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.
It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed. Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike. At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.
The designations for Florida's Turnpike are actually posted on its website, so they aren't so secret. http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system.cfm
Out in the field, though, is another story.
Doesn't "S.R. 91" appear on traffic signals at some entrances/
Not in the Orlando area. Although, there are no signals at entrances (except for FL 50 at Oakland) because all have complete grade seperations. The Exit 272 (Oakland Exchange) has had construction due to the Turnpike widening with new signals. I do not know what is on those, but originally I have not seen SR 91 or the sort.
Kissimmee-St. Cloud isn't in the Orlando area?
Quote from: NE2 on November 25, 2012, 09:47:09 PM
Kissimmee-St. Cloud isn't in the Orlando area?
I guess you can say it is. I have not been down that way in a while, so I kind of forgot that one.
I noticed that the GSP Mile Marker 124 is located south of Exit 123 adjacent to the Cheesequake Service Area.
Also, Exit 135 in Clark is located just south of Mile Marker 136 (it is located at the north end of the interchange), as I seen from living in Clark Township years ago.
I was wondering why the mile posts and exit numbers are off by one mile?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 20, 2012, 07:53:00 PM
Not every ramp. The Grand Street/Montgomery Street/Columbus Drive on ramp does not have any I-78 shields. The Liberty State Park entrance has them beyond the tolls, but I do not think it is mentioned on the park road approaching the Exit 14B Interchange.
It's not just ramps. The Holland Tunnel approach on the New Jersey side doesn't have I-78 posted on it (although the New York approach does). They may have done this so as not to have to emphasize that they routed an interstate along local streets with traffic lights in Jersey City.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 19, 2012, 03:15:51 PM
The New York State Parkways are fine just the way they are.
That "TSP" shield is plenty good enough, even though it has a "secret" route number (according to Steve Anderson). Added advantage to the shields on the parkways - they help to distinguish the parkways from general-purpose NYSDOT highways.
The so-called "secret route number" Steve refers to is simply the reference route numbers. Most parkways in New York have them, although Arden Valley Road and Tiorati Brook Drive don't.
http://www.empirestateroads.com/sr/
Every now and then FDOT will have some sign announcing a construction project, and it will include the "secret route" of US Roads, and yes the Turnpike. Places like that are where you're more likely to see SR 91 associated with the Turnpike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aqE44i7xWY
If anyone wants to see what the newly opened (or I should say a few years opened now) NB Raritan River Bridge that holds the record now of being the widest highway bridge in the world, here is a video caption of it that I took last Summer.
Is that where it's eight lanes in each direction?
I always thought that was really cool. :)
Anyone have photos of the newly configurated Exit 67? I see it was made split SB for the two directions of CR 534 and access to and from the south are finally made as for years it was a typical Parkway interchange lacking all movements.
I am curious to know if Chatsworth is listed as control city for WB CR 534 for the NB GSP, as it is served by NJ 72 at Exit 63, and heading West on 534 will only lead you back onto NJ 72 anyway. There are plenty of towns along US 9 that engineers of the NJTA would find more interesting knowing how they think. The GSP always had in some cases where both control points on an exit guide were in the same direction off the exit. Little Egg Harbor, one of the two SB control cities on the Exit 58 guide is used along with Tuckerton where both are SB on CR 539 once off the exit, is one that is still in use that is along that criteria.
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
a typical Parkway interchange lacking all movements.
Sounds like an Alanland parkway.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
I'm not sure that project has started yet. I know that when I drove to AC around Labor Day, construction between 40-something and 63 was well underway.
They are widening the road from North to South, and a good amount of the widening between 63 & 80 is complete or near completion.
Why haven't pictures been posted? Well, forgive me for saying it, but I don't think the majority of this project is really interesting, picture-wise. It's a 3 lane highway, bordered with trees. Interchanges are conventional ramps as well. Not exactly unique features to ohhh and ahhh over..
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
JFG(E)I (http://i.imgur.com/JyxAh8j.jpg)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2013, 03:14:15 AM
They are widening the road from North to South, and a good amount of the widening between 63 & 80 is complete or near completion.
Why haven't pictures been posted? Well, forgive me for saying it, but I don't think the majority of this project is really interesting, picture-wise. It's a 3 lane highway, bordered with trees. Interchanges are conventional ramps as well. Not exactly unique features to ohhh and ahhh over..
I have photos of the ongoing widening from 48-63 (and spots from 30-48) sitting in my queue. I just have a long queue.
Quote from: Steve on February 03, 2013, 07:56:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2013, 03:14:15 AM
They are widening the road from North to South, and a good amount of the widening between 63 & 80 is complete or near completion.
Why haven't pictures been posted? Well, forgive me for saying it, but I don't think the majority of this project is really interesting, picture-wise. It's a 3 lane highway, bordered with trees. Interchanges are conventional ramps as well. Not exactly unique features to ohhh and ahhh over..
I have photos of the ongoing widening from 48-63 (and spots from 30-48) sitting in my queue. I just have a long queue.
I know. You told me that anyone submitting to your photos today, would have to wait years before you even look at them. I was noticing photos that I took years ago on your site. One of them, I had no idea I was the photographer until I saw my name credited. Like you said a few months ago, you finally came across some submissions of mine from 09.
I know it is a lot of work to maintain a site, though its worth the wait in the end.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
Anyone have photos of the newly configurated Exit 67? I see it was made split SB for the two directions of CR 534 and access to and from the south are finally made as for years it was a typical Parkway interchange lacking all movements.
I am curious to know if Chatsworth is listed as control city for WB CR 534 for the NB GSP, as it is served by NJ 72 at Exit 63, and heading West on 534 will only lead you back onto NJ 72 anyway. There are plenty of towns along US 9 that engineers of the NJTA would find more interesting knowing how they think. The GSP always had in some cases where both control points on an exit guide were in the same direction off the exit. Little Egg Harbor, one of the two SB control cities on the Exit 58 guide is used along with Tuckerton where both are SB on CR 539 once off the exit, is one that is still in use that is along that criteria.
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
There are videos on YouTube by "roadwaywiz". Exit 67 (CR-554) is signed for Pemberton and Barnegat southbound and just Barnegat northbound. The westbound control city for NJ-72 at Exit 63 was changed from Camden to Pemberton. It seems the signing standards are now calling for "true" control cities (in this case the actual terminus of NJ-72, which is in Woodland Twp. but a stone's throw from Pemberton) vs. useful distant ones like Camden. NJ-70 which leads directly to Camden is where NJ-72 ends, and traffic to/from the area to LBI would actually recognize it, unlike Pemberton.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
Anyone have photos of the newly configurated Exit 67? I see it was made split SB for the two directions of CR 534 and access to and from the south are finally made as for years it was a typical Parkway interchange lacking all movements.
I am curious to know if Chatsworth is listed as control city for WB CR 534 for the NB GSP, as it is served by NJ 72 at Exit 63, and heading West on 534 will only lead you back onto NJ 72 anyway. There are plenty of towns along US 9 that engineers of the NJTA would find more interesting knowing how they think. The GSP always had in some cases where both control points on an exit guide were in the same direction off the exit. Little Egg Harbor, one of the two SB control cities on the Exit 58 guide is used along with Tuckerton where both are SB on CR 539 once off the exit, is one that is still in use that is along that criteria.
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
There are videos on YouTube by "roadwaywiz". Exit 67 (CR-554) is signed for Pemberton and Barnegat southbound and just Barnegat northbound. The westbound control city for NJ-72 at Exit 63 was changed from Camden to Pemberton. It seems the signing standards are now calling for "true" control cities (in this case the actual terminus of NJ-72, which is in Woodland Twp. but a stone's throw from Pemberton) vs. useful distant ones like Camden. NJ-70 which leads directly to Camden is where NJ-72 ends, and traffic to/from the area to LBI would actually recognize it, unlike Pemberton.
That is crazy. Most people would rather see Camden than Pemberton, like you say. Does that mean in Florida Orlando cannot be used anymore for FL 520 on the Space Coast because it ends at FL 50 several miles before? Does that mean that Orlando has to be removed from FL 405 from US 1 near Titusville, because FL 405 makes a loop back to US 1 in Downtown Titusville and the fact many tourists in the area are better off with FL 50 to Orlando, especially those visiting KSC?
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2013, 11:31:03 AM
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
Its Lawrenceville where I-295 ends not Hamilton. Also, the southbound mileage signs lists Pennsville as a control city already as that is where it ends officially in New Jersey.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
Anyone have photos of the newly configurated Exit 67? I see it was made split SB for the two directions of CR 534 and access to and from the south are finally made as for years it was a typical Parkway interchange lacking all movements.
I am curious to know if Chatsworth is listed as control city for WB CR 534 for the NB GSP, as it is served by NJ 72 at Exit 63, and heading West on 534 will only lead you back onto NJ 72 anyway. There are plenty of towns along US 9 that engineers of the NJTA would find more interesting knowing how they think. The GSP always had in some cases where both control points on an exit guide were in the same direction off the exit. Little Egg Harbor, one of the two SB control cities on the Exit 58 guide is used along with Tuckerton where both are SB on CR 539 once off the exit, is one that is still in use that is along that criteria.
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
I know at one time this was CR 534... I know it was changed to 554, is that still the case? I havent been in NJ since 1999 and I know that the atlases/gps cant always be trusted
Quote from: roadman65 on February 03, 2013, 04:39:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 02, 2013, 11:11:11 AM
Anyone have photos of the newly configurated Exit 67? I see it was made split SB for the two directions of CR 534 and access to and from the south are finally made as for years it was a typical Parkway interchange lacking all movements.
I am curious to know if Chatsworth is listed as control city for WB CR 534 for the NB GSP, as it is served by NJ 72 at Exit 63, and heading West on 534 will only lead you back onto NJ 72 anyway. There are plenty of towns along US 9 that engineers of the NJTA would find more interesting knowing how they think. The GSP always had in some cases where both control points on an exit guide were in the same direction off the exit. Little Egg Harbor, one of the two SB control cities on the Exit 58 guide is used along with Tuckerton where both are SB on CR 539 once off the exit, is one that is still in use that is along that criteria.
I was just curious as no one yet posted post 63 to 80 widening photos or has it been captured by GSV either.
There are videos on YouTube by "roadwaywiz". Exit 67 (CR-554) is signed for Pemberton and Barnegat southbound and just Barnegat northbound. The westbound control city for NJ-72 at Exit 63 was changed from Camden to Pemberton. It seems the signing standards are now calling for "true" control cities (in this case the actual terminus of NJ-72, which is in Woodland Twp. but a stone's throw from Pemberton) vs. useful distant ones like Camden. NJ-70 which leads directly to Camden is where NJ-72 ends, and traffic to/from the area to LBI would actually recognize it, unlike Pemberton.
That is crazy. Most people would rather see Camden than Pemberton
I think Cherry Hill, Marlton or even Medford would be a better option than Camden, all of which are towns one will travel using 72 and 70 before reaching Camden.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2013, 11:31:03 AM
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
NJDOT isn't really a fan of signing out of state destinations, so you usually get the bridge crossing or the neighboring state.
Quote from: jwolfer on February 05, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
I know at one time this was CR 534... I know it was changed to 554, is that still the case? I havent been in NJ since 1999 and I know that the atlases/gps cant always be trusted
It has been CR-554 since at least 1983 according to the maps I have on hand.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2013, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2013, 11:31:03 AM
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
NJDOT isn't really a fan of signing out of state destinations, so you usually get the bridge crossing or the neighboring state.
Quote from: jwolfer on February 05, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
I know at one time this was CR 534... I know it was changed to 554, is that still the case? I havent been in NJ since 1999 and I know that the atlases/gps cant always be trusted
It has been CR-554 since at least 1983 according to the maps I have on hand.
What???
Staten Island is used for Parkway Exit 127.
New York City is used on I-287 for US 22.
New York City is used on I-80 signs.
Philadelphia is used more than Camden on the ACE.
Easton is used more than Phillipsburg on US 22 and I-78.
Port Jervis is used along NJ 23.
Me being a former NJ resident always resented the fact that New York was more important on all roads leading to Newark than Newark itself!
Quote from: roadman65 on February 07, 2013, 09:50:22 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2013, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2013, 11:31:03 AM
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
NJDOT isn't really a fan of signing out of state destinations, so you usually get the bridge crossing or the neighboring state.
Quote from: jwolfer on February 05, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
I know at one time this was CR 534... I know it was changed to 554, is that still the case? I havent been in NJ since 1999 and I know that the atlases/gps cant always be trusted
It has been CR-554 since at least 1983 according to the maps I have on hand.
What???
Staten Island is used for Parkway Exit 127.
New York City is used on I-287 for US 22.
New York City is used on I-80 signs.
Philadelphia is used more than Camden on the ACE.
Easton is used more than Phillipsburg on US 22 and I-78.
Port Jervis is used along NJ 23.
Easton was a recent change on I-78, it used to be Phillipsburg. Clinton is also widely used.
Parkway Exit 127 refers to the Outerbridge Crossing extensively.
The ACE has signing that is out of this world. They don't use cardinal directions to refer to the highway on trailblazers, but they include Camden for the most part.
I-80's signs refer to the crossing as well as the city.
US-22's reference of NYC at I-287 is rare, the rest of the signs point to Newark. Related to the above, I-287 south's control city is Perth Amboy, not Staten Island.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 07, 2013, 09:50:22 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2013, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2013, 11:31:03 AM
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
NJDOT isn't really a fan of signing out of state destinations, so you usually get the bridge crossing or the neighboring state.
Quote from: jwolfer on February 05, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
I know at one time this was CR 534... I know it was changed to 554, is that still the case? I havent been in NJ since 1999 and I know that the atlases/gps cant always be trusted
It has been CR-554 since at least 1983 according to the maps I have on hand.
What???
Staten Island is used for Parkway Exit 127.
New York City is used on I-287 for US 22.
New York City is used on I-80 signs.
Philadelphia is used more than Camden on the ACE.
Easton is used more than Phillipsburg on US 22 and I-78.
Port Jervis is used along NJ 23.
Me being a former NJ resident always resented the fact that New York was more important on all roads leading to Newark than Newark itself!
You also forgot New York City being used on I-287 for I-78, and in reality New York City is used on I-287 for both I-78 and US-22 East (exits 21A and Exit 14A), but if you are on I-78 Newark is the common control city sign only at Exit 48 the entrnace to the Express lanes shows Holland Tunnel New York City. On the GSP Toms River and woodbridge is used as control cities on GSP North from exit 38-102
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 07, 2013, 10:45:26 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 07, 2013, 09:50:22 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2013, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 05, 2013, 11:31:03 AM
Is this only for state routes or do Interstates and other roads need to follow this too? Does the NJ Turnpike need to be signed to Carneys Point instead of Wilmington (and wherever it ends Northbound approaching the George Washington Bridge)? Does I295 have to sign Hamilton instead of Trenton?
NJDOT isn't really a fan of signing out of state destinations, so you usually get the bridge crossing or the neighboring state.
Quote from: jwolfer on February 05, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
I know at one time this was CR 534... I know it was changed to 554, is that still the case? I havent been in NJ since 1999 and I know that the atlases/gps cant always be trusted
It has been CR-554 since at least 1983 according to the maps I have on hand.
What???
Staten Island is used for Parkway Exit 127.
New York City is used on I-287 for US 22.
New York City is used on I-80 signs.
Philadelphia is used more than Camden on the ACE.
Easton is used more than Phillipsburg on US 22 and I-78.
Port Jervis is used along NJ 23.
Easton was a recent change on I-78, it used to be Phillipsburg. Clinton is also widely used.
Parkway Exit 127 refers to the Outerbridge Crossing extensively.
The ACE has signing that is out of this world. They don't use cardinal directions to refer to the highway on trailblazers, but they include Camden for the most part.
I-80's signs refer to the crossing as well as the city.
US-22's reference of NYC at I-287 is rare, the rest of the signs point to Newark. Related to the above, I-287 south's control city is Perth Amboy, not Staten Island.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Keasbey,+Woodbridge+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.500282,-74.301213&spn=0.004185,0.010568&sll=43.189471,-79.49398&sspn=0.016051,0.042272&oq=keasb&t=h&hnear=Keasbey,+Woodbridge+Township,+Middlesex,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.499698,-74.301071&panoid=ltc0AaV1lZkg_YINPrM3tA&cbp=12,45.07,,0,-22.5
This is the exit guide on the Parkway for Exit 127. Its signed for Staten Island, not the Outerbridge Crossing.
Now here is Easton being used for US 22 in Lebanon (and New York).
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Lebanon,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.644226,-74.813097&spn=0.008287,0.021136&sll=40.734508,-74.123643&sspn=0.004171,0.010568&oq=leba&hnear=Lebanon,+Hunterdon,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.644275,-74.812856&panoid=TfwX9v_qStH-4BgiglrCfw&cbp=12,45,,0,0
Now here is New York being used at US 202 & 206 NB.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Somerville,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.580084,-74.623518&spn=0.01659,0.042272&sll=40.644275,-74.81286&sspn=0.008352,0.021136&oq=somer&hnear=Somerville,+Somerset,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.580084,-74.623518&panoid=dgpRUDaIddZAQYiYoO06pw&cbp=12,90,,0,0
I lived in New Jersey for 25 years of my life and I know there are a lot more places that were and still are that cannot or can be shown in addition to these.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 05, 2013, 04:06:47 PM
NJDOT isn't really a fan of signing out of state destinations, so you usually get the bridge crossing or the neighboring state.
PENNA!!!!!!
https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.670076,-75.134983&spn=0.012044,0.02929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.670222,-75.135194&panoid=n-0hQ4awitr3L0yL8UdyQA&cbp=12,334.89,,0,-4.37
I know its been over two months since someone posted here, but I was surfin the GSP website and found something of interest. In addition to the upcoming project to demolish and replace the existing Great Egg Harbor Bridge at Somers Point, NJ (that many of us may be aware already) that the nearby Beasly's Point Bridge is going to be also demolished as part of the same project. Considering the the NJTA does not own that structure it does seem odd that it would be included with a Parkway project.
I am to assume as well that NJDOT asked AASHTO to realign US 9 to the GSP between Exits 25 & 29 in lieu of its bay crossing being demolished and not being replaced. The new Parkway Egg Harbor crossing will feature bike and pedestrian facilities separate from the GSP main travel lanes, so its obvious that NJDOT does not want a new crossing.
Also, pretty soon you will not be able to enter the GSP Southbound and exit at Washington Avenue in Pleasantville as a bridge will be built to eliminate the weave between the Exit 38 merge and Exit 37 exit. In addition that lane drop from two to one on the ACE Exit 7S Ramp will be eliminated for a longer merge with two lanes into the GSP travel lanes. Exit 37 traffic will either fly over or under the modified ramp.
There are many other projects in the works including a direct interchange with Jimmie Leeds Road in Galloway and a NB Exit 44 ramp. You must all check out the GSP site if you have not already as many projects are slated for future construction.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
There are many other projects in the works including a direct interchange with Jimmie Leeds Road in Galloway and a NB Exit 44 ramp. You must all check out the GSP site if you have not already as many projects are slated for future construction.
Or, you could post the link?
Are they ever going to replace the two-lane loop with a flyover? That's gotta be some pretty bad weaving...
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2013, 05:51:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
There are many other projects in the works including a direct interchange with Jimmie Leeds Road in Galloway and a NB Exit 44 ramp. You must all check out the GSP site if you have not already as many projects are slated for future construction.
Or, you could post the link?
Sorry about that.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html
Anyway here it is.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Info-Center-handout-41-44-August-2012.pdf
Post Merge: May 05, 2013, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 02, 2013, 10:37:38 PM
Are they ever going to replace the two-lane loop with a flyover? That's gotta be some pretty bad weaving...
It does not seem like it, but here is the plan from the NJTA website. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf
Quote from: roadman65 on May 05, 2013, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 02, 2013, 05:51:33 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 02, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
There are many other projects in the works including a direct interchange with Jimmie Leeds Road in Galloway and a NB Exit 44 ramp. You must all check out the GSP site if you have not already as many projects are slated for future construction.
Or, you could post the link?
Sorry about that.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/our-projects.html
Anyway here it is.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Info-Center-handout-41-44-August-2012.pdf
Post Merge: May 05, 2013, 07:24:08 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on May 02, 2013, 10:37:38 PM
Are they ever going to replace the two-lane loop with a flyover? That's gotta be some pretty bad weaving...
It does not seem like it, but here is the plan from the NJTA website. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf
A flyover there would work very nicely. The weaving is a pain in the ass!
Considering the amount of traffic that goes NB to WB (or should I say Phillybound as ACE does not like to use cardinal directions) it would be practical.
Then again, the GSP and NJ 37 interchange needs a flyover real badly as that SB exit to NJ 37 EB is very dangerous. It has a very tight cloverleaf and very sharp curve from diversion and you MUST slow down to at least 10 mph (and most likely 5 mph if you have an SUV) to make it safely.
I am surprised that even the NB Exit 37 merge is not even thrown in as part of the project, as it merges real close to NB Exit 38.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 10:01:32 AM
I am surprised that even the NB Exit 37 merge is not even thrown in as part of the project, as it merges real close to NB Exit 38.
That one is a different animal...and by animal, I mean a kind, gentle puppy dog that doesn't even chew on its owners shoes.
Going SB, one would use Exit 37 to access US 322 and most of the areas malls and shopping centers. This is the only convenient exit from the GSP for much of that area. Exit 36 can only access Tilton Rd SB (EB).
However, getting back on the highway going north, there are multiple and more convenient options, especially based on the local roadway network. Because of that, the on-ramp at Interchange 37 doesn't see nearly the amount of traffic, compared to the Exit ramp.
Plus, the amount of traffic trying to get to the Expressway AC Bound is much less from the NB Parkway, compared to the traffic exiting from the Expressway EB onto the Parkway SB.
There are some cardinal direction signs for the AC Expressway. One is near an interchange almost everyone uses...just the opposite way. Most people use 42 South to the Atlantic City Expressway, and that direction doesn't have a direction label. But, if one used 42 North, the ramp sign for the Atlantic City Expressway does indeed have "East" on the sign!
I actually kind of figured that not many use NB Exit 38 to go to the ACE as they would Exit 38A which is beyond the EB to NB merge. If there was weaving problems there, it would be within those two ramps and a flyover, as suggested here, would be the only solution.
Also to mention that there is a direct on ramp from US 40 & 322 to the GSP NB so it also relieves the traffic entering at Exit 37. SB you must use Exit 37 to go east via either CR 604 to Fire Road or the other way (as signed) on CR 604 to the connector road being the circle is now gone that adds to the mix.
The report, though, emphasizes the lane drop is the main reason for the project as well as need for a longer merge area that would cut in to the Exit 37 deceleration lane. The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
The report, though, emphasizes the lane drop is the main reason for the project as well as need for a longer merge area that would cut in to the Exit 37 deceleration lane. The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
Where did you find this report? I'm looking on the NJTA website and all I can see is the Public Information Center notice.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
But, Exit 9 from the Expressway costs 50 cents. Exit 7 (ACE) to Exit 37 (GSP) costs nothing. :-)
Quote from: civilmaher on May 09, 2013, 01:42:32 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
The report, though, emphasizes the lane drop is the main reason for the project as well as need for a longer merge area that would cut in to the Exit 37 deceleration lane. The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
Where did you find this report? I'm looking on the NJTA website and all I can see is the Public Information Center notice.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
But, Exit 9 from the Expressway costs 50 cents. Exit 7 (ACE) to Exit 37 (GSP) costs nothing. :-)
Only Westbound it does. If you exit at Delilah going EB, its no toll! See here https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Little+Egg+Harbor+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.434952,-74.591491&spn=0.000446,0.000862&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.300816,14.128418&oq=little+egg+h&t=h&hnear=Little+Egg+Harbor+Township,+Ocean,+New+Jersey&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.434952,-74.591491&panoid=bvOnNkwdUsY-NHgTU0iR4g&cbp=12,8.33,,1,0 as you see the toll booth for the EB on and not the EB off, as motorists already paid the tolls entering from CR 575 or the mainline plaza.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/public-info-center-handout-36-37-38.pdf
This is the project page for Exit 37 & 38 that states the reasons. If I said report, I did not mean in the form of an official document, but what the article said meaning "reported in article" type of report. The project overview in other words. Sorry about the mis-confususion.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 03:05:11 PM
This is the project page for Exit 37 & 38 that states the reasons. If I said report, I did not mean in the form of an official document, but what the article said meaning "reported in article" type of report. The project overview in other words. Sorry about the mi-sconfususion.
Ah, ok. Just making sure the report wasn't leaked to the public :) not that it would've been a huge deal. The flyer pretty much explains what the IPA will look like.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2013, 01:01:56 PM
There are some cardinal direction signs for the AC Expressway. One is near an interchange almost everyone uses...just the opposite way. Most people use 42 South to the Atlantic City Expressway, and that direction doesn't have a direction label. But, if one used 42 North, the ramp sign for the Atlantic City Expressway does indeed have "East" on the sign!
How recent was that sign put up? My 2003 photo has a simple gore sign that says "Expressway Entrance" with a Toll banner and a separate shield with the "Shore Points" cardinal destination like they use for surface roads. Streetview's 2008 photo shows a new sign with a shield in it, but its impossible to read.
Quote from: civilmaher on May 09, 2013, 03:18:42 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 03:05:11 PM
This is the project page for Exit 37 & 38 that states the reasons. If I said report, I did not mean in the form of an official document, but what the article said meaning "reported in article" type of report. The project overview in other words. Sorry about the mi-sconfususion.
Ah, ok. Just making sure the report wasn't leaked to the public :) not that it would've been a huge deal. The flyer pretty much explains what the IPA will look like.
That is okay. However, with the internet taking over news source, how could you keep anything a secret anyway. In broadcasting we learned that the newspapers are phased out pretty much and everything is pretty much on line and social networking. You want something shared with the public you do it here and it will get out sooner than the traditional means.
I'm surprised that they're leaving Exit 37 in, given the weave to Exit 38.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
But, Exit 9 from the Expressway costs 50 cents. Exit 7 (ACE) to Exit 37 (GSP) costs nothing. :-)
Only Westbound it does. If you exit at Delilah going EB, its no toll! See here https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Little+Egg+Harbor+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.434952,-74.591491&spn=0.000446,0.000862&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.300816,14.128418&oq=little+egg+h&t=h&hnear=Little+Egg+Harbor+Township,+Ocean,+New+Jersey&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.434952,-74.591491&panoid=bvOnNkwdUsY-NHgTU0iR4g&cbp=12,8.33,,1,0 as you see the toll booth for the EB on and not the EB off, as motorists already paid the tolls entering from CR 575 or the mainline plaza.
There's definitely a toll exiting EB. Look carefully! Using the link above, see the mast arm going over the lane? That's for the EZ Pass Transponder reader. And there's a small coin basket machine on the driver's side of the lane.
The ramp wasn't originally tolled. About 15 years ago (give or take a few years), they added a toll to the ramp. When they did that, they didn't add a canopy over the lane however. Since the ramp was originally two lanes wide, a gate arm was added to the right side of the lane.
And, it's actually a 75c toll, not 50 cents as I originally posted.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2013, 09:52:11 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2013, 02:03:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 09, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
The engineers also look at the fact the ACE travelers have Exit 9 to use if they need to access the area around Parkway Exit 37 as that also connects to CR 604 via Delilah Road.
But, Exit 9 from the Expressway costs 50 cents. Exit 7 (ACE) to Exit 37 (GSP) costs nothing. :-)
Only Westbound it does. If you exit at Delilah going EB, its no toll! See here https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Little+Egg+Harbor+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.434952,-74.591491&spn=0.000446,0.000862&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=8.300816,14.128418&oq=little+egg+h&t=h&hnear=Little+Egg+Harbor+Township,+Ocean,+New+Jersey&z=20&layer=c&cbll=39.434952,-74.591491&panoid=bvOnNkwdUsY-NHgTU0iR4g&cbp=12,8.33,,1,0 as you see the toll booth for the EB on and not the EB off, as motorists already paid the tolls entering from CR 575 or the mainline plaza.
There's definitely a toll exiting EB. Look carefully! Using the link above, see the mast arm going over the lane? That's for the EZ Pass Transponder reader. And there's a small coin basket machine on the driver's side of the lane.
The ramp wasn't originally tolled. About 15 years ago (give or take a few years), they added a toll to the ramp. When they did that, they didn't add a canopy over the lane however. Since the ramp was originally two lanes wide, a gate arm was added to the right side of the lane.
And, it's actually a 75c toll, not 50 cents as I originally posted.
That does not make sense? The Parkway exit (the next interchange is free), why would they charge more for the shorter distance. Yeah, I know the NJ Turnpike charges more for Exit 6 southbound than they do Exit 4, but that is cause of the bridge across the Delaware to the PA Turnpike, but this one not has a bridge, but folks who just entered the from CR 575 or just paid the mainline toll that is supposed to cover the road from its western end (for the straight through toll)or from point of entry east of the main toll to Exit 7. The GSP interchange is the mid point between the mainline toll and the Pleasantville barrier, hence why the EB US 9 exit is tolled.
If they really wanted more money, any sensible person would have raised the other tolls instead because the only ones paying more are the ones using Exit 9 which is a fraction of those exiting for the Parkway.
I drove the southbound Parkway yesterday enroute to the Cape May-Lewes Ferry. Noted work underway on the future bridge over Great Egg Harbor Bay. Visibility through the rain was okay enough to see that most of the bridge deck on the old US 9 bridge nearby have been removed north of the drawspan (which remains inplace). Most of the bridge piers are still there, but the deck is largely gone. Unfortunately, because of the rain, I couldn't get photos.
Regarding a comment roadman made about this project back in May, the US 9 bridge removal is included in this project because the land occupied by US 9 on Drag Island (yes, that's the name of the island) is needed for reforestation efforts, per the project presentation (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Hearing-Presentation-Great-Egg.pdf). Apparently, New Jersey has "No Net Loss Reforestation" legislation that requires forestland lost to construction projects be replaced.
Farther south, I could see the work at the three traffic signals in Cape May County (Exits 9/10/11)...most of the work so far appears to be on the southbound side. The southbound lanes crossover to the northbound side at each of the three intersections, though NJTA has maintained three southbound lanes. The posted speed is 45 MPH, which might be low during dry weather, but the median crossovers tend to collect a lot of water so in the rain even 45 is generous.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.30411,-74.618093&spn=0.014512,0.030556&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.407541,11.645508&oq=rio+grande,+n&t=h&hnear=Rio+Grande,+Middle+Township,+Cape+May,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=39.30411,-74.618093&panoid=tkd_77Qj5gYVMycNNtPjXQ&cbp=12,225.57,,2,0.42&z=15 To see what he is talking about is captured (or captioned) by Google.
A good part of the old Beesley's Point Bridge has already fallen into the bay. Do they plan on replacing the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge? Seems silly to only do the southbound side. Plus it seems limiting to restrict it to only two travel lanes. Given that they focus on evacuation routes in the presentation, they should have planned on the new facility to be 3-3 lanes to replace the lost capacity. They are already rebuilding a bridge just north of there that will likely have room for 3 travel lanes in each direction despite it being just south of where the widening project will end.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2013, 08:10:21 PM
A good part of the old Beesley's Point Bridge has already fallen into the bay.
Entirely false. Nothing has fallen.
QuoteDo they plan on replacing the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge? Seems silly to only do the southbound side. Plus it seems limiting to restrict it to only two travel lanes. Given that they focus on evacuation routes in the presentation, they should have planned on the new facility to be 3-3 lanes to replace the lost capacity. They are already rebuilding a bridge just north of there that will likely have room for 3 travel lanes in each direction despite it being just south of where the widening project will end.
Um, the existing bridge is going to be rehabbed for 3 lanes NB. The new bridge will carry 2/2 traffic while that's done, then be 3 lanes SB.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 30, 2013, 08:10:21 PM
They are already rebuilding a bridge just north of there that will likely have room for 3 travel lanes in each direction despite it being just south of where the widening project will end.
The original plans were to widen the Parkway from Exit 30 northward. This overpass that you are referring to is located at about MP 32(ish). At least for the near future, those widening plans are on hold, and the Parkway will only be widened from Exit 38 (AC Expressway) and north.
QuoteA good part of the old Beesley's Point Bridge has already fallen into the bay.
As Steve noted, it did not fall into the bay. It is deliberately being removed piece by piece...posters on another forum have confirmed that they saw more of the bridge spans intact than I did.