It's finally been published, so I can break the news I've only been able to hint at - 95% of Parkway and Turnpike signage will be fully MUTCD compliant! The remaining 5% of signs will look like the "SL" standard drawings at http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/standard-drawings.html - also check out the "DE" standard drawings for mile markers and delineators. Then read Section 6 of the Design Manual at http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/design-manual.html to get an idea of how things will be going forward. *bow*
So...what is the time til this little project is completed? decade or so?
Some sleuthing of the standard drawings reveals the control cities for the GSP from south to north:
Atlantic City
Toms River
Woodbridge
Newark
Paterson
Albany
Personally I think Clifton or Paramus should be in there given the major highway junctions they contain. NJTA leaves open the possibility of a future southbound control city if they decide to post pull throughs on the southern part of the GSP (likely Cape May).
Turnpike control cities from north to south:
New York
Newark
Trenton
Camden
Wilmington
Too bad they couldn't fit New Brunswick in there and I still think Baltimore deserves a spot.
Hmm... I wonder who had a hand in the revisions.... http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/DCA2013-DM-02.pdf
I agree that baltimore has a slight need to be on the road as reassurance markers, at least when the turnpike meets up with an east/west interstate, For example I-78, NJTP South could be signed as Philadelphia/Wilmington/Baltimore, Exit 6 could be Wilmington/Baltimore
This makes me sad. The funky guide signs with the huge exit numbers and irregularly shaped arrows were part of what made the New Jersey Turnpike special. Standardized does not equal better.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 06, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
This makes me sad. The funky guide signs with the huge exit numbers and irregularly shaped arrows were part of what made the New Jersey Turnpike special. Standardized does not equal better.
Ditto on this one.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 06, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
This makes me sad. The funky guide signs with the huge exit numbers and irregularly shaped arrows were part of what made the New Jersey Turnpike special. Standardized does not equal better.
How about the original exit signs with the rounded humps? How about non-reflective button copy and neon-tubed VMS? Nostalgia does not equal better, either.
Thanks for those links! But I can only wonder: is the next step in standardization to switch to mile-based exit numbers on the turnpike? Hey, it happened on several other turnpikes; Ohio and Pennsylvania come to mind. Though that might lead to confusion with the exit numbers on the eastern/western spur, not to mention the Newark Bay extension.
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
Nostalgia does not equal better, either.
*bows twice*
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
How about the original exit signs with the rounded humps?
Those are actually
kinda neat! I think the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Thruway (I-895 today)
may have had similar exit "tabs" in its earliest days, but I don't have any images to provide verification.
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
How about non-reflective button copy and neon-tubed VMS? Nostalgia does not equal better, either.
Non-reflective button copy sounds interesting, but probably not an especially good idea any longer.
The neon-tube VMS units are very cool, but probably very (
very) expensive to maintain, and it makes all the sense in the world that the Turnpike Authority would want to replace them. One of those units would be great for a Turnpike Authority museum, but it doesn't have one. Does it?
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 06, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
This makes me sad. The funky guide signs with the huge exit numbers and irregularly shaped arrows were part of what made the New Jersey Turnpike special. Standardized does not equal better.
Ditto again. I feel like we're losing a major source of pride and identity for us as New Jersey roadgeeks :-/.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 06, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
This makes me sad. The funky guide signs with the huge exit numbers and irregularly shaped arrows were part of what made the New Jersey Turnpike special. Standardized does not equal better.
Agreed, although Steve's other comment is valid too.
I was thinking about this thread while driving this morning and I thought of something that would make many of you hurl but made me smile: new Turnpike guide signs using the same layout they've had for at least the past 30 years, but in Clearview.
(The neon VMSs and the barely-functional speed limit signs needed replacing regardless.)
cpzilliacus, I recall someone dying that, at a minimum, the famous Exit 6 southbound signs and art-deco sign bridge would be preserved somewhere.
Well, thank goodness there'll still be a little originality, such as in SL-17 for the Parkway signage.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
(The neon VMSs and the barely-functional speed limit signs needed replacing regardless.)
Do you remember the old variable speed limit signs on the Turnpike that showed white digits when the "normal" limit was displayed, but showed glowing red digits when the limit was lowered?
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
cpzilliacus, I recall someone dying that, at a minimum, the famous Exit 6 southbound signs and art-deco sign bridge would be preserved somewhere.
The sign panels there should have been replaced long ago, but I assert that they are historic, and reflect a much earlier (minimalist) style of highway signage that was once common around the United States on early freeways and some arterial highways.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 06, 2013, 07:26:34 PM
Hmm... I wonder who had a hand in the revisions.... http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/DCA2013-DM-02.pdf
I work with a Patel...wonder if they're related.
Why did that other guy get top billing?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
(The neon VMSs and the barely-functional speed limit signs needed replacing regardless.)
Do you remember the old variable speed limit signs on the Turnpike that showed white digits when the "normal" limit was displayed, but showed glowing red digits when the limit was lowered?
I do not. When were those posted?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2013, 08:49:20 AM
Well, thank goodness there'll still be a little originality, such as in SL-17 for the Parkway signage.
Agreed...and I wish they could have left the TURNPIKE ENTRANCE signs (with their fabulously retro curvy arrows) alone as well, as one last reminder of its unique history. Would it really have been a bridge too far?
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
(The neon VMSs and the barely-functional speed limit signs needed replacing regardless.)
Do you remember the old variable speed limit signs on the Turnpike that showed white digits when the "normal" limit was displayed, but showed glowing red digits when the limit was lowered?
I do not. When were those posted?
Hmmm... I have never seen or heard of this before. I know that the speed limit signs next to/near the 3rd generation VMS ("REDUCE SPEED") from 1983 until recently (some have been replaced by the digital VMS, some remain) had an LCD display that is not lit at normal speed but is illuminated by an overhead light when below speed. Before that, from the 1960s until 1983 the speed limit signs were in neon and I think they flashed red neon if speeds were reduced.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2013, 08:56:14 AM
I work with a Patel...wonder if they're related.
Patel is an extraordinarily common last name in Gujarat, India. it's like Smith in the English speaking world.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
(The neon VMSs and the barely-functional speed limit signs needed replacing regardless.)
Do you remember the old variable speed limit signs on the Turnpike that showed white digits when the "normal" limit was displayed, but showed glowing red digits when the limit was lowered?
I do not. When were those posted?
They were around into the 1970's. The two digits in the speed limit reminded me of a scoreboard.
Here's a later version:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fpublications%2Fpublicroads%2F04nov%2Fimages%2Fpisano5.jpg&hash=658ccd7e35bef56101a4b622092e59fa40f587e8)
The digits have been replaced when this image was snapped, but this is what they looked like.
If they came down sometime in the 1970s, that's probably why I don't remember them (you can see my age under my avatar and do the math). I do remember some things about the Turnpike in those years, as by the time was five or six years old I would bug my dad about whether he was going to use "Cars Only" or "Cars-Trucks-Buses." (In retrospect, it was completely irrelevant: Back then he invariably took Exit 10 for the Outerbridge Crossing, so we were only on the quad segment from Exit 9 to Exit 10 anyway.) But I was probably too young to notice or care about the speed limit signs.
The one in your picture looks pretty similar overall to the current ones except for the yellow border....oh, and also you can actually read the numbers because it's not malfunctioning!
Albany is a good first step. Now they can reroute 87 along the GSP. Seriously, though, GSP needs to be an interstate and X87 would be perfect.
While I am looking forward to seeing the new signs on the Turnpike, I'll sure miss the old style guide signs that currently inhabit the road.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 07, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
Albany is a good first step. Now they can reroute 87 along the GSP. Seriously, though, GSP needs to be an interstate and X87 would be perfect.
While there are a few sections of the Interstate system that ban trucks, I'm not sure that FHWA would want to grant an 3DI number to the Parkway, even if the Turnpike were to ask for it. And I don't believe that New Jersey (and the communities adjacent to the Parkway) want to allow trucks on the section of the Parkway where they are now banned (at a minimum, there are issues of lane width and the geometric configuration of some (many?) of the on- and off-ramps are not appropriate for trucks).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 01:20:46 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 08:52:12 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 07, 2013, 08:41:57 AM
(The neon VMSs and the barely-functional speed limit signs needed replacing regardless.)
Do you remember the old variable speed limit signs on the Turnpike that showed white digits when the "normal" limit was displayed, but showed glowing red digits when the limit was lowered?
I do not. When were those posted?
They were around into the 1970's. The two digits in the speed limit reminded me of a scoreboard.
Here's a later version:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fpublications%2Fpublicroads%2F04nov%2Fimages%2Fpisano5.jpg&hash=658ccd7e35bef56101a4b622092e59fa40f587e8)
The digits have been replaced when this image was snapped, but this is what they looked like.
The speed limit sign in this picture was the latest version, which are still in use. They are the ones getting replaced with the LED speed limit signs. These are simple flip panal signs - the white part is flipped to create the number, and is hidden to reveal the black background when concelled. There is no color variation. A side note - this speed limit sign is northbound between Exits 12 & 13 - it's the only one with the well-faded orange border, as at this location is where the regular speed limit drops from 65 mph to 55 mph.
The signs we are talking about, I most certainly do remember back when I was go over the (turnpike) bridge and thru the woods (that lined the turnpike) to my grandparent's house (where my mom took me at least once a week). I could see the speed limit sign from the turnpike bridge, and would occasionally see them in the red light phase.
From what I recall, there were individual light bulbs. Maybe they could light up in both white and red, or maybe they alternated white and red. Not exactly sure how they worked...I was probably between 5 & 10 at the time I recall seeing them.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2013, 03:20:20 PMFrom what I recall, there were individual light bulbs. Maybe they could light up in both white and red, or maybe they alternated white and red. Not exactly sure how they worked...I was probably between 5 & 10 at the time I recall seeing them.
The lighted
SPEED LIMIT signs I recall seeing circa early-to-mid 1980s along the NJTP featured a
55 outlined in red/orange neon under normal conditions. During construction/accident/bad weather/etc. periods, a lower speed limit would light up in white individual bulbs depicting the digits.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2013, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2013, 03:20:20 PMFrom what I recall, there were individual light bulbs. Maybe they could light up in both white and red, or maybe they alternated white and red. Not exactly sure how they worked...I was probably between 5 & 10 at the time I recall seeing them.
The lighted SPEED LIMIT signs I recall seeing circa early-to-mid 1980s along the NJTP featured a 55 outlined in red/orange neon under normal conditions. During construction/accident/bad weather/etc. periods, a lower speed limit would light up in white individual bulbs depicting the digits.
I remember that as well. It was a black on green SPEED LIMIT and before the oil embargo it was a neon orange 60, then after the national 55 the 55 became the orange color. The reduced speeds were in white.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 07, 2013, 03:20:20 PM
From what I recall, there were individual light bulbs. Maybe they could light up in both white and red, or maybe they alternated white and red. Not exactly sure how they worked...I was probably between 5 & 10 at the time I recall seeing them.
What I remember were units that resembled the image above
in terms of the housing and as you describe in the quoted text, small white bulbs (perhaps similar to low-power Christmas tree bulbs?) to form the digits of the "normal" speed limit, and red (possibly neon - like the classic Turnpike VMS units), that formed the digits if a lower-than-normal limit was shown.
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
How about the original exit signs with the rounded humps? How about non-reflective button copy and neon-tubed VMS? Nostalgia does not equal better, either.
My point isn't simply an issue of nostalgia. The current Turnpike guide signs convey a unique message that other freeways mostly lack. By making the exit number the largest piece of text and placing it in the top-center of the main and only sign panel,
and then using an overhead sign containing only "EXIT XX" and an arrow (at most exits), the signage pattern has a subtext that says: "The exit number is the most important piece of information. You will know it first and foremost. Your
destination, as we are concerned right now, is Exit 4 or 8A or 16E, etc." It is poetry for the modern world, where places are defined by lines of flowing movement, rather than stationary points. I would have rather seen the New Jersey Turnpike imposed on the MUTCD than the MUTCD imposed on the New Jersey Turnpike.
And the arrows worked because they described the exact movements. The "up-rightward curve-up" arrow depicts the deceleration lane movement, which is why it is always placed exactly before the deceleration lane begins. If I were to make any change to the Turnpike's guide signs, I would have made the exit gore signs consistent so that all of them had the curved arrow instead of some having a simpler straight arrow.
The neon-tubed VMSs would have been cool if letters didn't burn out on a constant basis. My attitude toward those is more utilitarian.
Agreed. The larger exit numbers on the Turnpike did accomplish getting people to refer to the exit as a number rather than a place. Too bad it did not catch on as a number is easier to identify with than route numbers and names especially when they change quite frequently. The Garden State Parkway did have them in Essex County featured more than the name and street. People always use the exit numbers there as well.
FYI the sign that warns motorists heading north on the GSP in Bloomfield for Hoover Avenue motorists to keep right after the plaza uses the exit number instead of Hoover Avenue mounted to a railroad overpass prior to the Essex Toll Plaza.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 07, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
How about the original exit signs with the rounded humps? How about non-reflective button copy and neon-tubed VMS? Nostalgia does not equal better, either.
My point isn't simply an issue of nostalgia. The current Turnpike guide signs convey a unique message that other freeways mostly lack. By making the exit number the largest piece of text and placing it in the top-center of the main and only sign panel, and then using an overhead sign containing only "EXIT XX" and an arrow (at most exits), the signage pattern has a subtext that says: "The exit number is the most important piece of information. You will know it first and foremost. Your destination, as we are concerned right now, is Exit 4 or 8A or 16E, etc." It is poetry for the modern world, where places are defined by lines of flowing movement, rather than stationary points. I would have rather seen the New Jersey Turnpike imposed on the MUTCD than the MUTCD imposed on the New Jersey Turnpike.
And the arrows worked because they described the exact movements. The "up-rightward curve-up" arrow depicts the deceleration lane movement, which is why it is always placed exactly before the deceleration lane begins. If I were to make any change to the Turnpike's guide signs, I would have made the exit gore signs consistent so that all of them had the curved arrow instead of some having a simpler straight arrow.
I have no special problem with the way that the Turnpike has been signed for many years, with the exception of some of the minimalist signage that seemed to have been in place southbound approaching Exit 6 since the Turnpike opened to traffic in 1951.
My only other gripes with Turnpike signing have been the THRU TRAFFIC pull through panels (those have been gone from other U.S. freeways for many years), the lack of reassurance assemblies and few or no mileage signs.
A few of the BGS panels on the northbound Turnpike between Exit 1 and Exit 6 also looked terrible (from age) and needed replacement the last time I drove there, about a year ago.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 07, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
The neon-tubed VMSs would have been cool if letters didn't burn out on a constant basis. My attitude toward those is more utilitarian.
The stated (un)reliability of those is probably enough reason to replace them.
Actually the NJT added Mount Laurel to Exit 4, Glassboro to Exit 2, and even the Atlantic City Expressway to Exit 3. They are improving some.
True mileage signs are needed and so are NJ 495 shields at Exits 16E and 17 instead of implying that NJ 3 goes both east and west there. A CR 541 shield is needed at Exit 5 and NB approaching the Garden State Parkway should have signs for Albany for cars. Most people who are going Upstate in NY from South Jersey and points beyond, bypass the NYC area completely and use the GSP as a bypass. Then Downtown NY should be signed with the Holland Tunnel at Exit 14C being that you have a lot of business travelers from the Newark Airport and traveling the busy I-95 Business Corridor.
The new pull through signs south of Exit 6, are also a step in the right direction.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 07, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PM
How about the original exit signs with the rounded humps? How about non-reflective button copy and neon-tubed VMS? Nostalgia does not equal better, either.
My point isn't simply an issue of nostalgia. The current Turnpike guide signs convey a unique message that other freeways mostly lack. By making the exit number the largest piece of text and placing it in the top-center of the main and only sign panel, and then using an overhead sign containing only "EXIT XX" and an arrow (at most exits), the signage pattern has a subtext that says: "The exit number is the most important piece of information. You will know it first and foremost. Your destination, as we are concerned right now, is Exit 4 or 8A or 16E, etc." It is poetry for the modern world, where places are defined by lines of flowing movement, rather than stationary points. I would have rather seen the New Jersey Turnpike imposed on the MUTCD than the MUTCD imposed on the New Jersey Turnpike.
And the arrows worked because they described the exact movements. The "up-rightward curve-up" arrow depicts the deceleration lane movement, which is why it is always placed exactly before the deceleration lane begins. If I were to make any change to the Turnpike's guide signs, I would have made the exit gore signs consistent so that all of them had the curved arrow instead of some having a simpler straight arrow.
The neon-tubed VMSs would have been cool if letters didn't burn out on a constant basis. My attitude toward those is more utilitarian.
Well, exit tabs place the number in a special place. Since the Turnpike intends to switch to mileage-based numbers, you have to wean people off the old sequential numbers somehow.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 09:55:59 PM
My only other gripes with Turnpike signing have been the THRU TRAFFIC pull through panels (those have been gone from other U.S. freeways for many years), the lack of reassurance assemblies and few or no mileage signs.
Somehow, the new pull-thru sign at Exit 5 Northbound retains the same substandard message. The sign states "THRU TRAFFIC, NEXT 7 MILES"
Quote from: deanej on February 08, 2013, 09:44:14 AM
Well, exit tabs place the number in a special place. Since the Turnpike intends to switch to mileage-based numbers, you have to wean people off the old sequential numbers somehow.
Is that true? I haven't heard of that yet.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 07, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
My point isn't simply an issue of nostalgia. The current Turnpike guide signs convey a unique message that other freeways mostly lack. By making the exit number the largest piece of text and placing it in the top-center of the main and only sign panel, and then using an overhead sign containing only "EXIT XX" and an arrow (at most exits), the signage pattern has a subtext that says: "The exit number is the most important piece of information. You will know it first and foremost. Your destination, as we are concerned right now, is Exit 4 or 8A or 16E, etc."
Ironically, this is counter to the way I've always operated (not sure what term I want to use there...)
Growing up, as the de-facto family GPS, I'd figure out where we were going and how to get there in advance, and as soon as we'd get onto an interstate, my dad would always ask "What exit number do we want??", and I'd say "I don't remember the exit number, but I know where we're going. We get off at Route XX / [Locations]". He would sometimes get annoyed at that method, but I always did know where we were going, so it all worked out.
Even today -and I don't own a GPS- when I figure out how to get somewhere new, I always remember / mentally note the exit I need mostly by the route and/or destinatons of the exit I want. If I do remember the exit number, I mostly use that knowledge to figure out how far away it is (assuming the exit #'s are mileage based)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 08, 2013, 09:56:37 AM
Is that true? I haven't heard of that yet.
Steve has posted about it a few times.
Quote from: Mr_Northside on February 08, 2013, 03:47:33 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 07, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
My point isn't simply an issue of nostalgia. The current Turnpike guide signs convey a unique message that other freeways mostly lack. By making the exit number the largest piece of text and placing it in the top-center of the main and only sign panel, and then using an overhead sign containing only "EXIT XX" and an arrow (at most exits), the signage pattern has a subtext that says: "The exit number is the most important piece of information. You will know it first and foremost. Your destination, as we are concerned right now, is Exit 4 or 8A or 16E, etc."
Ironically, this is counter to the way I've always operated (not sure what term I want to use there...)
Growing up, as the de-facto family GPS, I'd figure out where we were going and how to get there in advance, and as soon as we'd get onto an interstate, my dad would always ask "What exit number do we want??", and I'd say "I don't remember the exit number, but I know where we're going. We get off at Route XX / [Locations]". He would sometimes get annoyed at that method, but I always did know where we were going, so it all worked out.
Even today -and I don't own a GPS- when I figure out how to get somewhere new, I always remember / mentally note the exit I need mostly by the route and/or destinatons of the exit I want. If I do remember the exit number, I mostly use that knowledge to figure out how far away it is (assuming the exit #'s are mileage based)
It's the opposite in my family. I do everything by exit numbers but my parents don't care and want routes/destinations. It might be worth noting that, with the exceptions of US 15, NY 17, and a bunch of stuff downstate, NY doesn't have exit numbers on non-interstate freeways.
Here is a GSV of the typical NJT overhead at exit signing that replaces the standard gore point exit.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=East+Rutherford,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.798282,-74.077721&spn=0.013872,0.027595&sll=33.078296,-96.785914&sspn=0.015355,0.027595&oq=east+ruther&t=h&hnear=East+Rutherford,+Bergen,+New+Jersey&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.798565,-74.077414&panoid=SZd3ayvOkR9CueMM4d_DGQ&cbp=12,45,,0,0
I do not know if anyone out there feels this set up is perfect with the way the interchange ramp is. It is perfect lane control as it shows perfectly that the lane configuration with two lanes exiting and two lanes straight. I know that it is not too much looked at as being cool in the eyes of the feds due to the lack of exit tab and other information (route #, control cities, etc). Although, a few hundred yards to the south of here, the proper signage exists denoting the proper motorist information, which is satisfactory. Also, to mention that New Jersey locals refer to the exit as "16W" rather than the name, so this sign is more helpful than many are aware of.
I would hate to see this one go, as I feel it is perfect in every form.
Quote from: roadman65 on February 11, 2013, 09:11:43 AM
Here is a GSV of the typical NJT overhead at exit signing that replaces the standard gore point exit.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=East+Rutherford,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.798282,-74.077721&spn=0.013872,0.027595&sll=33.078296,-96.785914&sspn=0.015355,0.027595&oq=east+ruther&t=h&hnear=East+Rutherford,+Bergen,+New+Jersey&z=15&layer=c&cbll=40.798565,-74.077414&panoid=SZd3ayvOkR9CueMM4d_DGQ&cbp=12,45,,0,0
I do not know if anyone out there feels this set up is perfect with the way the interchange ramp is. It is perfect lane control as it shows perfectly that the lane configuration with two lanes exiting and two lanes straight. I know that it is not too much looked at as being cool in the eyes of the feds due to the lack of exit tab and other information (route #, control cities, etc). Although, a few hundred yards to the south of here, the proper signage exists denoting the proper motorist information, which is satisfactory. Also, to mention that New Jersey locals refer to the exit as "16W" rather than the name, so this sign is more helpful than many are aware of.
I would hate to see this one go, as I feel it is perfect in every form.
That 16W exit ramp bridge does not have a shoulder (gasp!) due to the widening to two lanes years ago. One of the very few places (probably measured in feet) on the Turnpike that does not have a shoulder.
Quote from: stridentweasel on February 06, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
This makes me sad. The funky guide signs with the huge exit numbers and irregularly shaped arrows were part of what made the New Jersey Turnpike special. Standardized does not equal better.
The New Jersey Turnpike has cool signs. I also like the old orange signs that describe the road conditions.
And the question on my mind is: What caused the Turnpike Authority to finally give in on this issue? As I recall reading, (probably on this board) for years the NJTA basically told the Federal Hwy. Admin. to go fly since the NJT doesn't get any federal funding and is completely self supporting.
In more recent years, I thought I remembered reading something about the FHWA threatening to withhold road funding to NJDOT for their roads, in order to get the NJTA to comply. And I guess it worked. Does anyone here have any other authoritative knowledge on why the Authority finally changed their minds?
And I agree with those above who will miss the distinctive NJT sign system even though I like standardization. I miss the old Connecticut Turnpike blue signs which disapeared in the 1980's when the entire road was re-signed.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
And the question on my mind is: What caused the Turnpike Authority to finally give in on this issue? As I recall reading, (probably on this board) for years the NJTA basically told the Federal Hwy. Admin. to go fly since the NJT doesn't get any federal funding and is completely self supporting.
In more recent years, I thought I remembered reading something about the FHWA threatening to withhold road funding to NJDOT for their roads, in order to get the NJTA to comply. And I guess it worked. Does anyone here have any other authoritative knowledge on why the Authority finally changed their minds?
And I agree with those above who will miss the distinctive NJT sign system even though I like standardization. I miss the old Connecticut Turnpike blue signs which disapeared in the 1980's when the entire road was re-signed.
I have the authoritative knowledge, but I'm not actually allowed to divulge it. Is it related to the FHWA and funding? Yes. Is it as you state? No.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
And the question on my mind is: What caused the Turnpike Authority to finally give in on this issue? As I recall reading, (probably on this board) for years the NJTA basically told the Federal Hwy. Admin. to go fly since the NJT doesn't get any federal funding and is completely self supporting.
But it
does issue bonds that are tax-favored by the federal government.
Though the book
Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike does discuss the matter of accredited diplomats to the U.S. or the U.N. breaking the speed limit on the Turnpike, and getting escorted off by the NJSP and told that they are barred from the road, which greatly displeased the State Department.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 12, 2013, 10:14:07 PM
In more recent years, I thought I remembered reading something about the FHWA threatening to withhold road funding to NJDOT for their roads, in order to get the NJTA to comply. And I guess it worked. Does anyone here have any other authoritative knowledge on why the Authority finally changed their minds?
I don't, and I am indifferent, with the few the exception of the lack of reassurance assemblies and mileage signs.
I do wish that the Turnpike Authority would dispense with the "secret" route numbers of the Parkway and the Turnpike between Exits 1 and 6.
Especially the Turnpike. In a perfect world, the Turnpike would apply to FHWA and AASHTO to sign the Turnpike from 1 to 6 as a 3di, perhaps I-895.
Quote from: Steve on February 12, 2013, 10:47:47 PM
I have the authoritative knowledge, but I'm not actually allowed to divulge it. Is it related to the FHWA and funding? Yes. Is it as you state? No.
Sounds like we need to get together and buy Steve dinner. And if that doesn't work, buy him a few drinks. And if that doesn't work, buy him some shots...
Quote from: Steve on February 12, 2013, 10:47:47 PM
I have the authoritative knowledge, but I'm not actually allowed to divulge it. Is it related to the FHWA and funding? Yes. Is it as you state? No.
Looks like it's NJTA/FHWA conspiracy theory time...
Well, I wish I had jeffandnicole's sense of humor. Really Steve, with your post, all you did was open up a Pandora's Box that will lead to all kinds of rumor and speculation that won't be accurate. Teasing us by saying "ha, ha, I know the answer but I won't tell you, ha,ha" really doesn't encourage a candid exchange of accurate information on this board.
And BTW, who doesn't allow you to divulge the info and why not? And if you hadn't teased us with your reply, I wouldn't have to be asking you this...
Sorry to act so confrontational; I've had a bad day re: people giving me wrong and misleading info on important matters and not being forthcoming about why and how it happened.
He has a nondisclosure agreement, he can vaguely hint at stuff, but not divulge anything outright.
Maybe I should file a "Freedom-of-Information-Request" with Steve. You'd think it would be public information.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 13, 2013, 09:08:21 PM
Maybe I should file a "Freedom-of-Information-Request" with Steve. You'd think it would be public information.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/OPRA.pdf
Quote from: SignBridge on February 13, 2013, 09:08:21 PM
Maybe I should file a "Freedom-of-Information-Request" with Steve. You'd think it would be public information.
I don't believe that Steve works for the State of New Jersey, so that would be pretty pointless.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 13, 2013, 09:20:33 AM
Quote from: Steve on February 12, 2013, 10:47:47 PM
I have the authoritative knowledge, but I'm not actually allowed to divulge it. Is it related to the FHWA and funding? Yes. Is it as you state? No.
Sounds like we need to get together and buy Steve dinner. And if that doesn't work, buy him a few drinks. And if that doesn't work, buy him some shots...
I accept. You won't get information, but I'll be happy.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2013, 10:43:04 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 13, 2013, 09:08:21 PM
Maybe I should file a "Freedom-of-Information-Request" with Steve. You'd think it would be public information.
I don't believe that Steve works for the State of New Jersey, so that would be pretty pointless.
Basically, because they are one of my company's clients, I get privileged information. I'm not saying it to open up any cans of any worms. I just want to say that yes, there is in fact knowledge of the exact reason, so I can shoot down any wild speculation. As an example, I don't want the wrong idea to get out there that anyone has a gun to their head for compliance - you still have a few items in the new documents that aren't in the MUTCD, so clearly there's a bigger story. And I can say this much - in 100% honesty, no one knows what the FHWA will really do over the next several years, probably not even the FHWA itself, in regards to enforcement of some or all of the MUTCD provisions. Remember, they're run by people too, and different people have different views.
I always liked the unique nature of the signs on the NJT and will be sorry to see them go, but I am a sucker for any nostalgia. Growing up in northern NJ, I "lived" at the Vince Lombardi Service Plaza for several months, sleeping in my gigantic 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood... Who else can lay claim to actually living on the Turnpike? Another memory - my best friends father was on the NJT Commission Board in the early '70's. He was the founder and owner of Taggart Driving Schools, among other things. My friends father would sometimes use Taggarts car. It had a special license plate which required only slowing to 15MPH to cruise through the toll booths. Wouldn't that be the worlds first known EZ-Pass?
Quote from: djsinco on February 14, 2013, 03:57:44 AM
I always liked the unique nature of the signs on the NJT and will be sorry to see them go, but I am a sucker for any nostalgia. Growing up in northern NJ, I "lived" at the Vince Lombardi Service Plaza for several months, sleeping in my gigantic 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood... Who else can lay claim to actually living on the Turnpike? Another memory - my best friends father was on the NJT Commission Board in the early '70's. He was the founder and owner of Taggart Driving Schools, among other things. My friends father would sometimes use Taggarts car. It had a special license plate which required only slowing to 15MPH to cruise through the toll booths. Wouldn't that be the worlds first known EZ-Pass?
I've never heard of such a tag for the NJ Turnpike. Even the police were required to stop and get a ticket (ok, many of them did not, but the fact is EVERYONE was required to stop). Are you sure he just didn't toll evade for many years and didn't get caught???!!!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
Quote from: djsinco on February 14, 2013, 03:57:44 AM
I always liked the unique nature of the signs on the NJT and will be sorry to see them go, but I am a sucker for any nostalgia. Growing up in northern NJ, I "lived" at the Vince Lombardi Service Plaza for several months, sleeping in my gigantic 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood... Who else can lay claim to actually living on the Turnpike? Another memory - my best friends father was on the NJT Commission Board in the early '70's. He was the founder and owner of Taggart Driving Schools, among other things. My friends father would sometimes use Taggarts car. It had a special license plate which required only slowing to 15MPH to cruise through the toll booths. Wouldn't that be the worlds first known EZ-Pass?
I am absolutely sure. The license plate was not only specially marked at the bottom, but was NJT-1, as he was the president of the Commission.
I've never heard of such a tag for the NJ Turnpike. Even the police were required to stop and get a ticket (ok, many of them did not, but the fact is EVERYONE was required to stop). Are you sure he just didn't toll evade for many years and didn't get caught???!!!
As far as that goes, police officers paying a traffic fine in NJ? That is the most corrupt state in that manner. The only state I know of (and I know about every one) with those ridiculous PBA shields in the back window of every Tom, Dick and Harriet who is a third cousin to some LEO. Not to mention the "get out of jail free" calling cards that LEO hand out to their buddies, which get the bearer out of a speeding ticket, DUI, or even much worse. Please don't get me going on this...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
Quote from: djsinco on February 14, 2013, 03:57:44 AM
I always liked the unique nature of the signs on the NJT and will be sorry to see them go, but I am a sucker for any nostalgia. Growing up in northern NJ, I "lived" at the Vince Lombardi Service Plaza for several months, sleeping in my gigantic 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood... Who else can lay claim to actually living on the Turnpike? Another memory - my best friends father was on the NJT Commission Board in the early '70's. He was the founder and owner of Taggart Driving Schools, among other things. My friends father would sometimes use Taggarts car. It had a special license plate which required only slowing to 15MPH to cruise through the toll booths. Wouldn't that be the worlds first known EZ-Pass?
I've never heard of such a tag for the NJ Turnpike. Even the police were required to stop and get a ticket (ok, many of them did not, but the fact is EVERYONE was required to stop). Are you sure he just didn't toll evade for many years and didn't get caught???!!!
I'll bet he slowed down to 15, so that the tollbooth operator could recognize him (by person, vehicle, and/or license plate) and wave him through. No electronics required.
That is correct, I did not imply there was an actual EZ-Pass, merely that it was the same concept.
Several pages back in this thread someone noted that on the Western Leg of the Turnpike there is no advance signing southbound for Exit-15E. I drove that stretch this weekend and noted other problems too. That poster was correct about the lack of advance signs.
I also discovered an actual sign error! Again southbound at 15E, there is a sign hung overhead from the Skyway for the beginning of the deceleration lane. And another overhead sign after the Skyway right at the split. And I realized those 2 signs are reversed. You can tell by the arrow type. The one at the split has the "S" curve type arrow normally displayed just before the deceleration lane. And the one on the Skyway structure has the arrow leaning over to the right which is normally displayed at the split. Don't know how long it's been that way. Apparently the installer reversed those 2 almost identical signs. Never thought I'd see an error like that on the NJT.
BTW, you can see this for yourself on Google Earth. Have fun!
Southbound to Exit-11 signing in general is in some disarray with a mix of new bright green signs and the older dark green ones, some of which are looking very worn out, especially around Exit-11 interchange. The old ones must be at least 35 years old, from the original dual-lane project. I'm surprised the Authority lets them deteriorate this badly before replacing them.
I'm wondering if the Turnpike Authority has become a less efficient bureaucracy since taking over the G.S. Parkway. You used to have two reasonable size agencies running each road. Now that it's one big agency, I wonder if it's gotten too big to run efficiently and some attention to detail has been lost. I hope this is not the case, but I fear it is. This does not bode well for the future of these two formerly well-run roads.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 17, 2013, 08:04:42 PM
Southbound to Exit-11 signing in general is in some disarray with a mix of new bright green signs and the older dark green ones, some of which are looking very worn out, especially around Exit-11 interchange. The old ones must be at least 35 years old, from the original dual-lane project. I'm surprised the Authority lets them deteriorate this badly before replacing them.
I'm wondering if the Turnpike Authority has become a less efficient bureaucracy since taking over the G.S. Parkway. You used to have two reasonable size agencies running each road. Now that it's one big agency, I wonder if it's gotten too big to run efficiently and some attention to detail has been lost. I hope this is not the case, but I fear it is. This does not bode well for the future of these two formerly well-run roads.
The NJTA is very efficient, actually. The reason more signs haven't been replaced is because of the MUTCD effort that led to the new Standard Drawings and Design Manual. Now, there will be a massive sign replacement that will address all of the signs in question. Trust me, you have no reason to doubt them.
Okay Steve; I hope you're right. Question though: Are you saying all those brand new bright-green signs with the old format are going to be replaced by new MUTCD compliant signs in the near future? Sounds like an awful waste if that's true.
Also, I looked at those new sign drawings on those links I think you posted earlier. I hope that's not the final version because what I saw there was not all MUTCD compliant. For example: On Exhibit 6-5 they show the supplemental plaque with the distance to the next exit being attached to the "exit-direction" sign at the exit split (gore-point). That is not what the Manual specifies. Sec. 2E-34-03 specifically requires that plaque (if used) to be attached to the last "advance guide sign" nearest the interchange. That means the last sign showing mileage to the exit i.e. 1/2 mile or 1 mile. I'm not an engineer, but I can read a Manual. Please don't tell me they're going to screw up this project by misinterpreting the MUTCD.
So far they aren't mounted on the actual sign at the exit. Here is one of the advance signs at Exit 2 that they installed recently.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fnextexit.jpg&hash=b05dd63d2e18d3ee76aaf634c31419938b320fbd)
At the exit itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fnjtpexit2sb_zpsf1b00856.jpg&hash=a265672ce53cc88a3988a62dd16b7087465447fa)
Also, the control cities changed here from Chester, PA to Glassboro. So much for an out of state control city. These signs could be made MUTCD on the cheap too. Just green out the Exit 2 and the arrow and tack on an exit tab and standard arrow.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 17, 2013, 09:56:04 PM
So far they aren't mounted on the actual sign at the exit. Here is one of the advance signs at Exit 2 that they installed recently.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fnextexit.jpg&hash=b05dd63d2e18d3ee76aaf634c31419938b320fbd)
At the exit itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fnjtpexit2sb_zpsf1b00856.jpg&hash=a265672ce53cc88a3988a62dd16b7087465447fa)
Also, the control cities changed here from Chester, PA to Glassboro. So much for an out of state control city. These signs could be made MUTCD on the cheap too. Just green out the Exit 2 and the arrow and tack on an exit tab and standard arrow.
I would actually support using new signs in this style. It stays true to the NJTP format for exit numbers and arrows while replacing the "THRU TRAFFIC" signs (with their less than fully accurate down-arrow lane depictions) with something honest and functional (the MUTCD-style pull-through sign, in this case).
(The "THRU TRAFFIC" signs never really bothered me because, [1] if you're on the NJTP, you should already know what road you're on, and [2] one could make a case for omitting the right lane from the down arrows, since the right lane has to compete with merging traffic from the upcoming on-ramp, but I also don't feel that they're a strong part of what makes the NJTP signage special, and thus, I don't feel much is lost by replacing them with simpler, MUTCD-compliant pull-through signs. But I still defend the NJTP-style advance guide signs, pre-deceleration lane directional signs, and exit gore signs.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 14, 2013, 12:56:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 14, 2013, 09:43:10 AM
Quote from: djsinco on February 14, 2013, 03:57:44 AM
I always liked the unique nature of the signs on the NJT and will be sorry to see them go, but I am a sucker for any nostalgia. Growing up in northern NJ, I "lived" at the Vince Lombardi Service Plaza for several months, sleeping in my gigantic 1964 Cadillac Fleetwood... Who else can lay claim to actually living on the Turnpike? Another memory - my best friends father was on the NJT Commission Board in the early '70's. He was the founder and owner of Taggart Driving Schools, among other things. My friends father would sometimes use Taggarts car. It had a special license plate which required only slowing to 15MPH to cruise through the toll booths. Wouldn't that be the worlds first known EZ-Pass?
I've never heard of such a tag for the NJ Turnpike. Even the police were required to stop and get a ticket (ok, many of them did not, but the fact is EVERYONE was required to stop). Are you sure he just didn't toll evade for many years and didn't get caught???!!!
I'll bet he slowed down to 15, so that the tollbooth operator could recognize him (by person, vehicle, and/or license plate) and wave him through. No electronics required.
Unless there was some really special agreement, one of the audit checks for toll workers was to make sure the number of axles going thru a toll lane matched the tickets one had in their machine. So if a car was 'waved thru', the axle count would be 2 greater than the machine count, which could indicate the toll collector was stealing some cash. There is some paperwork involved if someone went thru without stopping, such as evading a toll.
BTW, the EZ Pass lanes were signed for 5 mph. Allowing someone to go thru at 15 mph just doesn't seem reasonable during that era.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on February 17, 2013, 09:56:04 PM
So far they aren't mounted on the actual sign at the exit. Here is one of the advance signs at Exit 2 that they installed recently.
....
At the exit itself:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fnjtpexit2sb_zpsf1b00856.jpg&hash=a265672ce53cc88a3988a62dd16b7087465447fa)
Also, the control cities changed here from Chester, PA to Glassboro. So much for an out of state control city. These signs could be made MUTCD on the cheap too. Just green out the Exit 2 and the arrow and tack on an exit tab and standard arrow.
I rather like the arrow here from the standpoint that it's directing you into the deceleration lane, not to the exit itself. The later overhead sign (seen in the background) has an arrow guiding you onto the ramp itself.
But I have a bit of a contrarian streak in me anyway.
The above photo should be what is at every interchange on the NJTP.
IMO, the current advance exit signs should still be used. This is what makes it the NJTP! If I was able to change anything, I probably would convert the exits to mileage-based as well as adding a few mileage signs--just not after every interchange. I probably would have one northbound after the toll booths at the south end, each side of exit 6, exit 10, and exit 13, and one southbound after the Lombardi service plaza. Northbound would involve Camden, Newark, and New York; southbound would include Newark, Camden/Trenton, Philadelphia, and Wilmington (and maybe the mileage to Baltimore after exit 6).
I know that signs should be MUTCD compliant but, as far as the NJTP is concerned, the current advance guide signage and gore signage should remain as they are. The pull-throughs added are an excellent addition, though.
I like those NJT arrows too; as 1995hoo points out they are very intuitive. Better get your photos soon though, 'cause if there is a change in the forseeable future to MUTCD compliant signs as Steve predicts, those arrows will be no more. The standard arrows used everywhere else will be the new normal on the Turnpike. Those new pull-thru signs with the Turnpike Logo and destination would probably not change, as they are compliant.
I'm having trouble believing that they will scrap those exit signs so soon. Many, like those in the above photos are new as it is. And even if NJTA is ready to completely re-sign the entire road for MUTCD, it will have to take years to accomplish.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 18, 2013, 10:38:16 PM
I like those NJT arrows too; as 1995hoo points out they are very intuitive. Better get your photos soon though, 'cause if there is a change in the forseeable future to MUTCD compliant signs as Steve predicts, those arrows will be no more. The standard arrows used everywhere else will be the new normal on the Turnpike. Those new pull-thru signs with the Turnpike Logo and destination would probably not change, as they are compliant.
I'm having trouble believing that they will scrap those exit signs so soon. Many, like those in the above photos are new as it is. And even if NJTA is ready to completely re-sign the entire road for MUTCD, it will have to take years to accomplish.
The newest ones are going to stay. There's no reason to take something down that's less than 5 years old. That'd be everything south of Interchange 9 (once the current widening project is done). So the replacement is essentially Interchange 10 and north, and assorted Parkway signs.
Quote from: Steve on February 18, 2013, 10:47:41 PM
The newest ones are going to stay. There's no reason to take something down that's less than 5 years old. That'd be everything south of Interchange 9 (once the current widening project is done). So the replacement is essentially Interchange 10 and north, and assorted Parkway signs.
I can't imagine much being replaced on the Parkway. Its already mostly MUTCD signing and with the widening projects, it'll be mostly replaced anyway. Heck some of the NJDOT era signing on the free part is still hanging around! I'll be happy to see those stupid yellow THRU TRAFFIC signs northbound at Exit 145 finally go though. That Exit 166 wannabe NJTP style exit sign will go though.
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2013, 12:35:36 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2013, 10:43:04 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 13, 2013, 09:08:21 PM
Maybe I should file a "Freedom-of-Information-Request" with Steve. You'd think it would be public information.
I don't believe that Steve works for the State of New Jersey, so that would be pretty pointless.
Basically, because they are one of my company's clients, I get privileged information. I'm not saying it to open up any cans of any worms. I just want to say that yes, there is in fact knowledge of the exact reason, so I can shoot down any wild speculation. As an example, I don't want the wrong idea to get out there that anyone has a gun to their head for compliance - you still have a few items in the new documents that aren't in the MUTCD, so clearly there's a bigger story. And I can say this much - in 100% honesty, no one knows what the FHWA will really do over the next several years, probably not even the FHWA itself, in regards to enforcement of some or all of the MUTCD provisions. Remember, they're run by people too, and different people have different views.
But I am sure you are bursting at the seams with juicy information you want to share, but just can't. I would be, too, as I am in a similar situation on another major NJ project.
So . . . once and for all . . . which spur does the Turnpike consider to be I-95? Or will both spurs show I-95 shields on their pull-through signing?
Steve, you say most of the new MUTCD signs will be from Exit-10 north. Well, what kind of signing will be on the newest dual roadways from the Penn. Tpk. north to the current dual roads when that project's completed? Conventional NJT or MUTCD? Let me guess: old style NJT 'cause they were all ordered from the contractor before the decision was made to go MUTCD? LOL
And I agree with Roadfan about those yellow "Thru Traffic" signs at Exit-145. Definitely not compliant. Can't understand why they used yellow there.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 18, 2013, 10:38:16 PM
I'm having trouble believing that they will scrap those exit signs so soon. Many, like those in the above photos are new as it is. And even if NJTA is ready to completely re-sign the entire road for MUTCD, it will have to take years to accomplish.
Any particular reason it would have to take years? NYSDOT can re-sign an entire road in a single construction season, and have done so in the past.
All of NJT and its branches would be a very large project Deanej. Have you ever travelled thru the mixing bowl south of Exit 15E/W thru the Newark Airport area? Lots and lots of overhead signs with 3 roadways in each direction for a few miles. And I don't think NYSDOT is quite the model of efficiency that you say. At least not on Long Island which tends to be more complex with lots more exits than upstate roadways.
I am, of course, speaking of upstate. Downstate, signage seems to be replaced never... it feels like a completely different state down there from what I've seen (never been south of I-287 in state). I remember reading about a couple of times where NYSDOT was able to replace every sign on the entire length of I-81 within a single construction season; note that I-81's mileage in NY is a fair bit longer than the Turnpike. Granted, you don't see sign rehabs like that often any more, but that doesn't mean they can't be done. Recently, region 4 replaced a good 50-70% of their freeway signage during the 2011 construction season.
There are also considerably fewer signs to replace on many upstate freeways versus downstate ones.
Quote from: deanej on February 19, 2013, 05:24:40 PM
I am, of course, speaking of upstate. Downstate, signage seems to be replaced never... it feels like a completely different state down there from what I've seen (never been south of I-287 in state). ....
I-287
is upstate! :-D
(At least according to my relatives who live in Breezy Point)
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 19, 2013, 06:12:27 PM
Quote from: deanej on February 19, 2013, 05:24:40 PM
I am, of course, speaking of upstate. Downstate, signage seems to be replaced never... it feels like a completely different state down there from what I've seen (never been south of I-287 in state). ....
I-287 is upstate! :-D
(At least according to my relatives who live in Breezy Point)
That doesn't stop me from looking at sign pictures/road videos of stuff in NYC and Long Island...
Quote from: akotchi on February 19, 2013, 12:14:50 PM
So . . . once and for all . . . which spur does the Turnpike consider to be I-95? Or will both spurs show I-95 shields on their pull-through signing?
The Western Spur has always been considered the through spur. That said, I'm not certain what will happen with the current signing contract. The signs at the split will remain as they are now, but if you're thinking about Interchange 15X, all I know is, "we'll see."
Quote from: SignBridge on February 19, 2013, 12:33:51 PM
Steve, you say most of the new MUTCD signs will be from Exit-10 north. Well, what kind of signing will be on the newest dual roadways from the Penn. Tpk. north to the current dual roads when that project's completed? Conventional NJT or MUTCD? Let me guess: old style NJT 'cause they were all ordered from the contractor before the decision was made to go MUTCD? LOL
And I agree with Roadfan about those yellow "Thru Traffic" signs at Exit-145. Definitely not compliant. Can't understand why they used yellow there.
First point: Yes, anything in the widening was ordered -
and manufactured, which is important - before the new documents were adopted. Second point: There will be something else on the Parkway at 145 after the new signing contract. I cannot say more, unfortunately, although I really want to.
Random question related to the OP.... Is there a roadgeek pronunciation of "MUTCD" other than em-u-tee-cee-dee?
Quote from: kphoger on February 19, 2013, 07:18:29 PM
Random question related to the OP.... Is there a roadgeek pronunciation of "MUTCD" other than em-u-tee-cee-dee?
Some say "mute-sid," but I hate that.
I say "mutt see dee".
When I try to think of a pronunciation, my brain comes up with something like mutcxhxxqh, then temporarily stops working.
You can just call it "The Manual". Most of us and anyone in the traffic engineering business will usually know what you mean.
Quote from: Steve on February 19, 2013, 07:15:49 PM
Quote from: akotchi on February 19, 2013, 12:14:50 PM
So . . . once and for all . . . which spur does the Turnpike consider to be I-95? Or will both spurs show I-95 shields on their pull-through signing?
The Western Spur has always been considered the through spur. That said, I'm not certain what will happen with the current signing contract. The signs at the split will remain as they are now, but if you're thinking about Interchange 15X, all I know is, "we'll see."
16W as well.
According to the NJDOT straight line diagram, 95 follows the eastern spur, as does NJTP mileage.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095__-.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095W_-.pdf
Growing up, the people I rode with always took the western spur to where we were going and back, so whenever I drive it now I always take the east. :)
I say "MUTT-kid."
The Eastern spur was the original one, correct? The Western spur wasn't built until the 1960's.
Actually, if there was an instance to use suffixes, this would be the place (I-95E, I-95W).
The eastern spur was original, and now functionally serves as local lanes with better access to Hudson County (while the western spur better serves the Meadowlands).
In the pre—E-ZPass days I almost always opted for the Eastern Spur, notwithstanding all the signs urging thru traffic to use the Western Spur, because it had a bigger toll plaza and I found I usually got through faster on the Eastern Spur (no doubt helped by the fact that most of the long-distance drivers followed the signs and went the other way). Now that the Western Spur has the highway-speed E-ZPass lanes, I opt for that side instead unless something's going on at the Meadowlands.
I find both spurs interesting. On the west you have the Meadowlands Complex and on the East you have the wide toll plaza and the Secaucus Rail station which I like as a railroad buff.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on February 19, 2013, 08:53:21 PM
According to the NJDOT straight line diagram, 95 follows the eastern spur, as does NJTP mileage.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095__-.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000095W_-.pdf
Growing up, the people I rode with always took the western spur to where we were going and back, so whenever I drive it now I always take the east. :)
Yes, the technical definition of I-95 follows the Easterly Alignment (technical name), and that is indeed because that was the original alignment. Going forward, I wouldn't think I-95W and I-95E would be accepted by FHWA, but who knows? If for some reason the NJTA had to designate both Alignments as Interstates, I think it's 90% likely that I-95 would take the Westerly and something else would take the Easterly.
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W. So they'd mandate the NJTA use something brilliant like calling one leg I-95 and the other a spur like I-295 and really confuse everybody.
I can just picture the signs now at the northern split: Exits 17W, 16W, I-295 SOUTH to I-95 SOUTH, Newark, Trenton. Sometimes the older simpler ways are better.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W. So they'd mandate the NJTA use something brilliant like calling one leg I-95 and the other a spur like I-295 and really confuse everybody.
I can just picture the signs now at the northern split: Exits 17W, 16W, I-295 SOUTH to I-95 SOUTH, Newark, Trenton. Sometimes the older simpler ways are better.
If the FHWA is going to force the NJTA to number its spurs, it'd probably force mile-based numbering at the same time...
(Seinfeld-like incredulous voice)... What's up with Exit 18X?
Does anyone know of any other exit with an X suffix? Even I-670 in KC doesn't make it that deep in the alphabet.
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 02:34:53 AM
(Seinfeld-like incredulous voice)... What's up with Exit 18X?
Probably refers to the Secaucus Junction rail station, which is where two major lines cross.
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 02:34:53 AM
Does anyone know of any other exit with an X suffix? Even I-670 in KC doesn't make it that deep in the alphabet.
I-35 in KC does:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages029%2Fi-029_st_22.jpg&hash=20eb5ffc21cada95ecd8ab9159c819c43165a0f2)
The original Florida's Turnpike south of where the Homestead Extension branches off uses an X suffix:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southeastroads.com%2Fflorida999%2Ffl-tpk_nb_exit_002x_03.jpg&hash=6d2767f5ea427be15c39150927d07a24716c6a39)
I relearned something already today. Since the point when 670 was completed many years ago, I have only used 70 "through town" once, when I was distracted and missed the left exit.
Does anyone here know if the two sharp left-hand curves are still there on 70?
Relearn how to quote, next
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 02:34:53 AM
(Seinfeld-like incredulous voice)... What's up with Exit 18X?
Does anyone know of any other exit with an X suffix? Even I-670 in KC doesn't make it that deep in the alphabet.
If there hadn't been the two spurs there, it might have been Exit 15A, but "Exit 15AE" sounds horrible. I read somewhere (might have been this forum) that they chose the "X" to denote "transfer," as in "xfer."
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 02:34:53 AM
(Seinfeld-like incredulous voice)... What's up with Exit 18X?
Actually, I think you mean 15X.
Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W. So they'd mandate the NJTA use something brilliant like calling one leg I-95 and the other a spur like I-295 and really confuse everybody.
Or...orrrr...designate I-80 on the Eastern spur. Going Northbound, when the roadway splits, I-95 is the western spur, and I-80 is the eastern spur. When the highways join up next to each other above Interchange 18E/W, 80 & 95 maintain their individual roadways, then 80 takes its westerly direction, while 95 heads to the east!
The resulting roadway lane designation between 18E/W and I-80/95 would look as follows:
80E | 95S | 80W | 95N
Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W.
They approved I-69E/69C/69W in Texas...
Quote from: deanej on February 21, 2013, 12:38:52 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W.
They approved I-69E/69C/69W in Texas...
In addition, of course, to the existing I-35's (E and W.)
How recent are those Texas designations? I know they did that sort of thing years ago, but I thought that practice was discontinued in recent years.
The I-69 ones are within the past few years. But did FHWA actually approve signs saying 69C and 69W? The signs they approved on "69E" are normal I-69 shields.
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 12:45:45 PM
In addition, of course, to the existing I-35's (E and W.)
Here in Maryland, we got rid of I-70N (became I-70) and I-70S (became I-270) in the early 1970's.
Regarding numbering the spurs, I thought of an idea, which might work. Begin signing NJ 700 south of Exit 6, continue it as a duplex with I-95 to the split, and continue that designation along one spur, with I-95 running along the other. If and when the NJTP goes to mileage-based exit numbers, the mileposts and exit numbers will be that of NJ 700 or I-95. Aside from having a needless duplex, would this work?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2013, 09:18:52 AM
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 02:34:53 AM
(Seinfeld-like incredulous voice)... What's up with Exit 18X?
Actually, I think you mean 15X. Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W. So they'd mandate the NJTA use something brilliant like calling one leg I-95 and the other a spur like I-295 and really confuse everybody.
Or...orrrr...designate I-80 on the Eastern spur. Going Northbound, when the roadway splits, I-95 is the western spur, and I-80 is the eastern spur. When the highways join up next to each other above Interchange 18E/W, 80 & 95 maintain their individual roadways, then 80 takes its westerly direction, while 95 heads to the east!
The resulting roadway lane designation between 18E/W and I-80/95 would look as follows:
80E | 95S | 80W | 95N
Funny you should mention that . . . The last paper edition of the NJDOT Straight Line Diagram (1990), when I-95 between U.S. 46 and I-80 was still the State's, designated that section just that way. I-80 EB turned south along the local roadway up to the left merge from express (for the U.S. 46 exit). I-80 WB was the inner roadway, "beginning" where the ramps from the spurs merge. Never signed that way in the field, though.
Quote from: akotchi on February 21, 2013, 10:16:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on February 21, 2013, 09:18:52 AM
Quote from: djsinco on February 21, 2013, 02:34:53 AM
(Seinfeld-like incredulous voice)... What's up with Exit 18X?
Actually, I think you mean 15X. Quote from: SignBridge on February 20, 2013, 08:19:15 PM
Well, whichever leg they designated as the real I-95, the FWHA would probably find it too simple and intuitive for drivers to use I-95E and I-95W. So they'd mandate the NJTA use something brilliant like calling one leg I-95 and the other a spur like I-295 and really confuse everybody.
Or...orrrr...designate I-80 on the Eastern spur. Going Northbound, when the roadway splits, I-95 is the western spur, and I-80 is the eastern spur. When the highways join up next to each other above Interchange 18E/W, 80 & 95 maintain their individual roadways, then 80 takes its westerly direction, while 95 heads to the east!
The resulting roadway lane designation between 18E/W and I-80/95 would look as follows:
80E | 95S | 80W | 95N
Funny you should mention that . . . The last paper edition of the NJDOT Straight Line Diagram (1990), when I-95 between U.S. 46 and I-80 was still the State's, designated that section just that way. I-80 EB turned south along the local roadway up to the left merge from express (for the U.S. 46 exit). I-80 WB was the inner roadway, "beginning" where the ramps from the spurs merge. Never signed that way in the field, though.
I think that was an internal bookkeeping peculiarity brought about by the fact that these are ramps to/from I-80 extending out of the I-95 interchange. I could see taking I-80 down the Easterly, and renumbering the rest of the Turnpike south of there as NJ 495. (No reason to bother making it an Interstate, as it's not Federally funded, and most traffic is going to NYC anyway so it makes sense.) But... BUT... NJ 495 was once I-495. I wonder if it's possible to bring back an Interstate designation on a road that once had it (NCDOT did that with I-40/green 40/I-40), and that would then let you take I-80 all the way into Manhattan.
I spent most of my formative years living in Teaneck, NJ. The merge of I-95, I-80, and parts of 95 that are NJTP and parts that are not at this confluence of mega-roads is locally known as the "missing mile." In the 1970's, it was frequently in disrepair relative to the more clearly defined sections of the TP and I-80. I had a friend who drove a wrecker that was not TP licensed, but he always used his best judgement when stopping to assist or tow someone in this no-mans land.
Any major highways left with non-MUTCD signage?
Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 03, 2013, 09:46:23 PM
Any major highways left with non-MUTCD signage?
Federal parkways?
Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 03, 2013, 09:46:23 PM
Any major highways left with non-MUTCD signage?
Oklahoma.
Also, Merritt Parkway.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 04, 2013, 11:32:47 PM
Also, Merritt Parkway.
I don't know about the Merritt Parkway, but the federal parkways (under National Park Service ownership) use their own MUTCD, which used to require the use of Clarendon on big brown signs (it's a different font now), but at interchanges with Interstate highways, the use of "regular" MUTCD-compliant BGS panels is specified.
Puerto Rico too. I don't think the MUTCD allows Spanish.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2013, 11:46:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 04, 2013, 11:32:47 PM
Also, Merritt Parkway.
I don't know about the Merritt Parkway, but the federal parkways (under National Park Service ownership) use their own MUTCD, which used to require the use of Clarendon on big brown signs (it's a different font now), but at interchanges with Interstate highways, the use of "regular" MUTCD-compliant BGS panels is specified.
Don't have a picture because it was too dark to get a good one, but on the way to and from Reagan Airport on Sunday night I noted that the brown signs on the GW Parkway in Virginia north of Alexandria all use that new font for the destinations but use all-caps Clearview for other information. For example, the words "Reagan National Airport" appear in the new NPS font but the words "Exit 3/4 Mile" appear in all-caps Clearview with an in-line fraction (i.e., numbers arranged the way I typed them here instead of on a diagonal). It didn't look too bad on the whole. I think the all-caps Clearview is probably less jarring than regular caps and lowercase Clearview would be when juxtaposed with the fancier typeface used by the NPS.
Quote from: MrDisco99 on March 03, 2013, 09:46:23 PM
Any major highways left with non-MUTCD signage?
All the DCR (formerly MDC) roads in the Boston area.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 05, 2013, 02:29:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on March 04, 2013, 11:46:44 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on March 04, 2013, 11:32:47 PM
Also, Merritt Parkway.
I don't know about the Merritt Parkway, but the federal parkways (under National Park Service ownership) use their own MUTCD, which used to require the use of Clarendon on big brown signs (it's a different font now), but at interchanges with Interstate highways, the use of "regular" MUTCD-compliant BGS panels is specified.
Don't have a picture because it was too dark to get a good one, but on the way to and from Reagan Airport on Sunday night I noted that the brown signs on the GW Parkway in Virginia north of Alexandria all use that new font for the destinations but use all-caps Clearview for other information. For example, the words "Reagan National Airport" appear in the new NPS font but the words "Exit 3/4 Mile" appear in all-caps Clearview with an in-line fraction (i.e., numbers arranged the way I typed them here instead of on a diagonal). It didn't look too bad on the whole. I think the all-caps Clearview is probably less jarring than regular caps and lowercase Clearview would be when juxtaposed with the fancier typeface used by the NPS.
Most (maybe all) of the BBS panels on the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway use Clarendon (except the conventional-MUTCD compliant BGS panels approaching the I-95/I-495 interchange in Greenbelt) but several of them have faded (badly), and need to be replaced.
*bump*
Get ready to kiss some NJTA button copy goodbye :-(
Excerpt from the Turnpike Agenda for March:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.screencast.com%2Fusers%2Fcivilmaher%2Ffolders%2FSnagit%2Fmedia%2Fca517d48-7b0c-48aa-9c06-b6cba44ed43d%2F03.29.2013-09.48.25.png&hash=84b189f00dc7e0afb4e3fb5a793593c894624579)
Get ready to see exit tabs too. I spotted a BGS for Exit 13 on the Turnpike Mainline (around MP 101.7 southbound car lanes) with an exit tab! AN EXIT TAB! ON THE TURNPIKE! And the button-copy I-278 shield was gone.
I wonder if the new contract will include proper signage for exit 15E southbound on the eastern spur. I seem to recall this is the worst-signed exit on the Turnpike. It may be because the exit is at the end of a long (2 mile?) bridge and the Turnpike has a historical standard against overhead signs on bridges. I think their design manual says something like "overhead sign structures are prohibited and only used as a last resort with permission from the chief engineer". Exit 15W though has overhead approach signs on the western spur bridge which was built later.
Quote from: civilmaher on March 29, 2013, 10:11:30 AM
Get ready to see exit tabs too. I spotted a BGS for Exit 13 on the Turnpike Mainline (around MP 101.7 southbound car lanes) with an exit tab! AN EXIT TAB! ON THE TURNPIKE! And the button-copy I-278 shield was gone.
I noticed that too coming home from Maine on Tuesday. I think it looks nice, especially with the rounded corners.
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 29, 2013, 04:15:50 PM
I noticed that too coming home from Maine on Tuesday. I think it looks nice, especially with the rounded corners.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F29344571.jpg&hash=e342d8bba5c74f928f16c09dcead28cf333a55d3)
That contract spells doom to the NJDOT era signs on the "free" section of the GSP in Union/Middlesex counties. At least it isn't going to be in Clearview!
Quote from: Steve D on March 29, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
I wonder if the new contract will include proper signage for exit 15E southbound on the eastern spur. I seem to recall this is the worst-signed exit on the Turnpike. It may be because the exit is at the end of a long (2 mile?) bridge and the Turnpike has a historical standard against overhead signs on bridges. I think their design manual says something like "overhead sign structures are prohibited and only used as a last resort with permission from the chief engineer". Exit 15W though has overhead approach signs on the western spur bridge which was built later.
Every exit north of the current widening project is going to be signed with exit tabs and with 2-mile, 1-mile, and advance (1/4, 1/2, 3/4) signs, as well as exit sign and properly mounted gore (in the exit, not overhead).
Steve D, you raise a good point about Exit-15W southbound. I can remember as a kid back in the 1960's (!) noting even then that "Exit-15" was poorly signed, when the western leg was under construction. I don't understand why an advance sign couldn't have been erected just before the Passaic River Bridge. I could understand NJ or NYS DOT screwing up like that, but we're talking about the NJ Turnpike Authority which is normally a pretty sharp agency.
And Steve, I have no problem with overhead exit gore signs as often used on the NJT, especially at 2-lane exits. It's true they are not in compliance with the MUTCD, which does require them to be placed in the gore area. But, placing them as required often causes them to be knocked down in accidents, so overhead might actually make more sense.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 29, 2013, 05:58:21 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on March 29, 2013, 04:15:50 PM
I noticed that too coming home from Maine on Tuesday. I think it looks nice, especially with the rounded corners.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F29344571.jpg&hash=e342d8bba5c74f928f16c09dcead28cf333a55d3)
That contract spells doom to the NJDOT era signs on the "free" section of the GSP in Union/Middlesex counties. At least it isn't going to be in Clearview!
How many of you would be ready to jump off bridges if the Turnpike and Parkway were signed in Clearview?
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 29, 2013, 08:33:59 PM
How many of you would be ready to jump off bridges if the Turnpike and Parkway were signed in Clearview?
NJ for the most part seems to be resisting Clearview. There are some signs with it on I-676 and I hear a few "contractor specials" on I-280 got it as well. I haven't confirmed the latter yet, I might do that tomorrow when I get photos of these tabbed Turnpike signs. Anyone know if NJDOT has ever specified Clearview in their signing contracts? I can see I-676 being a test install, but I-280 randomly getting it for a single sign replacement on the other end of the state seems odd.
I am aware of the I-676 locations (near Morgan Blvd. exit). I do sign panel design for NJDOT projects, and they still do not use Clearview. Nothing I have ever seen or heard suggests that any change to that stance is coming.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2FP3300009_zpse741b8f7.jpg&hash=9691da35d8cba88539c1ffaeedebb5e0b094daef)
There is one ground mounted Clearview sign for the soccer arena in Harrison on I-280. I'm surprised that fancy new Turnpike sign is ground mounted. I thought they were going to all overhead mounted signs. The one pictured is the only one I saw.
That sign looks so... normal.
It also looks like the tab is wide enough to accommodate a mileage-based number.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 30, 2013, 03:36:19 PM
There is one ground mounted Clearview sign for the soccer arena in Harrison on I-280. I'm surprised that fancy new Turnpike sign is ground mounted. I thought they were going to all overhead mounted signs. The one pictured is the only one I saw.
It appears as if they used the poles for the previous sign to mount the new one. I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a temporary fix.
An actual exit number tab sign on the NJT! I think I just felt the earth shake! The beginning of the end for traditional NJ Turnpike signing. They were the last holdout among unique toll-road sign systems in the Northeast. The others, the Connecticut Turnpike and NY Thruway replaced all their original signs in the 1980's and 90's.
But believe it or not, that sign in the photo for Exit-13 is not in MUTCD compliance. It's supposed to show destination places, not bridge names. Not saying I agree with that standard in all cases; just pointing out a technicality. The bridge names work fine for me.
Bridges are places.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 30, 2013, 07:45:54 PM
But believe it or not, that sign in the photo for Exit-13 is not in MUTCD compliance. It's supposed to show destination places, not bridge names. Not saying I agree with that standard in all cases; just pointing out a technicality. The bridge names work fine for me.
That isn't going to change any time soon either. River crossings are popular destinations and hardly confusing. This is from the same book that says you can't have a street name and a destination on the same sign. Another rule that is often violated.
Oh, and the Turnpike on-ramp from CR-602/Roosevelt Ave. (Exit 12) in Carteret is signed with an overhead mounted classic green on white TURNPIKE ENTRANCE sign. It wasn't recycled like the one at Exit 8, its a brand new sign! No mention of I-95 either.
If the NJTA is not going to follow the rules for other things the MUTCD, why are they following for the Exit numbers then? If the Feds have not done anything about street names and destinations on the same sign to those who violate, then what can they do for this? Keep in mind PA has been allowed to have the Breezewood, becuase what can they do as its not law.
Personally, I hate to see the old Turnpike signs go as they were an item for years and what made the NJ Turnpike what it is. It makes this an end of another era.
I agree that in the New York Metroplex, river crossings as destinations are reasonable, since there are so many of them that lead to different parts of NYC. But just to show you how absurd that current policy can get: going north on I-87 (Maj. Deegan Expwy.) from the Triboro Bridge, the exit at the Cross Bx. Expwy. for the G.W. Bridge is signed as I-95, Trenton! The signs there no longer say G.W. Bridge. which I think is ridiculous.
And I also agree with you about street names and destinations on the same sign. I never undertood why the Manual discourages that practice. BTW, that's only a recommendation in the MUTCD, not a standard. On Long Island, it's very common to see signs with a road name with 2 destinations (one for each direction) on the state parkways and expressways here. Good that NYS DOT didn't take that Manual advice seriously and let common sense prevail.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 30, 2013, 08:59:45 PM
I agree that in the New York Metroplex, river crossings as destinations are reasonable, since there are so many of them that lead to different parts of NYC. But just to show you how absurd that current policy can get: going north on I-87 (Maj. Deegan Expwy.) from the Triboro Bridge, the exit at the Cross Bx. Expwy. for the G.W. Bridge is signed as I-95, Trenton! The signs there no longer say G.W. Bridge. which I think is ridiculous.
And I also agree with you about street names and destinations on the same sign. I never undertood why the Manual discourages that practice. BTW, that's only a recommendation in the MUTCD, not a standard. On Long Island, it's very common to see signs with a road name with 2 destinations (one for each direction) on the state parkways and expressways here. Good that NYS DOT didn't take that Manual advice seriously and let common sense prevail.
New Jersey the same. NJDOT and even the Garden State Parkway mix town names with street names. If the Garden State Parkway was run by FDOT at Exit 143, the current guide that reads Irvington- Springfield Avenue would just read the road name and Irvington would be on a separate guide before the exit saying Irvington Next 3 Exits (the other two for Lyons Avenue that are signed for Hillside and Maplewood).
New Jersey generally has no difference from signing in urban and rural areas.
What are we going to do about this?
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2013, 09:19:26 PM
If the Garden State Parkway was run by FDOT
???
I-4 exit 65: Osceola Parkway/Animal Kingdom/Wide World of Sports
I-4 exit 77: Turnpike (written out next to the shield)/Miami/Ocala
And this style on I-95, with the street name on the same line as the shield:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.291609,-80.741959&spn=0.034464,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.291657,-80.742059&panoid=swKotqao-f5CANZ1yeHJkQ&cbp=12,338.6,,2,-5.37
Quote from: _Simon on March 30, 2013, 10:30:18 PM
What are we going to do about this?
Boycott the Turnpike.
Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2013, 10:37:41 PM
Boycott the Turnpike.
I drove it today, but both times I stopped dead short in the EZ pass lanes and chucked handfuls of pennies at the booth. I think we need more organized action though.
Quote from: SignBridge on March 30, 2013, 07:45:54 PM
An actual exit number tab sign on the NJT! I think I just felt the earth shake! The beginning of the end for traditional NJ Turnpike signing. They were the last holdout among unique toll-road sign systems in the Northeast. The others, the Connecticut Turnpike and NY Thruway replaced all their original signs in the 1980's and 90's.
But believe it or not, that sign in the photo for Exit-13 is not in MUTCD compliance. It's supposed to show destination places, not bridge names. Not saying I agree with that standard in all cases; just pointing out a technicality. The bridge names work fine for me.
Well, when you get up North in NJ, either you're going to have a bunch of minor destinations, or you're going to have dozens of signs that just have "New York City" as the destination.
How about the Exit 16E/18E split of the NJ Turnpike: 16E: New York City. 18E: New York City.
So in some/many instances, something other than the city is quite useful.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 30, 2013, 01:15:28 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 29, 2013, 08:33:59 PM
How many of you would be ready to jump off bridges if the Turnpike and Parkway were signed in Clearview?
NJ for the most part seems to be resisting Clearview. There are some signs with it on I-676 and I hear a few "contractor specials" on I-280 got it as well. I haven't confirmed the latter yet, I might do that tomorrow when I get photos of these tabbed Turnpike signs. Anyone know if NJDOT has ever specified Clearview in their signing contracts? I can see I-676 being a test install, but I-280 randomly getting it for a single sign replacement on the other end of the state seems odd.
I haven't seen anything on I-280 anywhere.
Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2013, 10:37:41 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 30, 2013, 09:19:26 PM
If the Garden State Parkway was run by FDOT
???
I-4 exit 65: Osceola Parkway/Animal Kingdom/Wide World of Sports
I-4 exit 77: Turnpike (written out next to the shield)/Miami/Ocala
And this style on I-95, with the street name on the same line as the shield:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.291609,-80.741959&spn=0.034464,0.066047&gl=us&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=28.291657,-80.742059&panoid=swKotqao-f5CANZ1yeHJkQ&cbp=12,338.6,,2,-5.37
Quote from: _Simon on March 30, 2013, 10:30:18 PM
What are we going to do about this?
Boycott the Turnpike.
The Turnpike is a designated freeway.
Also, FDOT is starting to come around. They are using the name/ town methods now, but twenty years ago they did not except in rare cases. Park Road in Plant City before I-4 was widened was signed like the Parkway is now, but now all Plant City exits leave off the "Plant City" in lieu of PA type of multiple exits for one city signs.
In Downtown Orlando you do not see "Orlando" on each exit like you see for Paterson on I-80 for each individual exit there.
Boycotting the NJT if things keep up for many people will not be hard, as the tolls gone up so much, many are already doing it I am sure unless its absolutely necessary like a jam on US 1 & 9 or something
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 30, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
Well, when you get up North in NJ, either you're going to have a bunch of minor destinations, or you're going to have dozens of signs that just have "New York City" as the destination.
How about the Exit 16E/18E split of the NJ Turnpike: 16E: New York City. 18E: New York City.
So in some/many instances, something other than the city is quite useful.
There are enough destinations: Staten Island, Midtown Manhattan, Bronx... but the crossing names are more useful.
Quote from: NE2 on March 30, 2013, 11:41:17 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 30, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
Well, when you get up North in NJ, either you're going to have a bunch of minor destinations, or you're going to have dozens of signs that just have "New York City" as the destination.
How about the Exit 16E/18E split of the NJ Turnpike: 16E: New York City. 18E: New York City.
So in some/many instances, something other than the city is quite useful.
There are enough destinations: Staten Island, Midtown Manhattan, Bronx... but the crossing names are more useful.
I grew up in North Jersey and the crossing names are well known to most travelers.
I guess any I-295 Southbound sign saying Del Mem Br is wrong, or I-76 being Desginated Walt Whitman Bridge
In NJ it seems using the bridge as the destination is the norm
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-295%2Fs25_1.jpg&hash=0d1100c613e5d507e88bbe8090866f2558aa6fd6)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-295%2Fs14_1.jpg&hash=95d8710bedcc95a65d9c02a09a4c5bf38c77c998)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fnj%2Fi-76%2Fw2_1.jpg&hash=3c6517076da76cac3658b9899d3c641d671ab903)
New Jersey is still stuck on those bridges. Even NYC has moved away from that - signs that used to use the GWB and Triborough Bridge now use Trenton and Queens...
For years people in NJ (as well as DE & MD) that the Delaware Memorial Bridge was the link between the Northeast and Mid Atlantic. Therefore it was well known and like a city almost as many would travel from New Jersey on The Turnpike and to go where next is and was is to US 13 or I-95 to go points south.
The question is will "Pa- Del- Md" still be used as control cities on NJ 495 Westbound approaching its western terminus for NJ Turnpike Southbound still be kept after all of this? I always liked that sign and its one of few things (other than the large Exit numbers) that still exist as we already are losing the art deco sign at Southbound Exit 6 that was part of history for the toll highway.
Quote from: Steve D on March 31, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
New Jersey is still stuck on those bridges. Even NYC has moved away from that - signs that used to use the GWB and Triborough Bridge now use Trenton and Queens...
There isn't really anything wrong with using the bridge as the destination, it allows you to know as an outsider where each road goes, 676 and 76 could both be signed as Philadelphia, just one would Be Camden Philladelphia and the other Glouschester City Philadelphia
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 31, 2013, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Steve D on March 31, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
New Jersey is still stuck on those bridges. Even NYC has moved away from that - signs that used to use the GWB and Triborough Bridge now use Trenton and Queens...
There isn't really anything wrong with using the bridge as the destination, it allows you to know as an outsider where each road goes, 676 and 76 could both be signed as Philadelphia, just one would Be Camden Philladelphia and the other Glouschester City Philadelphia
On I-295, though, NJDOT did rid themselves of the Walt Whitman Bridge and added Camden instead, but kept Philly for I-76 at Exit 26.
What is now at the 76/676 split has both Philly and Camden with the two river crossings. Both parties here are covered. The only thing is a Downtown Philadelphia should be added for I-676 as I-76 bypasses it. I think South Philadelphia should be used with the Walt Whitman Bridge and Downtown Phila should be used with Camden and the B. Franklin Bridge as an added feature.
Roadman65, interesting that you mentioned that "Pa-Del-Md" sign approaching the NJT from the Lincoln Tunnel. I too have always liked that sign. It's been there since I was a teenager in the 1960's. That sign at that location always seemed to be the "gateway" to travel in that direction on interesting trips. Yes, let's hope it stays!
Also to all, a point of information in this discussion about control cities/destinations vs. bridge and tunnel names. The MUTCD favors city names consistent with their theory that signing is oriented to drivers not familiar with the region, and so a city name in theory is more useful than a bridge or tunnel. Again, I don't agree with that policy in all cases. As several other posters have pointed out, sometimes showing both or just a river crossing might be more useful.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 31, 2013, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Steve D on March 31, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
New Jersey is still stuck on those bridges. Even NYC has moved away from that - signs that used to use the GWB and Triborough Bridge now use Trenton and Queens...
There isn't really anything wrong with using the bridge as the destination, it allows you to know as an outsider where each road goes, 676 and 76 could both be signed as Philadelphia, just one would Be Camden Philladelphia and the other Glouschester City Philadelphia
I imagine the number of "outsiders" who know the names of bridges in a given region would be pretty small.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
I imagine the number of "outsiders" who know the names of bridges in a given region would be pretty small.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages080%2Fi-080_wt_28a.jpg&hash=9cbebe860767bc5f0b0aa76ff23601d715fe056e)
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 31, 2013, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Steve D on March 31, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
New Jersey is still stuck on those bridges. Even NYC has moved away from that - signs that used to use the GWB and Triborough Bridge now use Trenton and Queens...
There isn't really anything wrong with using the bridge as the destination, it allows you to know as an outsider where each road goes, 676 and 76 could both be signed as Philadelphia, just one would Be Camden Philladelphia and the other Glouschester City Philadelphia
I imagine the number of "outsiders" who know the names of bridges in a given region would be pretty small.
Yes, but when the road (I-295) is the local road you can expect stuff like this.
Also most through traffic on the NJTP is heading to NY via the GWB or Lincoln Tunnel
Right kphoger; that's the reason the MUTCD encourages use of city names for destinations.
Apparently California still hasn't figured out how to put exit tabs on signs either.
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
I imagine the number of "outsiders" who know the names of bridges in a given region would be pretty small.
In most cases, they'll know the bridge name a lot better than the route number.
I hope that when they update the signs on the Northbound Eastern Spur, they finally include NJ 495 in the new signs. It still is exclusively for NJ 3 and since NJ 3 was truncated back to US 1 & 9, that road was two different designations despite it being Route 495 in almost 50 years.
What they can do to satisfy both strangers and locals is to keep some exit guides saying Lincoln Tunnel/ GWB and some saying Midtown Manhattan and Uptown Manhattan- Bronx for Exits 16E and both 18's. That will still have the traditional bridges and MUTCD satisfied with their methods.
I also hope they finally give Southbound NJT Eastern Spur control cities for Exit 15E. Even though the approach into Exit 15E is elevated, there was no excuse to leave out the destinations and guide signs over the years. Heck, the Pulaski Skyway could easily have supported a much larger guide that would fit US 1 & 9 Truck along with Newark- Jersey City as it has that Exit 15E with the curved arrow now. Then just past the diverge for Exit 15W, could have been a 2 mile guide for US 1& 9 Truck Newark- Jersey City as well. This spot is still on solid ground.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 01, 2013, 05:24:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on March 31, 2013, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: Steve D on March 31, 2013, 10:04:29 AM
New Jersey is still stuck on those bridges. Even NYC has moved away from that - signs that used to use the GWB and Triborough Bridge now use Trenton and Queens...
There isn't really anything wrong with using the bridge as the destination, it allows you to know as an outsider where each road goes, 676 and 76 could both be signed as Philadelphia, just one would Be Camden Philladelphia and the other Glouschester City Philadelphia
I imagine the number of "outsiders" who know the names of bridges in a given region would be pretty small.
Yes, but when the road (I-295) is the local road you can expect stuff like this.
Also most through traffic on the NJTP is heading to NY via the GWB or Lincoln Tunnel
If it's for local traffic, then why did you mention it being useful to outsiders?
I don't think it's a good idea to sign Interstates with only local drivers in mind.
Quote from: kkt on April 01, 2013, 06:42:38 PM
In most cases, they'll know the bridge name a lot better than the route number.
How do you figure? Route numbers are on all sorts of maps, whereas bridge names are only on a few. I couldn't have told you where the Del Mem Br is, and I doubt anyone I know could have either. But if I had flown into New York or Philadelphia and found myself driving 295 toward Baltimore, you can bet I'd find
Delaware,
Baltimore, or
Washington on the sign to be lot more useful.
Or how one of the signs after the D.M.B. reads NEWARK/BALTIMORE while heading south. Of course they mean Newark, DE near the Maryland border. If the University wasn't in that city, I'm sure the sign would've just said BALTIMORE instead (they pronounce it new-ARK, while I only say NEW-irk like New Jersey does).
P.S. The bridge connects Pennsville, NJ and New Castle, DE. :)
Quote from: NE2 on April 01, 2013, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 01, 2013, 04:56:37 PM
I imagine the number of "outsiders" who know the names of bridges in a given region would be pretty small.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interstate-guide.com%2Fimages080%2Fi-080_wt_28a.jpg&hash=9cbebe860767bc5f0b0aa76ff23601d715fe056e)
To those who think place names are more helpful than bridge names: I don't have the slightest clue what is on the other side of those bridges. I know San Francisco, the bridges, and that's it.
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:06:28 PM
To those who think place names are more helpful than bridge names: I don't have the slightest clue what is on the other side of those bridges. I know San Francisco, the bridges, and that's it.
I'm not sure if you are arguing in favor of, or opposed to, the bridges being replaced with, say "Santa Rosa" and "Oakland".
Oakland is pretty important. Santa Rosa really isn't. a lot of traffic taking the Bay Bridge is going to Oakland. Traffic taking the Golden Gate could be going anywhere - Santa Rosa, Napa, Sausalito, Eureka, or even avoiding the East Bay and getting to places on I-5 or I-80 via 37. (I do not recommend this. 37 is a "stupor two" - two lane with no passing, enforced by cones.)
On a slightly related topic I've noticed the NJ Turnpike web site still lists
"There's No food available on the New Jersey Turnpike northbound at Grover Cleveland Service Area in Woodbridge Twp until further notice".
This started with superstorm Sandy - what happened? Was the building damaged or flooded? Seems so unusual so far away from the shore, and very unusual for the Turnpike to not offer food at all, especially for such a long time.
Quote from: vdeane on April 02, 2013, 05:06:28 PM
To those who think place names are more helpful than bridge names: I don't have the slightest clue what is on the other side of those bridges. I know San Francisco, the bridges, and that's it.
Holland Tunnel - Manhattan
Lincoln Tunnel - Manhattan
Geo Washington Br - Manhattan
Goethals Br - Staten Island
Outerbridge Cr - Staten Island
This is why they're signed as bridges, because multiple bridges lead to the same city. As per the MUTCD, when you are in an urban area and are signing roads by name, you don't sign destination information, only the name. That's exactly what's going on here.
Quote from: Steve D on April 08, 2013, 08:29:20 AM
On a slightly related topic I've noticed the NJ Turnpike web site still lists
"There's No food available on the New Jersey Turnpike northbound at Grover Cleveland Service Area in Woodbridge Twp until further notice".
This started with superstorm Sandy - what happened? Was the building damaged or flooded? Seems so unusual so far away from the shore, and very unusual for the Turnpike to not offer food at all, especially for such a long time.
Sandy did do damage around Northern New Jersey. There was overturned rail cars on the Turnpike itself north of that Service Facility from the parallel railroad that is next to the NJT, so it could have damaged the building easily.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
There was overturned rail cars on the Turnpike itself north of that Service Facility from the parallel railroad that is next to the NJT, so it could have damaged the building easily.
...except that railroad runs nowhere near the service plaza. Unless some railcar did damage the plaza, in which case I wonder how my aunt, uncle, and two cousins survived since they live in nearby Sewaren.
Or perhaps the service plaza is closed in preperation for a remodeling, sometimes a storm gives you an oppertunity to put off a delayed project?
I found info on the web (I could search again, find the source and cite it, if anyone really cares,) that states the service plaza was flooded by Sandy, and repairs are "underway," and the reopening is "imminent."
Quote from: Mr. Matté on April 09, 2013, 06:19:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 09, 2013, 11:57:02 AM
There was overturned rail cars on the Turnpike itself north of that Service Facility from the parallel railroad that is next to the NJT, so it could have damaged the building easily.
...except that railroad runs nowhere near the service plaza. Unless some railcar did damage the plaza, in which case I wonder how my aunt, uncle, and two cousins survived since they live in nearby Sewaren.
I was making the point that the AREA was also effected by Sandy. The pronoun "it" referred to the noun "Sandy" in the line you edited out.
Per lane diagram signing is appearing on the GSP (Exit 142 B-C northbound shown), so that big signing contract is well underway. No rounded corners on this one either.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fgsp142n_zps8955024d.jpg%3Aoriginal&hash=c58c9c3997c919fe99f80742de03cc0e5d6ca679)
The friend who took this picture thought it was confusing. Definitely not one of the popular additions to the 2009 MUTCD. Button copy fans better get out there quick, whatever is left of NJDOT era signing is likely going to vanish quickly.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2013, 03:37:11 PM
The friend who took this picture thought it was confusing. Definitely not one of the popular additions to the 2009 MUTCD. Button copy fans better get out there quick, whatever is left of NJDOT era signing is likely going to vanish quickly.
How could this possibly be confusing? Does someone think the northbound GSP suddenly vanishes at I-78? The sign says the right lane exits to I-78 westbound and the penultimate right lane is shared to both movements. I'm not saying that the sign concept isn't unpopular, but to say that the sign is confusing with a confirming downstream EXIT ONLY is surprising. I think the sign does a good job for the site conditions.
Looking at Google Earth, a span structure that would touchdown in the median to accommodate the GSP northbound thru arrows is probably not worth the cost. I think they thought the thru movement was intuitive. A span across both roadways looks out of the question. The fact that they mounted it to the bridge means that a cantilever to accommodate the thru movement was also out of the question so there must be something wrong with the median there.
I like it. They had nothing there for 2 years I think. Something is better than nothing for an interstate-to-interstate connection.
If you're not familiar with arrow-per-lane signs, I can see where this one is confusing. Because there are no arrows for the through lanes, if you don't know the arrows correspond to the lanes already, one might assume that the split arrow was meant not for the lane but for Maplewood Hillside.
The sign is not Manual compliant for a couple of reasons. First, arrows for the thru lanes are required, even if it means a very wide sign. That's part of the concept. Second, being as Exit-142C is a "lane-drop" this advance sign is required to show that info as per the 2009 MUTCD and previous editions as well.
I'm not sure if this section of the GSP is NJTA or NJDOT signed. I have observed for many years that NJDOT has a history of not properly signing lane-drops. A glaring example is I-280 eastbound at the exit for C.R. 508, in Kearny, just before the Turnpike interchange. You don't know that's a lane-drop 'til you find yourself taking the exit without intending to. What cloud is NJDOT on?
Quote from: SignBridge on April 10, 2013, 05:52:03 PM
The sign is not Manual compliant for a couple of reasons. First, arrows for the thru lanes are required, even if it means a very wide sign. That's part of the concept. Second, being as Exit-142C is a "lane-drop" this advance sign is required to show that info as per the 2009 MUTCD and previous editions as well.
I'm not sure if this section of the GSP is NJTA or NJDOT signed. I have observed for many years that NJDOT has a history of not properly signing lane-drops. A glaring example is I-280 eastbound at the exit for C.R. 508, in Kearny, just before the Turnpike interchange. You don't know that's a lane-drop 'til you find yourself taking the exit without intending to. What cloud is NJDOT on?
I am glad you brought up the fact that NJDOT is poor on lane drops. For years in Elizabeth where the SB right lane exited onto Elizabeth Avenue before the Elizabeth River Viaduct was rebuilt there was no warnings that the lane drop, but a flashing yellow gore light at the point of diversion.
In addition, at I-78 Westbound at I-287 the right lane dropped as well onto I-287 without warning, although overhead there was a "KEEP LEFT" on the I-78 pull through, but still not your standard warning. When I was there last Summer, I noticed they did restripe the lanes at Exit 29, but no lane control or supplementary signs were posted that I could have saw then.
Then in Somerville, the left exit off US 22 Eastbound for I-287 has the left lane drop with no typical lane drop signing either.
NJDOT believes that most motorists are locals and therefore cater to what they believe hence the new mileage signs with bedroom community townships over the control cities of the large cities the roads service, hence Ewing on I-295 Northbound instead of Trenton or Bedminster on I-78 when it has no signed exit for it along the route. Plus some of the protected left turns without arrows at some signalized intersections that would confuse a tourist real easy.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 06:39:20 PM
NJDOT believes that most motorists are locals
Most motorists are locals.
The entire Parkway is signed by NJTA . . . long ago, the DOT section ended around mile 138, I think.
What I find interesting is the bridge-mount. The Authority frowns on those now, but there must not have been any other way to put it up.
The sign itself does not appear to be strictly compliant, but it is appropriate for the condition and probably the most effective (from many perspectives) way to provide the guidance. This condition does not necessarily fit the diagrams in the Manual. (I find that the diagrams tend to be much simpler than the field condition, so engineering judgment factors heavily for these situations.)
By the way, is it possible this was designed and installed as part of the Missing Ramps contract, rather than the "big signing contract"?
To SignBridge's comment above, the I-280 situation actually also has a choice lane, which makes it even worse. I see that every time I ride the train to New York on business.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 10, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 06:39:20 PM
NJDOT believes that most motorists are locals
Most motorists are locals.
It's the motorists from out of town who need the signs.
Quote from: akotchi on April 10, 2013, 06:47:22 PM
By the way, is it possible this was designed and installed as part of the Missing Ramps contract, rather than the "big signing contract"?
That sign is new. The Exit 142B sign put up when the ramp was built was mounted on a butterfly gantry in the gore of the I-78 east ramp seen here: http://goo.gl/maps/ni9QL
Well, NYC is a big place, so bridges are the best way to navigate. If someone really needs to have signs on the Garden State Parkway for NYC, then at its northern terminus for I-87 SB there is a "New York City" sign. I know it seems that no one would go that far out of the way, but if they cannot read a map they deserve to go the long way.
I used to work in a resort in Orlando, FL, and we used to have people who would tell me that coming from Miami to Orlando they would use I-95 north to I-4 west instead of the Turnpike or even exiting I-95 at Cocoa for FL 528. Plus what Jeff and Nicole tell me he encountered as a toll collector and other people I know who were leaving Orlando International Airport to go to Disney and end up in Port Caneveral almost 50 miles away. Then back when the FL Turnpike was a closed system through Orlando, I would hear people say that accidentally would exit I-4 onto the FL Turnpike and make a u turn after the toll (illegally of course) and then pay the highest toll on the system for making that turn.
People are strange, to say the least.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 06:39:20 PMI am glad you brought up the fact that NJDOT is poor on lane drops. For years in Elizabeth where the SB right lane exited onto Elizabeth Avenue before the Elizabeth River Viaduct was rebuilt there was no warnings that the lane drop, but a flashing yellow gore light at the point of diversion.
Sigh... US 1/9 south, you mean.
Quote
In addition, at I-78 Westbound at I-287 the right lane dropped as well onto I-287 without warning, although overhead there was a "KEEP LEFT" on the I-78 pull through, but still not your standard warning. When I was there last Summer, I noticed they did restripe the lanes at Exit 29, but no lane control or supplementary signs were posted that I could have saw then.
Seasonal names are not capitalized, oh, and by the way, all of the I-78 and I-287 approaches do now have EXIT ONLY signs on the bottom, retrofit about 5-6 years ago.
South Jersey is a bit better signing lane drops. The only sign that really irritates me is at Exit 13 on I-295 South, where 130 splits off to the right. Even though there's 4 lanes, the graphical lane sign only shows 3. And while the right-center lane splits for both roadways, the sign indicates the center lane is the one splitting, which leads to a lot of quick last second lane switching.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2013, 12:37:26 AM
South Jersey is a bit better signing lane drops. The only sign that really irritates me is at Exit 13 on I-295 South, where 130 splits off to the right. Even though there's 4 lanes, the graphical lane sign only shows 3. And while the right-center lane splits for both roadways, the sign indicates the center lane is the one splitting, which leads to a lot of quick last second lane switching.
Exactly. My friends and i always thought that Figure 2E-5 in the MUTCD was the FHWA's subliminal message to tell NJDOT to fix it.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 08:14:10 PM
Well, NYC is a big place, so bridges are the best way to navigate. If someone really needs to have signs on the Garden State Parkway for NYC, then at its northern terminus for I-87 SB there is a "New York City" sign. I know it seems that no one would go that far out of the way, but if they cannot read a map they deserve to go the long way.
The reason NYC is signed there is because it's the only control city on I-87 south on the Thruway. Neither NYSDOT or NYSTA will acknowledge the I-87/287 multiplex unless forced (the signage for it is to appease the FHWA only), so you won't see I-287's eastbound control cities appearing west of the Tappan Zee any time soon.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2013, 03:37:11 PM
Per lane diagram signing is appearing on the GSP (Exit 142 B-C northbound shown), so that big signing contract is well underway. No rounded corners on this one either.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fgsp142n_zps8955024d.jpg%3Aoriginal&hash=c58c9c3997c919fe99f80742de03cc0e5d6ca679)
The friend who took this picture thought it was confusing. Definitely not one of the popular additions to the 2009 MUTCD. Button copy fans better get out there quick, whatever is left of NJDOT era signing is likely going to vanish quickly.
This type of sign is supposed to replace this type of signing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/8545450160/in/photostream
US 41 & 301 Southbound in Bradenton, FL.
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2013, 10:31:15 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 08:14:10 PM
Well, NYC is a big place, so bridges are the best way to navigate. If someone really needs to have signs on the Garden State Parkway for NYC, then at its northern terminus for I-87 SB there is a "New York City" sign. I know it seems that no one would go that far out of the way, but if they cannot read a map they deserve to go the long way.
The reason NYC is signed there is because it's the only control city on I-87 south on the Thruway. Neither NYSDOT or NYSTA will acknowledge the I-87/287 multiplex unless forced (the signage for it is to appease the FHWA only), so you won't see I-287's eastbound control cities appearing west of the Tappan Zee any time soon.
Actually the Palisades Interstate Parkway does use White Plains as the control for Southbound I-87 & Eastbound I-287 a point along I-287.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nanuet,+NY&hl=en&ll=41.095669,-73.990967&spn=0.004115,0.010568&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=nanu&t=h&hnear=Nanuet,+Rockland,+New+York&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.095852,-73.990987&panoid=Rz_moNxx6yI2O-Rg9P8R7w&cbp=12,1.09,,0,0
Hmmm...........that sign on the Palisades Pkwy. should also show that I-87 goes south, instead of showing east for both 87/287.
Re: the earlier post alluding to fig. 2E-5 in the MUTCD, I can't believe the Manual would show some town nobody ever heard of (Deepwater, NJ) as a control city on an Interstate. I would use Wilmington, De. at that 295/130 split. BTW, that picture only shows 3 lanes, not 4.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
Hmmm...........that sign on the Palisades Pkwy. should also show that I-87 goes south, instead of showing east for both 87/287.
Re: the earlier post alluding to fig. 2E-5 in the MUTCD, I can't believe the Manual would show some town nobody ever heard of (Deepwater, NJ) as a control city on an Interstate. I would use Wilmington, De. at that 295/130 split. BTW, that picture only shows 3 lanes, not 4.
Or better yet, why is Ewing used for I-295 Northbound instead of Trenton? Look at the mileage signs. First of all I-295 does not even go there as well as Trenton is NB I-295 control city anyhow.
Agreed, NJDOT does seem to orient the signs more to local communities, than bigger towns and cities. This is contrary to national FHWA policy. MUTCD Section 2E.02.01 (Support) states that the sign system is primarily for the benefit of drivers not familiar with the route or area. Hence the use of well known control cities. NJDOT appears to defeat that purpose. Between this issue and the lane-drop problem, you wonder what cloud NJDOT's engineers are on.
P.S. Penna. is no better. They sign U.S.1 in the Langhorne vicinity as Morrisville instead of Trenton, NJ. It's like these state DOT's don't see past the state line.
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
Hmmm...........that sign on the Palisades Pkwy. should also show that I-87 goes south, instead of showing east for both 87/287.
Re: the earlier post alluding to fig. 2E-5 in the MUTCD, I can't believe the Manual would show some town nobody ever heard of (Deepwater, NJ) as a control city on an Interstate. I would use Wilmington, De. at that 295/130 split. BTW, that picture only shows 3 lanes, not 4.
The old Exit 13 sign at that location per-reconstruction had the proper lane layout, plus it didn't have the bubble US shields it has now.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey200/i-295_sb_exit_013_01.jpg)
I seem to recall seeing I-295 South with Deepwater as a control city at one time.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2013, 04:21:23 PM
Or better yet, why is Ewing used for I-295 Northbound instead of Trenton? Look at the mileage signs. First of all I-295 does not even go there as well as Trenton is NB I-295 control city anyhow.
Northbound BGSes all say Trenton. Mileage signs are a tad weird in NJ. They usually show the true terminus of the highway as the most distant point. For example, while NJ-23 south is often signed as "Newark", the mileage signs will show its true end in Verona. I-295 was truncated back to US-1, so Ewing is likely from the days I-95 vanished between Exits 4 and 5.
Roadfan, the routes and destinations on the sign in your photo are much more effective than those shown in the Manual.
As we've seen on this board real-world signing problems are often more complex than the examples in the MUTCD. So yes, sometimes engineering judgement and innovative design might be more effective than following the technical rule.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2013, 03:12:47 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2013, 10:31:15 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 08:14:10 PM
Well, NYC is a big place, so bridges are the best way to navigate. If someone really needs to have signs on the Garden State Parkway for NYC, then at its northern terminus for I-87 SB there is a "New York City" sign. I know it seems that no one would go that far out of the way, but if they cannot read a map they deserve to go the long way.
The reason NYC is signed there is because it's the only control city on I-87 south on the Thruway. Neither NYSDOT or NYSTA will acknowledge the I-87/287 multiplex unless forced (the signage for it is to appease the FHWA only), so you won't see I-287's eastbound control cities appearing west of the Tappan Zee any time soon.
Actually the Palisades Interstate Parkway does use White Plains as the control for Southbound I-87 & Eastbound I-287 a point along I-287.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Nanuet,+NY&hl=en&ll=41.095669,-73.990967&spn=0.004115,0.010568&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=9.892242,21.643066&oq=nanu&t=h&hnear=Nanuet,+Rockland,+New+York&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.095852,-73.990987&panoid=Rz_moNxx6yI2O-Rg9P8R7w&cbp=12,1.09,,0,0
Looks like NYSDOT is friendlier to I-287 than NYSTA (which controls the NY portion of the Garden State Parkway).
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
Hmmm...........that sign on the Palisades Pkwy. should also show that I-87 goes south, instead of showing east for both 87/287.
Re: the earlier post alluding to fig. 2E-5 in the MUTCD, I can't believe the Manual would show some town nobody ever heard of (Deepwater, NJ) as a control city on an Interstate. I would use Wilmington, De. at that 295/130 split. BTW, that picture only shows 3 lanes, not 4.
I've noticed that region 8 doesn't seem to like signing multiple directions in a multiplex. I-587 is even north-south officially since NY 28 is officially north-south (even though it's signed east-west at either end).
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2013, 04:31:32 PM
P.S. Penna. is no better. They sign U.S.1 in the Langhorne vicinity as Morrisville instead of Trenton, NJ. It's like these state DOT's don't see past the state line.
Isn't it signed as Trenton north (east) of 95? 95's control city from Philly north is Trenton, and I think it shifts to US 1, but I know for sure that signs south of 95 say Morrisville, which is weird.
EDIT: Nope, the Trenton control city just disappears at US 1 and turns into Princeton, with Morrisville remaining US 1's NB control city... :eyebrow:
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 10, 2013, 03:37:11 PM
Per lane diagram signing is appearing on the GSP (Exit 142 B-C northbound shown), so that big signing contract is well underway. No rounded corners on this one either.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2Fgsp142n_zps8955024d.jpg%3Aoriginal&hash=c58c9c3997c919fe99f80742de03cc0e5d6ca679)
The friend who took this picture thought it was confusing. Definitely not one of the popular additions to the 2009 MUTCD. Button copy fans better get out there quick, whatever is left of NJDOT era signing is likely going to vanish quickly.
It looks like the type of signage you see in Ontario.
Thanks Roadsguy. I see that you're somewhat youthful, compared to some of us on this board. Welcome to inconsistent real-life where things often aren't like the textbook. LOL
Someone mentioned that the recent 80 to 63 widening included mileage signs on the southbound GSP in Beachwood for Long Beach Island and Atlantic City. I was wondering if we are going to see more mileage signs and finally control cities on the Parkway and side roads instead of the "G.S. Parkway" like on I-78 for its signs?
I also know that the NJ Turnpike is using control cities south of Exit 5 on pull through instead of the "THRU TRAFFIC NEXT EXIT XX MILES" that have been the norm for over 40 years. Are they going to put them back on the ramps that exchanged them for "TURNPIKE NORTH" and "TURNPIKE SOUTH" like at Exits 8A and 11?
Also about Ewing for mileage control on I-295, all those signs were erected in the 90's long after I-295 truncated to Lawrence. I believe at the time NJDOT expected that FHWA would grant the request to extend I-295 into PA when the I-95 and PA Turnpike interchange is to be completed. In fact north of Bordentown there is a mileage sign for both Ewing and Yardley, so it would appear that the assumption that the endpoint of the roads (like with NJ 23) is to be the farthest control point on newer NJDOT signs.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 11, 2013, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2013, 04:07:20 PM
Hmmm...........that sign on the Palisades Pkwy. should also show that I-87 goes south, instead of showing east for both 87/287.
Re: the earlier post alluding to fig. 2E-5 in the MUTCD, I can't believe the Manual would show some town nobody ever heard of (Deepwater, NJ) as a control city on an Interstate. I would use Wilmington, De. at that 295/130 split. BTW, that picture only shows 3 lanes, not 4.
The old Exit 13 sign at that location per-reconstruction had the proper lane layout, plus it didn't have the bubble US shields it has now.
(https://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey200/i-295_sb_exit_013_01.jpg)
I seem to recall seeing I-295 South with Deepwater as a control city at one time.
Yep, that was the old - and correct - sign. Not even sure why they needed to replace it in the first place.
There has to be someone responsible for this that we can beat the shit out of confront bribe talk to. How many signage engineers does the turnpike authority have and do we know them?
Quote from: kkt on April 10, 2013, 07:05:37 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on April 10, 2013, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 06:39:20 PM
NJDOT believes that most motorists are locals
Most motorists are locals.
It's the motorists from out of town who need the signs.
Exactly!
Quote from: roadman65 on April 10, 2013, 08:14:10 PM
If someone really needs to have signs on the Garden State Parkway for NYC, then at its northern terminus for I-87 SB there is a "New York City" sign. I know it seems that no one would go that far out of the way, but if they cannot read a map they deserve to go the long way.
I'm pretty sure that destination legend is intended for people who
haven't already plotted their route out by number on the map. If we all did that, then nobody would ever need destination legend, just route numbers.
Let me get this straight...........the diagrammatic sign pictured above is the old sign? Well..........what destinations are on the new sign? Is it the one in the MUTCD showing Deepwater and Bridgeport, but no bridges ?
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2013, 08:18:38 PM
Let me get this straight...........the diagrammatic sign pictured above is the old sign? Well..........what destinations are on the new sign? Is it the one in the MUTCD showing Deepwater and Bridgeport, but no bridges ?
The new signs have a diagram with the wrong lane layout on them and some ugly looking US shields.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 13, 2013, 12:51:36 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 12, 2013, 08:18:38 PM
Let me get this straight...........the diagrammatic sign pictured above is the old sign? Well..........what destinations are on the new sign? Is it the one in the MUTCD showing Deepwater and Bridgeport, but no bridges ?
The new signs have a diagram with the wrong lane layout on them and some ugly looking US shields.
The new signs have the same destinations. And the shields are fine as well...not sure what is ugly about them. The only difference is the diagram.
So the only problem with the new sign is the incorrect number of lanes in the diagram? Has anyone pointed this out to NJDOT?
The "new" sign has been in place for a number of years. I forget exactly when, but we're talking at least 2 or 3.
That's no reason you can't ask them to change it if it's wrong.
There's no reason you can't go up in your flying car and paint on a new lane yourself. This is the future, or at least it was back when I wrote that.
Quote from: _Simon on April 15, 2013, 05:01:21 AM
That's no reason you can't ask them to change it if it's wrong.
The point being that it's not like the signs were installed last week. The error is well known, and NJDOT does not seem intent on changing it. I/everyone can ask them all I want (in fact, I may have at one point, but it's been quite a while), but I can't force them to do it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 15, 2013, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: _Simon on April 15, 2013, 05:01:21 AM
That's no reason you can't ask them to change it if it's wrong.
The point being that it's not like the signs were installed last week. The error is well known, and NJDOT does not seem intent on changing it. I/everyone can ask them all I want (in fact, I may have at one point, but it's been quite a while), but I can't force them to do it.
You might want to call the sign error to the attention of the local FHWA office. That's likely to get the attention of NJDOT.
Quote from: roadman on April 16, 2013, 03:02:52 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 15, 2013, 09:17:38 AM
Quote from: _Simon on April 15, 2013, 05:01:21 AM
That's no reason you can't ask them to change it if it's wrong.
The point being that it's not like the signs were installed last week. The error is well known, and NJDOT does not seem intent on changing it. I/everyone can ask them all I want (in fact, I may have at one point, but it's been quite a while), but I can't force them to do it.
You might want to call the sign error to the attention of the local FHWA office. That's likely to get the attention of NJDOT.
Don't be a narc. As a resident of this state, we need all the Federal money we can get just to try to keep up with bridge replacements. I don't want anyone jeopardizing our funding sources.
Anyone notice that on this road, there are no merge signs near exit ramps? Well according to an engineer at the Authority, they will be installing these warning signs on all ramps, that merge onto the turnpike, including at rest areas, on the mainline, sometime this spring. Its extensions should have these installed as well, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension, the Newark Bay Extension and the Western Spur. I am surprised that for such a heavy populated road, these signs would be present. They are found on the Garden State Parkway, which is owned by the authority, as well as all other highways. Also, they need to install "yield" signs too at these on ramps, to meet current standards.
Quote from: J Route Z on April 17, 2013, 04:43:17 PMAlso, they need to install "yield" signs too at these on ramps, to meet current standards.
Only on a very few ramps with inadequate merge lengths.
In NJ, merging is implied. :D
Quote from: djsinco on April 17, 2013, 10:30:55 PM
In NJ, merging is implied. :D
But not going the correct way when you merge -- next time you drive, take notice of either the "NO TURNS" sign in the entrance gore or the "ONE WAY" sign opposite the entrance -- of every exit on state freeways.
Quote from: J Route Z on April 17, 2013, 04:43:17 PM
Anyone notice that on this road, there are no merge signs near exit ramps? Well according to an engineer at the Authority, they will be installing these warning signs on all ramps, that merge onto the turnpike, including at rest areas, on the mainline, sometime this spring. Its extensions should have these installed as well, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike Extension, the Newark Bay Extension and the Western Spur. I am surprised that for such a heavy populated road, these signs would be present. They are found on the Garden State Parkway, which is owned by the authority, as well as all other highways. Also, they need to install "yield" signs too at these on ramps, to meet current standards.
I'm confused. Again.
I'm quite sure I recall the standard merge signs at all (or mostly all) highway ENTRANCES. They wouldn't be at exits. And the signs wouldn't be on the ramps.
I was going to ask the same thing, but just decided it must have been a typo.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 30, 2013, 03:36:19 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi820.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz122%2Fnjroadfan%2FP3300009_zpse741b8f7.jpg&hash=9691da35d8cba88539c1ffaeedebb5e0b094daef)
There is one ground mounted Clearview sign for the soccer arena in Harrison on I-280. I'm surprised that fancy new Turnpike sign is ground mounted. I thought they were going to all overhead mounted signs. The one pictured is the only one I saw.
LOL...I passed this sign today and it is now badly damaged (their only one! - did not get a picture). Apparently there is a construction site adjacent to the sign and it looks like either a vehicle or equipment damaged the sign.
It was my first trip up there in a while and surprisingly most of the signs north of exit 9 (overhead and ground mounted) looked brand new (old-style) so I'm surprised of the timing of the proposed replacement effort.
I was thinking the other day. Will the "free" section of I-95 between US-46 and US-9W receive new reassurance markers? Unlike the Turnpike proper, there aren't giant signs on the on-ramps. I also noticed that NJDOT sneaked in some of their municipal boundary signs on that stretch of roadway. I don't know why the NJTPA insists on not clearly marking I-95, you'd think they would be proud of it or something. I guess state name shields will continue to be rare to non-existent. A shame because NJDOT seems to be bringing them back.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 30, 2013, 08:13:07 PM
I-95
I think it's bullshit that the turnpike authority is allowing a 59-year-old tradition to end; I think everyone involved in this change will ultimately suffer in hell (if one existed), and I personally hope that their jobs are eliminated by Chris Christie in his next government downsizing; and I think the only acceptable way out of this would be for the authority to
open a museum with the old signage. forget the idea ever happened in the first place.
Where were you when they got rid of the exit number bubbles?
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2013, 10:09:55 PM
Where were you when they got rid of the exit number bubbles?
Unborn -- and I'm still trying to track down photos of them. Let's stop this nonsense before our children grow up having never known about the squiggly arrows that were a major part of my childhood.
Edit: - Was just reading the turnpike's wikipedia article and I couldn't get past this sentence.
QuoteConstruction of the mainline from conceptualization to completion took 23 months
If i had to be stranded in time, I would choose this point in time. The next 30 years of driving would be chronologically more and more amazing...
Quote from: _Simon on July 30, 2013, 10:13:55 PM
I'm still trying to track down photos of them.
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/2.html
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3n.html
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3s.html
And a Houston variant: http://www.texasfreeway.com/Houston/historic/photos/images/i45_safety_barrier_july_1956.jpg
Quote from: _Simon on July 30, 2013, 09:41:00 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 30, 2013, 08:13:07 PM
I-95
I think it's bullshit that the turnpike authority is allowing a 59-year-old tradition to end; I think everyone involved in this change will ultimately suffer in hell (if one existed), and I personally hope that their jobs are eliminated by Chris Christie in his next government downsizing; and I think the only acceptable way out of this would be for the authority to open a museum with the old signage. forget the idea ever happened in the first place.
I'm pretty sure Christie had nothing to do with that decision, nor did the Turnpike Authority especially wanted to do it either.
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2013, 11:13:42 PMQuote from: _Simon on July 30, 2013, 10:13:55 PMI'm still trying to track down photos of them.
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/2.html
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3n.html
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/3s.html
They're also easy enough to find in NJTA annual reports, which should be in any reasonably well-stocked university library.
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PMHow about the original exit signs with the rounded humps?
Conveyed the necessary information and were unique - better.
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PMHow about non-reflective button copy
Lousy
now, but better when new/not as aged. When I was a kid, there were still plenty of non-reflective button copy signs around in PA, which my family and I frequented, and plenty that were still in pretty decent shape, going back far enough. I was always able to read the decent ones farther out than I can read the new signage now. And according to my 8-month-old DOT physical, I have 20/13 vision, so declining vision is out. Enhancing contrast enhances readability, period. This is why modern reflective signs read better when under-lit by sodium bulbs. CONTRAST. Non-reflective button copy = contrast by the truckload. I will give you that reflective button copy is really horrible, even when new. (But I still like it better than reflective-only.)
Quote from: Steve on February 06, 2013, 10:29:55 PMand neon-tubed VMS?
With much grumbling, I might consider giving you that one.
Quote from: Crazy Volvo Guy on August 06, 2013, 12:18:08 PM
Lousy now, but better when new/not as aged. When I was a kid, there were still plenty of non-reflective button copy signs around in PA, which my family and I frequented, and plenty that were still in pretty decent shape, going back far enough. I was always able to read the decent ones farther out than I can read the new signage now. And according to my 8-month-old DOT physical, I have 20/13 vision, so declining vision is out. Enhancing contrast enhances readability, period. This is why modern reflective signs read better when under-lit by sodium bulbs. CONTRAST. Non-reflective button copy = contrast by the truckload. I will give you that reflective button copy is really horrible, even when new. (But I still like it better than reflective-only.)
reflective background button copy is absolutely terrible. Connecticut seems to have the worst problem with it fading into complete oblivion.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 06, 2013, 12:24:13 PMreflective background button copy is absolutely terrible. Connecticut seems to have the worst problem with it fading into complete oblivion.
Even when new. It gets worse in CT because evidently they used the exact same kind of plastic for the buttons as that which was used for 1986-1993 Volvo 240 headlights.
I'm reading the NJHA's picture book on the Parkway and I can't believe those retarded square exit tabs and squished county route shields date back to the 60s/70s.
Are you talking about the tabs that just had the number without the word Exit? Yeah I remember those on the advance signs, along with the arrow inside the circle at the upper-right hand corner of the gore signs
Quote from: SignBridge on August 08, 2013, 08:51:46 PM
Are you talking about the tabs that just had the number without the word Exit? Yeah I remember those on the advance signs, along with the arrow inside the circle at the upper-right hand corner of the gore signs
Yep.
I'm willing to wait and see how this gets implemented, but generally I'm hopeful that standard MUTCD will be easier for the motoring public.
I'd like to see:
Mileage signs with three cities on a regular basis. The last one should be New York City (GWB) northbound, and Del Mem Bridge southbound.
Pull through signage with control cities. I gripe about the control cities used. Every northbound BGS should have New York City and one other local city (Camden, Trenton, Newark). Southbound, it should be Philadelphia on every sign above exit 6 and Del Mem Bridge below exit 6. Trenton and Newark can also be used as secondary cities where appropriate. I don't like Wilmington as a control city, since Del Mem Bridge crosses south of Wilmington.
Highway numbers. I-95 shileds clearly displayed on BGS. A new 2 digit state highway number should be assigned to the portion south of exit 6.
Occasional next three exit signs, particularly in northern NJ.
Unique NJTP non-MUTCD items that I wish they keep in some fashion:
"Next Exit xx miles"
Reduced Speed warnings. I'll miss the red neon.
I'm still ambivalent about mileage based exit numbers. While I generally favor those, on NJTP the exits have become so ingrained in the culture that it would be a hard switch. However, I've been on the East Coast long enough to see Pennsylvania make the switch. They did a good job of retaining "old exit number signs" for two years and so the old numbers are now a faded memory.
Wait, is the Turnpike switching to mileage-based exit numbering along with the other deplorable changes? What a travesty it would be to paper over such a touchstone of New Jersey life and identity!
Quote from: motorway on August 09, 2013, 03:54:54 PM
Wait, is the Turnpike switching to mileage-based exit numbering along with the other deplorable changes? What a travesty it would be to paper over such a touchstone of New Jersey life and identity!
They are not switching at this time. They obviously will go along if the FHWA issues an ultimatum. Otherwise, there's no reason to switch. (Notice that NY still hasn't switched, and they've said they would.)
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2013, 02:48:41 PM
I'm willing to wait and see how this gets implemented, but generally I'm hopeful that standard MUTCD will be easier for the motoring public.
I'd like to see:
Mileage signs with three cities on a regular basis. The last one should be New York City (GWB) northbound, and Del Mem Bridge southbound.
Pull through signage with control cities. I gripe about the control cities used. Every northbound BGS should have New York City and one other local city (Camden, Trenton, Newark). Southbound, it should be Philadelphia on every sign above exit 6 and Del Mem Bridge below exit 6. Trenton and Newark can also be used as secondary cities where appropriate. I don't like Wilmington as a control city, since Del Mem Bridge crosses south of Wilmington.
Highway numbers. I-95 shileds clearly displayed on BGS. A new 2 digit state highway number should be assigned to the portion south of exit 6.
Occasional next three exit signs, particularly in northern NJ.
Unique NJTP non-MUTCD items that I wish they keep in some fashion:
"Next Exit xx miles"
Reduced Speed warnings. I'll miss the red neon.
I fully agree, though I don't see why it would hurt to jut sign NJ-700.
Quote from: _Simon on August 09, 2013, 09:42:27 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2013, 02:48:41 PM
I'm willing to wait and see how this gets implemented, but generally I'm hopeful that standard MUTCD will be easier for the motoring public.
I'd like to see:
Mileage signs with three cities on a regular basis. The last one should be New York City (GWB) northbound, and Del Mem Bridge southbound.
Pull through signage with control cities. I gripe about the control cities used. Every northbound BGS should have New York City and one other local city (Camden, Trenton, Newark). Southbound, it should be Philadelphia on every sign above exit 6 and Del Mem Bridge below exit 6. Trenton and Newark can also be used as secondary cities where appropriate. I don't like Wilmington as a control city, since Del Mem Bridge crosses south of Wilmington.
Highway numbers. I-95 shileds clearly displayed on BGS. A new 2 digit state highway number should be assigned to the portion south of exit 6.
Occasional next three exit signs, particularly in northern NJ.
Unique NJTP non-MUTCD items that I wish they keep in some fashion:
"Next Exit xx miles"
Reduced Speed warnings. I'll miss the red neon.
I fully agree, though I don't see why it would hurt to jut sign NJ-700.
Honestly, there's no need for a route number south of Exit 6. Everybody knows it as the New Jersey Turnpike, and that's all that's needed to identify it. Let NJ 700 remain a hidden designation. ;-)
Unless, of course, you want to do the "Express I-95" thing somebody proposed way back in the day (and I actually like that idea).
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but...
http://goo.gl/maps/mN1BJ
When did THAT happen?
Quote from: Zeffy on August 10, 2013, 03:39:56 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but...
http://goo.gl/maps/mN1BJ
When did THAT happen?
I do not know when this happened, but I do see that they left blank spaces in the signs for future I-95 shields in it. I actually like the "New York City" as pull through destination.
What interests me is why NJDOT started to use New York City instead of just plain ole New York like they have been for centuries. I know CT always used NY City, and parts of NYS used New York City to avoid confusion for drivers there, but are there actually many people in NJ that get confused now?
Also, yes it is a sad shame to see the THRU TRAFFIC NEXT EXIT X MILES go, but at the same time pull through signs with control points are better. Also, give Delaware a chance, let them feel important with having Wilmington as they often get ignored by MD especially on I-95 from Baltimore with "New York" on their guides.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 10, 2013, 03:39:56 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but...
http://goo.gl/maps/mN1BJ
When did THAT happen?
The 'South 95' and 'To' is greened out. Prior to the signs getting installed over the highway, they were sitting face up on the closed portion of the roadway and the full 'South 95 To West I-276' was clearly visible.
The problem is the arrow...
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 11, 2013, 09:44:33 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on August 10, 2013, 03:39:56 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but...
http://goo.gl/maps/mN1BJ
When did THAT happen?
The 'South 95' and 'To' is greened out. Prior to the signs getting installed over the highway, they were sitting face up on the closed portion of the roadway and the full 'South 95 To West I-276' was clearly visible.
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:48 PM
The problem is the arrow...
You mean to tell me that arrow is permanent!? It's as if someone tried to replicate the NJTP-style arrow using MUTCD-style arrow parts. Argh!
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2013, 02:48:41 PMHowever, I've been on the East Coast long enough to see Pennsylvania make the switch. They did a good job of retaining "old exit number signs" for two years and so the old numbers are now a faded memory.
Actually, many of the
OLD EXIT XX are still standing today and will likley remain until the BGS' get replaced.
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 11, 2013, 10:24:46 PMYou mean to tell me that arrow is permanent!? It's as if someone tried to replicate the NJTP-style arrow using MUTCD-style arrow parts. Argh!
As discussed in a parallel thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3521.msg238550#msg238550), this sign appears to use the W1-4 (reverse curve warning sign) arrow as a substitute for the NJTA Type D arrow. This seems to be a deliberate decision on the designer's part, since he has produced other plan sheets which use the Type B arrow (similar to Type D except it points off to the side) correctly, but I don't know if he expected the contractor to fabricate the sign using a true Type D arrow or if the W1-4 arrow was chosen to meet conditions specific to this site. It is labeled in the plans as a Type D arrow even though it is not.
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:48 PM
The problem is the arrow...
Another problem is no mention of 95 North if you continue on the Turnpike....
Quote from: Steve D on August 12, 2013, 08:47:00 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:48 PM
The problem is the arrow...
Another problem is no mention of 95 North if you continue on the Turnpike....
I'm pretty sure the reason "NJTP NORTH" is off-center is that the I-95 shield is going to be added later. Currently, the de facto I-95 enters the Turnpike at Exit 7A.
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 12, 2013, 09:12:14 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason "NJTP NORTH" is off-center is that the I-95 shield is going to be added later. Currently, the de-facto I-95 enters the Turnpike at Exit 7A.
The new pull through signs at Exit 8A northbound are the same. No I-95 shield, but there is space for it. Don't know why they didn't bother signing in there since it wouldn't be confusing at all. The 8A on-ramp BGSes have I-95 shields though.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 12, 2013, 11:31:22 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 12, 2013, 09:12:14 PM
I'm pretty sure the reason "NJTP NORTH" is off-center is that the I-95 shield is going to be added later. Currently, the de-facto I-95 enters the Turnpike at Exit 7A.
The new pull through signs at Exit 8A northbound are the same. No I-95 shield, but there is space for it. Don't know why they didn't bother signing in there since it wouldn't be confusing at all. The 8A on-ramp BGSes have I-95 shields though.
Further north at the Joyce Kilmer plaza, there is now a new BGS directing those back on the northbound Turnpike that includes both a I-95 and NJTP shield.
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 09, 2013, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: _Simon on August 09, 2013, 09:42:27 PM
I don't see why it would hurt to just sign NJ-700.
Honestly, there's no need for a route number south of Exit 6. Everybody knows it as the New Jersey Turnpike, and that's all that's needed to identify it. Let NJ 700 remain a hidden designation. ;-)
Unless, of course, you want to do the "Express I-95" thing somebody proposed way back in the day (and I actually like that idea).
If that stretch of Turnpike was actually assigned a
public route number; I would go with either 695, 895 or even 95E. With the latter choice (Fictional Territory here), I-295 south of the Turnpike and through Delaware could conceivably be re-designated as I-95E; given that suffixed-interstates are now being allowed again.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 13, 2013, 09:21:00 AM
Unless, of course, you want to do the "Express I-95" thing somebody proposed way back in the day (and I actually like that idea).
If that stretch of Turnpike was actually assigned a
public route number; I would go with either 695, 895 or even 95E. With the latter choice (Fictional Territory here), I-295 south of the Turnpike and through Delaware could conceivably be re-designated as I-95E; given that suffixed-interstates are now being allowed again.[/quote]
I like I-895 for the N.J. Turnpike mainline between 1 and 6.
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:48 PM
The problem is the arrow...
The arrow is temporary, reflecting construction conditions. Look more closely.
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2013, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:48 PM
The problem is the arrow...
The arrow is temporary, reflecting construction conditions. Look more closely.
Temporary or not, it's definitely part of the sign message. You can see the rivets through the arrow, looking nothing like the rest of the green out which is clearly a separate layer tacked down in the corners.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fexit-only.net%2Farrow.png&hash=b3d9ae29194f9c89e55b461b2da63cfd3f1cc353)
What's greened out on the bottom of the sign?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 16, 2013, 10:14:58 PM
What's greened out on the bottom of the sign?
Philadelphia, IIRC.
Quote from: Steve on August 13, 2013, 09:15:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 11, 2013, 10:02:48 PM
The problem is the arrow...
The arrow is temporary, reflecting construction conditions. Look more closely.
Maybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.
Quote from: Steve on August 16, 2013, 11:18:34 PMMaybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.
Believe it.
There are actually two versions of the Exit 6 exit direction sign with the W1-4 reverse-curve arrow substituted for the true Type D arrow. Both versions were designed by the same person, have identical legend and greenout instructions (and yes, commenters upthread are correct: the covered-up shield and cardinal direction word is "SOUTH [I-95]," while the covered-up line of primary destination legend is "Philadelphia"), and are the same width (22' 6"). But on the version shown in the construction plans for contract no. T869.120.101, the fake Type D arrow is 37.5" wide, while on the version included in the plans for contract no. T869.120.102, it is 51" wide and almost touches the "e" in
Turnpike.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 17, 2013, 12:28:46 AM
Quote from: Steve on August 16, 2013, 11:18:34 PMMaybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.
Believe it.
There are actually two versions of the Exit 6 exit direction sign with the W1-4 reverse-curve arrow substituted for the true Type D arrow. Both versions were designed by the same person, have identical legend and greenout instructions (and yes, commenters upthread are correct: the covered-up shield and cardinal direction word is "SOUTH [I-95]," while the covered-up line of primary destination legend is "Philadelphia"), and are the same width (22' 6"). But on the version shown in the construction plans for contract no. T869.120.101, the fake Type D arrow is 37.5" wide, while on the version included in the plans for contract no. T869.120.102, it is 51" wide and almost touches the "e" in Turnpike.
So why couldn't they just use the true Type-D arrow (http://goo.gl/maps/OpXkW) instead of the W1-4 arrow? I find it hard to believe that they don't have the specifications to build one instead of settling for the easy way out and using one that looks "like it".
Quote from: Steve on August 16, 2013, 11:18:34 PM
Maybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.
I don't wanna believe it either.
Quote from: Zeffy on August 17, 2013, 10:44:02 AM
So why couldn't they just use the true Type-D arrow (http://goo.gl/maps/OpXkW) instead of the W1-4 arrow? I find it hard to believe that they don't have the specifications to build one instead of settling for the easy way out and using one that looks "like it".
If they wanted an "easy way out," they should have just used an MUTCD-style advance (45-degree) turn directional arrow. It doesn't have the exact same meaning as the NJTA Type-D arrow, but it would serve the same purpose.
Why did they bother even putting Philadelphia on the sign? They'll be replacing these signs with MUTCD compliant ones before the I-95/Pennsy Pike interchange and the 2nd Delaware River Bridge are ever completed! Construction on them hasn't even started yet!
Quote from: SignBridge on August 17, 2013, 07:41:33 PM
Why did they bother even putting Philadelphia on the sign? They'll be replacing these signs with MUTCD compliant ones before the I-95/Pennsy Pike interchange and the 2nd Delaware River Bridge are ever completed! Construction on them hasn't even started yet!
I knew it! I bet even that our grandkids will not even see the completion of this project if the modern world and USA still exist then.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 17, 2013, 07:41:33 PM
Why did they bother even putting Philadelphia on the sign? They'll be replacing these signs with MUTCD compliant ones before the I-95/Pennsy Pike interchange and the 2nd Delaware River Bridge are ever completed! Construction on them hasn't even started yet!
The design of the signing began prior to issuance of the 2009 MUTCD and any inkling of system-wide conversion to its guidelines. I personally checked to see if the then-pending new Manual would be applied prior to directing the design.
For the record, I am the engineer of record for the prime consultant for the design plans that resulted in the controversial arrows on the Exit 6 Exit Direction signs. I have, however, remained silent amid the firestorm this has created. I cannot comment on any of the circumstances because the ultimate outcome of this issue has possibly not yet been resolved.
At least I have managed to provide something to talk about . . .
LOL, okay then! Thanks akotchi! I'm sure we appreciate whatever wisdom and input you're able to give us within the limits of professional responsibility to your firm's client, in this case the NJTA. Maybe some day in the future you can tell us the true stories behind some of these mysteries. I would really like to hear from someone on the inside how all these signing decisions are made. Just so I could find out about various factors I'm not aware of as a layman who reads the MUTCD as a hobby.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Secaucus,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.765421,-74.068666&spn=0.007305,0.017896&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=17.343453,36.650391&oq=seca&t=h&hnear=Secaucus,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.765132,-74.069216&panoid=0DyT18qFV9EdKIBg__kR5g&cbp=12,49.77,,0,0
Speaking of arrows, I am surprised that no one saw this beauty with one arrow a traditional downward type of NJT arrow for Exit 18E and typical lane control arrow for Exit 16E.
If NJTA would have the same arrow on the Exit 16E guide pointing at a 5 o clock setting it would relay to the motorists of the configuration of the toll plaza ahead more better. Also, to add on a NJ 495 and NJ 3 shields would not hurt either considering the the NJTA finally acknowledged the former interstate designation on the Secaucus Road overpass when they replaced the guide signs there about a mile north of this location.
Funny that you should bring that up Roadman. Interesting history lesson about those particular signs. The original signs there from the 1964 rebuilding of the Exit-16 complex were set-up as follows:
The left sign read: Exit-18, Geo. Washington Bridge, US 46 with the long arrow pointing down at the 7 o'clock position! The right sign read: Exit-16, Lincoln Tunnel, NJ 3 - Secaucus, with a similar long arrow pointing at 5 o'clock as you just suggested.
Some years later the left arrow was changed to the 6 o'clock position as on the current sign. I agree with you that 6 o'clock and 5 o'clock were the best configuration for this location.
I just looked at this stretch of the Turnpike on Google Earth. The next signs in the sequence have the arrows just as Roadman and I agree on. But what's troubling is if you check the whole sequence of signs leading up to the toll barrier, the name Secaucus and Routes 3 and 495 keep appearing and disappearing. Only the name Lincoln Tunnel is consistently shown on all Exit-16E signs.
This is a violation of MUTCD standards (Sec. 2E-30) which requires consistent destination messages through the entire sequence of signs for a given exit. And paragraph 2E-30-02 strongly recommends that no destination info be dropped and none added thru the major sign sequence. You would expect that NJTA would have enough sense to follow those standards and recommendations even within the format of their own sign system. Shame on NJTA!
Akotchi are you with us today? Any comment?
Quote from: SignBridge on August 18, 2013, 12:15:59 PM
I just looked at this stretch of the Turnpike on Google Earth. The next signs in the sequence have the arrows just as Roadman and I agree on. But what's troubling is if you check the whole sequence of signs leading up to the toll barrier, the name Secaucus and Routes 3 and 495 keep appearing and disappearing. Only the name Lincoln Tunnel is consistently shown on all Exit-16E signs.
This is a violation of MUTCD standards (Sec. 2E-30) which requires consistent destination messages through the entire sequence of signs for a given exit. And paragraph 2E-30-02 strongly recommends that no destination info be dropped and none added thru the major sign sequence. You would expect that NJTA would have enough sense to follow those standards and recommendations even within the format of their own sign system. Shame on NJTA!
Akotchi are you with us today? Any comment?
Maybe the NJTA just considers the Lincoln Tunnel the most important destination served by Exit 16E. Whether it is actually where most motorists using Exit 16E are heading could easily be proven or disproven with quantitative data.
If you want to lambaste the NJTA for violating that provision of the MUTCD, then why not be fair and direct some of your anger toward the Ohio Turnpike, which is probably a worse offender? This is actually a common violation, of which it's easy to find isolated examples. Frankly, I think that MUTCD rule is a bit silly, as DOTs and toll road authorities are usually good at establishing a hierarchy of information they want to provide in guide signs, and such a hierarchy is useful for determining which piece(s) of information should be included on every guide sign, and which pieces are supplemental.
One thing about New Jersey, especially on the Parkway and Turnpike the exit numbers dominate. The exit numbers are a destination in itself. Even on the new gantries on the GSP approaching the Raritan Toll Plaza where directional information for Exits 123 and 124, which require you to pass through the toll booths to access as the open road tolling lanes have no access (at least safely) to those two interchanges have only the Exit numbers with little other information except Route 9 and Sayreville.
Most people in NJ know the exit number and can actually survive on having them on the signs exclusively! Look at SB Eastern Spur Exit 15E with no control cities on the guides whatsoever. People who frequently exit there, do not care about Newark and Jersey City or Route 1-9 (the new way of saying it) but that it is Exit 15E.
Right again Roadman on a couple of points. The GS Parkway was probably the first major highway in the Northeast to show exit numbers on a separate number tag on top of the sign going back to the 1950's. NYS DOT didn't start doing that until about 1965.
Exit 15E southbound on the Eastern Leg is a signing disaster. Why NJTA doesn't better sign that exit is beyond me. It's not even normal for their system which usually has plenty of informational signs for all exits, even if their destination messages are not consistent.
And Strident, I've never been on the Ohio Turnpike so I can't comment on their practices. But I think the MUTCD standard exists for a good reason. Inconsistent sign messages will confuse drivers which can potentially cause accidents. I agree with the Manual that keeping the same route numbers and destinations on the whole sequence of signs for each exit gives maximum clarity and confirmation for the driver. Any additional destinations can be shown on a supplemental guide sign usually located after the first advance sign. (Sec. 2E-35)
Also I found the same rule in another section, 2E-33-07, which states: The legend on the advance guide signs shall be the same as the legend on the exit-direction sign, (except for the bottom line distance message)
You are right, about Exit 15E SB on the Eastern Spur signed real bad even for them! The Western Spur has Exit 15E signed normal, but, of course, no route shields. Then again is Exit 5 signed as CR 541?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Union,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.695298,-74.260411&spn=0.006003,0.015278&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=25.761936,62.578125&oq=unio&t=h&hnear=Union,+New+Jersey&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.695453,-74.260141&panoid=7JwudS5WNA3raJtlulPuow&cbp=12,90,,0,0
I am surprised that the Garden State Parkway was ever allowed to use wooden poles for street lighting as seen in the link. I know that back in the 50s when the GSP was constructed you did not have today's safety issues pending, so no one said anything about it or even thought it was a problem. My guess it was easier to install at the time as you did not have to dig underground for wiring as you can see in the GSV caption that the wiring is strung between the poles, but I would figure with all the widening projects the NJTA (formerly the NJHA for the GSP) has done over the years would at some point have put the more traditional breakaway poles in by now, especially where this caption is in Union, NJ.
Then how about this one at SB GSP Exit 140 where the exit guide is in the gore. Also no mention of NJ 82 either. In addition here the sign was manufactured long after the MUTCD upgraded freeway signing (notice the proper placement of today's exit tab requirement) as this replaced the old NJDOT signing of when this section was under state control which had all upper case lettering prior to the latest MUTCD issue.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Union,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.695412,-74.260561&spn=0.006003,0.015278&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=25.761936,62.578125&oq=unio&t=h&hnear=Union,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=40.695494,-74.260444&panoid=PHxME7Gybp91ayqLBqPmYg&cbp=12,315,,0,0&z=16
Another thing to note is why Morristown is signed here when previous Exit 142 for I-78 is better suited for Morristown via I-78 and NJ 24. Instead "Springfield" is used for I-78 westbound there that should be used here where Morristown is placed as control point. Clinton or Easton is used elsewhere on I-78 on WB entrance ramps to the interstate even in other places such as the NJ Turnpike at Exit 14 which is presently the same agency signing it all!
All these constantly changing destinations on the signs is enough to make your head spin. It seems like the powers that be change the destinations before they even finish resigning from the last change. So you end up with one road showing several destinations in the same area. I'm glad I live on Long Island. At least all westbound roads read the same: "New York". Eastbound is a whole different matter, but that's another discussion.
As a counterpoint to some of my earlier sentiments, I do see some benefit in converting the New Jersey Turnpike signage to the MUTCD style. I think the classic NJTA-style signage would have worked beautifully for the entire Turnpike if it was applied consistently, but anyone who has driven all or most of the Turnpike, and tends to observe such things, knows that it isn't. Things become especially inconsistent north of Exit 13A, from what I've observed. I also think the classic NJTA style is brilliant in its design of up arrows but doesn't know what to do with down arrows.
Part of my complaint about converting to the MUTCD style stems from one trend I've observed in the classic NJTA style: in one specific way, the latter provides a higher standard of signage than what the MUTCD requires. In addition to the advance guide signs, the classic NJTA style provides an advance exit direction sign (something that doesn't exist in the MUTCD), and then it provides an overhead exit gore sign, instead of the less-noticeable MUTCD-prescribed, post-mounted exit gore sign. It occurs to me, however, that the classic NJTA style's higher standard would essentially be met if the new Turnpike signage included half-mile advance guide signs (or 3/4-mile or 1/4-mile), and I believe Steve has mentioned that these signs will be installed.
So, if Steve has had a hand in building a better New Jersey Turnpike by making the signage more consistent and legible, then I wish to give credit where credit is due.
The only thing I really oppose here is the idea that the MUTCD is inherently better than any alternative style of signage and should therefore never be questioned.
At least Exit 13 is finally consistent! It used to be at 2 Miles the control city was Elizabeth. At one mile it was both the Goethals and Verazzano Bridges. Then at the start of the deceleration lane with the upward arrow it would be just Verrazano Bridge while the diverge point had Elizabeth. The only thing consistent was the I-278 shield!
Now I see that Elizabeth- Goethals Bridge- Verazzano Bridge are on all guide signs.
Exit 11 NB in the inner (Cars Only) roadway has the pull though sign at the Exit Number overhead sign instead of at the point of deceleration lane. That sign, though, has only a partial gantry like the typical exit number overhead does.
Strident, I'm not sure the FHWA ever stated or implied that the MUTCD sign system was necessarily better than any toll-road's system. I believe their position is simply that theirs is the national standard system and that all states and agencies must comply just so there is one standard on all roads nationwide to benefit all drivers.
Steve, I'm pleased to hear that NJT is finally displaying consistent destinations on its exit signs. As I stated earlier the MUTCD is very clear in its insistence that the entire sequence of signs for each exit must display the same destination message. This is an area where NJTA has been notably deficient over the years and needs to be corrected along the entire length of the road.
Unfortunately they're erring to another extreme now of putting too many destinations on these signs as in your example of Exit-13. NJDOT seems to have the same problem on I-295 as well. I'll have to check, but I believe that somewhere in the Manual there is a suggestion that only 2 destinations be shown for each exit, with any additional destinations shown on a supplemental sign after the first advance sign.
Quote from: SignBridge on August 21, 2013, 10:26:16 PM
Strident, I'm not sure the FHWA ever stated or implied that the MUTCD sign system was necessarily better than any toll-road's system. I believe their position is simply that theirs is the national standard system and that all states and agencies must comply just so there is one standard on all roads nationwide to benefit all drivers.
Steve, I'm pleased to hear that NJT is finally displaying consistent destinations on its exit signs. As I stated earlier the MUTCD is very clear in its insistence that the entire sequence of signs for each exit must display the same destination message. This is an area where NJTA has been notably deficient over the years and needs to be corrected along the entire length of the road.
Unfortunately they're erring to another extreme now of putting too many destinations on these signs as in your example of Exit-13. NJDOT seems to have the same problem on I-295 as well. I'll have to check, but I believe that somewhere in the Manual there is a suggestion that only 2 destinations be shown for each exit, with any additional destinations shown on a supplemental sign after the first advance sign.
Keep in mind that the MUTCD compliant signs are for future rollout. Signs that have already gone up, or even those as part of the 6-9 Widening, were designed before that time. The one example at Exit 13, I don't know where it came from, but it sure never came across my desk.
Thanks Steve; point taken. I seem to make the mistake of equating the new bright reflective green signs with MUTCD compliance but I guess that's not the case? The NJTA went with the reflective green only for now. Full Manual compliance will come later, correct?
Follow up........I found the Manual section that addresses the number of destinations per sign. Sec. 2E-10: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. Where two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to a total of three in the display. Sign legends should not exceed three lines of copy, exclusive of the exit number, and action or distance information.
It's worth noting that these are recommendations, not standards and even I have to admit that sometimes more info should be provided in complex signing situations, though I prefer compliance with the MUTCD in most cases.
Here are the new signs that have replaced some of the old ones.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.858825,-75.079204&spn=0.003055,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.858718,-75.079827&panoid=g8uAtHLi7uq0iGINpeY2nw&cbp=12,61.93,,0,0
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.863923,-75.050976&spn=0.003088,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.863988,-75.050609&panoid=Yt4f7w92kF-SvIzL7aG5Sg&cbp=12,308.12,,0,0
I have both the new NEXT EXIT XX MILES on the one mile guide now and the at exit guide. The overhead sign is northbound approaching Exit 3.
Notice that "Philadelphia" was changed to the "Atlantic City Expressway" which is better being most folks traveling this way come from I-95 in DE, which would have them stay on 95 if going to Philly anyway, so the sign was really not that much a guide.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 26, 2013, 09:38:28 AM
Here are the new signs that have replaced some of the old ones.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.858825,-75.079204&spn=0.003055,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.858718,-75.079827&panoid=g8uAtHLi7uq0iGINpeY2nw&cbp=12,61.93,,0,0
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.863923,-75.050976&spn=0.003088,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.863988,-75.050609&panoid=Yt4f7w92kF-SvIzL7aG5Sg&cbp=12,308.12,,0,0
I have both the new NEXT EXIT XX MILES on the one mile guide now and the at exit guide. The overhead sign is northbound approaching Exit 3.
Notice that "Philadelphia" was changed to the "Atlantic City Expressway" which is better being most folks traveling this way come from I-95 in DE, which would have them stay on 95 if going to Philly anyway, so the sign was really not that much a guide.
Additionally (for those coming South), Exit 6 will be signed 'Philadelphia' in the future. At Exit 4, Philadelphia was left off the BGS as well. There is a supplemental 'Philadelphia' banner below the main BGS...which may be removed when the PA Turnpike/95 project is completed (HA).
I just know that 9 times out of 10, many Peter Pan and Greyhound drivers will take Exit 4 for NJ Route 73 in Mount Laurel. Some schedules stop at the terminal nearby on Fellowship Road, but some don't (with the driver taking that exit anyways). Only once did I have a driver take Exit 3 for some odd reason (coming from New York City).
I am just glad that Woodbury was removed off of the SB Exit 3 guide as NJ 168 does not go there nor did it ever! I am surprised, though, that they removed the Walt Whitman Bridge guide signs considering that in North Jersey they use the Crossings as control points over the City of New York itself!
If it were up to me, I would name the interchange (Exit 3) as Bellmawr- Camden and have A.C. Expressway on supplemental signs and maybe the A.C.E Shield next to the NJ 168 shield instead of as a proper place on the main signs.