AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northeast => Topic started by: Roadrunner75 on July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM

Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM
With all the construction projects currently going on along the GSP, I think it's time for its own thread.  I get to enjoy the 83-100 widening work every day, and it looks like the end is in sight for at least the contract from 83 to 88, with 3 bridges left to complete. 

Does anyone know the current status of the upgrade of 91 to a full interchange?  The new full interchanges at 88 and 89 are in progress now along with the widening work, but I don't see anything going on at 91 other than the bridge replacement for the widening project.  For awhile Ocean County was really pushing 91 (seemingly over the far more important 88/89 project) and it still appears on the County Engineering website, although I don't think it's been updated in awhile. 

Also, I've been hearing about a southbound exit for 83 in Toms River for years, but haven't seen anything in awhile.  I can't see any good place to put it anyway without causing a major traffic problem.




Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2014, 10:00:05 PM
I see a straight ramp to CR 517 would be a good option.  Even a straight ramp to  US 9 that would T in to it just north of CR 571.   It should be signed for all the routes such as NB US 9, SB NJ 166, and CR 571 with the control point of Pleasant Plains.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 30, 2014, 10:05:00 PM
The construction on the Parkway in that area is absolutely crazy. We went on a Saturday for LBI, which is exit 63. From 98 to 63 took almost an hour. The shoulder installation still seems like it may wrap up by next year or so. I can't wait until the Bass River and Mullica River bridges are complete, as well as the new exits. Also further south, they are improving exits 41 and 37.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 30, 2014, 10:11:37 PM
I see a straight ramp to CR 517 would be a good option.  Even a straight ramp to  US 9 that would T in to it just north of CR 571.   It should be signed for all the routes such as NB US 9, SB NJ 166, and CR 571 with the control point of Pleasant Plains.
It's pretty tight between the GSP and 9 for an exit ramp to 571.  This stretch is often backed up to the GSP overpass without the help of merging GSP traffic, although they are widening 571 under the bridge to 4 lanes finally.  Route 9 also can back up pretty good north of 571 approaching the light.  I've thought about an exit to Whitty Road a little bit north, but unless they widen Whitty and Route 9 south from there, it'll be a complete disaster.  There has been talk of widening 9 from Toms River to Lakewood over the years, so maybe if that ever happens, the exit might work.  Another more elaborate option that might work a little better is to have the exit cross over the GSP and tie into the new roadway that allows access on and off the GSP northbound (the recently completed Lomell Lane).  However, the wooded area just SE of the 571 overpasses that would be the best alignment for such a ramp is preserved land under the County Natural Lands Trust.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 10:49:25 AM
I would say the NJTA needs to help by widening US 9 between just north of CR 571 from 2 to 6 lanes.  That would eliminate the problem with extra traffic being dumped onto US 9.  The right lane SB would default onto the GSP with the center lane being either or for NJ 166 or the SB GSP. The left lane would be, of course, NJ 166 SB.  The 83 ramp going south would become two lanes and 166 would remain two lanes under the GSP overpass and then narrow to the overall two lanes shortly afterwards.  NB would widen to three after the overpass and could do a drastic drop north of the new SB off ramp.

As far as US 9 getting widened south of Lakewood, do not hold your breath.  US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong, NJ 31 from Clinton to Washington, US 9 from Beachwood to Barnegate, NJ 23 from Stockholm to Sussex, and many other roads also need widening, but NJ is too broke to address even these.  Heck look how long it took NJDOT to finally widen US 1 from I-287 to US 9 in Edison/ Woodbridge.  It needed to be done back in the 80's as that Ford Avenue intersection was always a major chokepoint for drivers.  I lived near there from 87 to 90  and dreaded to drive through that particular intersection every day.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 01:13:22 PM
I don't expect 9 to be widened from Lakewood to Toms River for a long time if at all.  The County brings it up from time to time and complains about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon.  To partly compensate, Ocean County has gradually improved the nearby and parallel New Hampshire Ave. (CR 623), with the northern section now mostly 4 lanes, as a bypass of sorts to Route 9.  I don't think exit 83 SB will ever happen without widening on 9 north of 571.

Does anybody else read the Asbury Park Press, and if so, does anyone remember the "Joe on the Go" column?  Every Sunday he'd answer a reader's questions about the roads in the area, construction, etc. and would reach out to the appropriate agency for an answer.  Regarding the GSP, someone complained about the implementation of the northbound Express EZ-Pass lanes at the Asbury Park tolls, and how it created a dangerous weaving situation beyond where express and cash toll users had to cross paths in a very short distance to get into the express and local lanes.  I fully agree with the reader, as the Express EZ-Pass users (like me) keeping right for the local lanes have to compete with cash toll users just accelerating from the tolls who want to weave left across two lanes for the express lanes.  I've almost been taken out by people on the right on a few occasions (usually with them on a cell phone).  The weaving area is dangerously short and should be lengthened by moving the split further north (there is room) or just forcing all the cash toll users to stay in the local lanes.  Of course the NJTA responded to Joe on the Go that the design was fine and there wasn't a problem.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 31, 2014, 01:22:49 PM
The construction on the Parkway in that area is absolutely crazy. We went on a Saturday for LBI, which is exit 63. From 98 to 63 took almost an hour.

35 miles and took about an hour?  Man, that's fast for a Saturday on the Parkway! 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2014, 05:27:05 PM
Of course the NJTA responded to Joe on the Go that the design was fine and there wasn't a problem.

Try telling that to my mother, who almost got hit by someone cutting her off trying to get to the express lanes. Its a problem at the Raritan Plaza too, I even caught it on video (watch the pickup dart across the gore point).

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mtantillo on July 31, 2014, 07:25:31 PM
I think it would be a good idea to just make the cash people stay in the local lanes until the crossovers by Exit 116.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 08:35:06 PM
It's the usual case where codes and design manuals are pointed to as justification, while common sense goes out the window.  "The book says it works".  It clearly doesn't, and they're having much slower, accelerating traffic cross paths with people tooling along at 80.  There is room to push the gore back a bit at the Asbury tolls, but the easier option is to allow access to the express lanes only from the express EZ-Pass.  They could accomplish that with minimal effort - a signage change, some restriping and maybe dumping a few Jersey barriers down and we're good to go.  I invite the Turnpike's engineers to drive it sometime and see for themselves.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 09:44:29 PM
It does not surprise me at all that they are doing this.  Until a series of accidents happen, then they will take action.  Also they forget that at Exit 37 they are presently brading the ramps with the Exit 38 on ramp due to weaving concerns.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 31, 2014, 10:01:24 PM
It does not surprise me at all that they are doing this.  Until a series of accidents happen, then they will take action.  Also they forget that at Exit 37 they are presently brading the ramps with the Exit 38 on ramp due to weaving concerns.
They are only braiding the SB ramp. NB will remain as is.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 31, 2014, 10:05:02 PM
I did not say that they were.  Yes the SB side is and my point was that if they consider that a concern than the plazas at Raritan and Asbury Park should be one as stated here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 31, 2014, 11:09:18 PM
So when are we getting flyover ramps from GSP SB to AC Expressway EB and GSP NB to ACE WB?  That'll solve some weaving there for a few extra bucks.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on July 31, 2014, 11:27:43 PM
So when are we getting flyover ramps from GSP SB to AC Expressway EB and GSP NB to ACE WB?  That'll solve some weaving there for a few extra bucks.



But, but that's common sense!  It's needed! We can't have that! </sarc>

That would solve a LOT of problems, both for folks coming down from New York and folks coming up from Ocean City/The Wildwoods to get back to Philly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2014, 10:57:01 PM
So when are we getting flyover ramps from GSP SB to AC Expressway EB and GSP NB to ACE WB?  That'll solve some weaving there for a few extra bucks.


I think at least the NB-WB ramp is in long-term plans, but $ is currently going to widening projects; fixing bridges gets money first, and then remaining ramp improvements. At the end of widenings a few years out, there may be improvements beyond those planned in the short term; that depends on the NJTA's Capital Plan. (They last did one in 2010, and that laid out the projects over the next several years.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 02, 2014, 08:16:45 PM
I just looked at the project to braid the ramps SB at 37 and 38 on the NJTA's website as mentioned above - didn't know about this one, but this is definitely needed.  Although the SB exit at 37 is signed for US 322/40, I've always thought the signage once you get off the ramp is pretty terrible if you're actually trying to get to this road, as it actually dumps you onto CR 608.  Elimination of the old Cardiff Circle was a good move, but it made the route more circuitous to actually get to 322/40, and is poorly signed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 03, 2014, 01:35:17 AM
I just looked at the project to braid the ramps SB at 37 and 38 on the NJTA's website as mentioned above - didn't know about this one, but this is definitely needed.  Although the SB exit at 37 is signed for US 322/40, I've always thought the signage once you get off the ramp is pretty terrible if you're actually trying to get to this road, as it actually dumps you onto CR 608.  Elimination of the old Cardiff Circle was a good move, but it made the route more circuitous to actually get to 322/40, and is poorly signed.
There was consideration to eliminating Exit 37 entirely (or either of the two ramps), since it sits so close to 38 and you have 36 not far away, but it was determined that 37 provided enough usefulness, and I guess traffic volumes really aren't that heavy at that point, that the consideration was dropped.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 04, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
I just looked at the project to braid the ramps SB at 37 and 38 on the NJTA's website as mentioned above - didn't know about this one, but this is definitely needed.  Although the SB exit at 37 is signed for US 322/40, I've always thought the signage once you get off the ramp is pretty terrible if you're actually trying to get to this road, as it actually dumps you onto CR 608.  Elimination of the old Cardiff Circle was a good move, but it made the route more circuitous to actually get to 322/40, and is poorly signed.
There was consideration to eliminating Exit 37 entirely (or either of the two ramps), since it sits so close to 38 and you have 36 not far away, but it was determined that 37 provided enough usefulness, and I guess traffic volumes really aren't that heavy at that point, that the consideration was dropped.

Exits 36/37 are incomplete. I could see combining them so that there is direct access to both directions of 40/322 from both directions of the Parkway. I'd prefer access to Tilton Road southbound be maintained as well, just because I'm using it, but I think the Black Horse Pike is more important and it would probably not lengthen anyone's drive a great deal if they had to use that to get to the local roads. As it stands, there is not a single full interchange on the GSP in all of Atlantic County, except 38. And none of the upcoming projects seem to change that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 02:25:22 AM
Thought this would be a good place to also keep tabs on the sign replacement project for 129 and north. So far, only seen a couple of new overheads put up near 131A and a few new signs that were tacked onto the new VMS overheads. They've replaced most of the gore point exit signs with MUTCD compliant ones. I noticed though that the ones for 131 in both directions and for 131A going southbound were installed but left covered and the old signs remain for now. Is it possible they're going to renumber 131 to 132 and make 131A southbound just be 131 since that is more MUTCD compliant? Also, have noticed that most of the concrete footings for the new sign bridges are almost all installed along the stretch through the Union tolls. I'm wondering when we might see new signs finally go up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 06, 2014, 09:08:20 AM
Thought this would be a good place to also keep tabs on the sign replacement project for 129 and north. So far, only seen a couple of new overheads put up near 131A and a few new signs that were tacked onto the new VMS overheads. They've replaced most of the gore point exit signs with MUTCD compliant ones. I noticed though that the ones for 131 in both directions and for 131A going southbound were installed but left covered and the old signs remain for now. Is it possible they're going to renumber 131 to 132 and make 131A southbound just be 131 since that is more MUTCD compliant? Also, have noticed that most of the concrete footings for the new sign bridges are almost all installed along the stretch through the Union tolls. I'm wondering when we might see new signs finally go up.
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 06, 2014, 09:47:25 AM
Did you know also that milepost 124 is south of Exit 123?  Mile 136 is closer to Exit 135 than it is to Exit 136 as well.  The 131 mess is not the only thing messy with exit numbers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 06, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
Quote
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?

Fairly certain that it's because when the Parkway was first built (this was the Route 4 Parkway built by the state, not the NJHA), there was the exit for Rt 27. The Metropark exits didn't come until 1969 or 70 when the train station and office buildings started getting built. The numbering thing, well that's just one of those fun New Jersey Highway Authority things that is legacy for the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 06, 2014, 05:39:00 PM
The exit numbers are all off from about 123 through 161. 120 and 163 are spot-on. Miles are almost 2 off from exits through Essex Co. Never figured out why.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PurdueBill on August 07, 2014, 12:02:49 AM
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?

Reminds me of the old Ohio Turnpike exit numbers going 2, 3, 3B, 3A, 4.  Exit 3A was added between 3 and 4, then 3B between 3 and 3A. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 07, 2014, 01:51:34 AM
Why is the order 131A, 131B, 131 anyway? That doesn't make any sense. I would guess they were numbered in the order in which they were opened. Even if 131 opened first, why was it numbered 131 if the mile marker is beyond 132? Were the miles realigned? Was the exit moved?

Reminds me of the old Ohio Turnpike exit numbers going 2, 3, 3B, 3A, 4.  Exit 3A was added between 3 and 4, then 3B between 3 and 3A. 
The exit on I-275 for Dale Mabry in Tampa had a similar situation back in the sequential exit numbering days where the A suffixed exit was the one for EB US 92 (NB Dale) and the B was for US 92 WB (SB Dale) where the A was farther away from the southern terminus where the exit numbers themselves go down.

Also FDOT District 5 thought of numbering the Saxton Boulevard Interchange with double suffixes.  EB Saxton was Exit 53CA and WB Saxton was Exit 53CB.  I wrote FDOT about it and they said because the exit was indeed Exit 53C having two separate ramps needed the extra alphabet soup.  However, it would have made more sense to just use Exit 53 A for EB and Exit 53 B for WB as there was already a Exit 53 for nearby Dirkson Drive.  You would have it as Exit 53, Exit 53A and Exit 53 B all in a row.  D5 always loved to skip A and B as well on I-95 as Palm Coast was Exit 91C and not Exit 91A as it should have been.

Thank God for milepost numbering as it is now all straight except for EB Kaley Street in Orlando having both Exit 81 A and Exit 81 B for the same exit ramp to be consistent with the two separate ramps WB for both directions which are respectively Exit 81 C for WB Kaley and Exit 81 B for EB Kaley.   Plus WB Michigan Street in which EB I-4 has no ramp for is Exit 81 A it is not that simple to just make it just plain ole Exit 81. With this added factor and being that ramp serves both directions from EB I-4 it needs to have two suffixes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: froggie on August 07, 2014, 07:22:29 AM
Quote
The exit numbers are all off from about 123 through 161. 120 and 163 are spot-on. Miles are almost 2 off from exits through Essex Co. Never figured out why.

I've heard/read in the past that this was to minimize the need for suffixed exit numbers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 07, 2014, 11:42:21 AM
I wonder what the plan will be for exit numbering at 88 and 89 once they finish the widening work in that area.  They are building new C/D lanes that will serve both these exits.  Through traffic is actually currently using the new C/D lane roadways and bridges over NJ 70 while the bridges on the mainline are being replaced.  When construction is complete, the current SB 89 exit and tolls will serve both 88 and 89, while there will be a new NB exit for 88 and 89 as well (finally!).  Do they plan to sign both exits (NB and SB) as a single exit, or sign the exits for both 88 and 89?  I've seen plenty of situations with either scenario.  At 98, multiple ramps from the C/D roads are signed as a single exit.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 07, 2014, 09:05:20 PM
Quote
The exit numbers are all off from about 123 through 161. 120 and 163 are spot-on. Miles are almost 2 off from exits through Essex Co. Never figured out why.

I've heard/read in the past that this was to minimize the need for suffixed exit numbers.
Okay, so drop every number starting at 123 by one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 08:52:53 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 08, 2014, 10:45:11 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.
If 131A was changed to 131B, why couldn't they change 131 to 131C at the same time, as long as they were already doing renumbering? Or 132 if they didn't want to have different numbers, or missing exits (131C and A southbound with no B) NB vs SB?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 08, 2014, 11:05:12 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.
If 131A was changed to 131B, why couldn't they change 131 to 131C at the same time, as long as they were already doing renumbering? Or 132 if they didn't want to have different numbers, or missing exits (131C and A southbound with no B) NB vs SB?
That is a good question.  It is just a good question is why is US 22 signed Exit 140 going NB and 140A going SB or even why there is no A-B-C altogether like at at Exits 38, 63, and 82?  You have an exit at those locations without suffix and the the others with an A suffix when other highways would be 38 A & B, 63 A & B, and 82 A & B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 08, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 10, 2014, 02:31:44 AM
The numbers 138, 139, and 140 they did to avoid the suffixes as Mile 140 is at Exit 138.  All three of these exits are less than a mile apart, so I can see, but Exit 123 has no conflict.  Like Alps says it is not an issue there.

As far as Exit 131A goes, it was opened in 1975 even though Metropark was opened sooner.  I remember seeing the exit opened for the first time on a 4th Grade Class Trip to Rutgers Farm in New Brunswick.  It had small green signs then as the overheads were added by NJDOT in 1980 when the Parkway was widened from 6 overall lanes to 8. 

Exit 131B was created from when the NB Exit 131A was built in 1986.  The numbers were shifted as Exit 131B was the original 131A.  Southbound 131A was there before the trumpet was built but only slip ramps to Wood Avenue to and from the south.

Yes the numbers are off there and I agree should have been done much better.

I would love to see some pictures of this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 10, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).  I was looking to see if 82/82A (Route 37) were getting their suffixes updated, but nothing yet.  As much as the people on this forum would like to see this kind of thing cleaned up (admittedly myself included), I could see it being a big problem for local businesses who have their marketing materials (directions) based on the current exit numbers, not to mention the cost of changing the signage.  Also, New Yorkers/North Jerseyites heading for Seaside (to be filmed for MTV starting fights on the boardwalk) will flood downtown Toms River at exit 81 when they get 'recalculated' by their GPS units. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on August 10, 2014, 02:59:05 PM
They should do what Florida did when it renumbered their interstates; just put a small sign on the top left of the BGS with the old exit number on it, as in "Old Exit 81".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: signalman on August 10, 2014, 04:39:05 PM
They should do what Florida did when it renumbered their interstates; just put a small sign on the top left of the BGS with the old exit number on it, as in "Old Exit 81".
NJDOT did use signs like that when they renumbered exits.  However, it was worded "Formerly Exit 25" (or whatever the old exit number was).  I am assuming NJTPC will opt for similar signs when a renumbering takes place.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 11, 2014, 01:46:46 AM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).  I was looking to see if 82/82A (Route 37) were getting their suffixes updated, but nothing yet.  As much as the people on this forum would like to see this kind of thing cleaned up (admittedly myself included), I could see it being a big problem for local businesses who have their marketing materials (directions) based on the current exit numbers, not to mention the cost of changing the signage.  Also, New Yorkers/North Jerseyites heading for Seaside (to be filmed for MTV starting fights on the boardwalk) will flood downtown Toms River at exit 81 when they get 'recalculated' by their GPS units. 


Drove down to Toms River today. 82 and 82A are still the same. Even looks like some new BGS's have been put up with all the widening projects going on south of 91.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on August 11, 2014, 03:31:47 AM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).  I was looking to see if 82/82A (Route 37) were getting their suffixes updated, but nothing yet.  As much as the people on this forum would like to see this kind of thing cleaned up (admittedly myself included), I could see it being a big problem for local businesses who have their marketing materials (directions) based on the current exit numbers, not to mention the cost of changing the signage.  Also, New Yorkers/North Jerseyites heading for Seaside (to be filmed for MTV starting fights on the boardwalk) will flood downtown Toms River at exit 81 when they get 'recalculated' by their GPS units. 


Drove down to Toms River today. 82 and 82A are still the same. Even looks like some new BGS's have been put up with all the widening projects going on south of 91.

Ah yes, Toms River . . .

(http://i.imgur.com/1gWhKmL.png)

Sorry, I know it's not related to the GSP, but it's always the first thing I think of when I think of Toms River (which is rare).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 11, 2014, 10:39:12 AM
Ah yes, Toms River . . .

Sorry, I know it's not related to the GSP, but it's always the first thing I think of when I think of Toms River (which is rare).

Yes - by the mall.  In New Jersey we'll take our cloverleaf interchanges with or without bridges in the middle.

With respect to Toms River and changing the GSP suffixes at 82, the township already went through a name change a few years ago from Dover Township.  It passed the vote, with the township implying that the costs would be minimal such as updating some stationery (I thought of all those police cars and Twp. vehicles with 'Dover Township' on them, not to mention all the businesses having to deal with it as well...)  Change the suffixes and there's going to be some businesses feeling like the Italian souvenir seller in Superman III, with his Leaning Tower of Pisa statues....

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 11, 2014, 11:22:30 PM
The Parkway is slowly fixing its suffixes. It's not changing numbers, but for example, Exits 80 and 80A are now 80A and 80B. Exits 142 and 142A are now 142 A-B-C.
Do you mean exit 38? (AC Expressway).
Maybe I meant 63 and 63A. Something in that area of the shore.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on August 13, 2014, 10:36:20 PM
I was reminded recently of the "tollbooth graveyard" that is on the side of the NB GSP lanes right before the Asbury tolls, shown here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53)
There is an interesting article about this that I remembered reading in the Star Ledger from 2012, with some photos here:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/as_fully_electronic_tolling_lo.html (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/as_fully_electronic_tolling_lo.html)
How soon before I see these on Ebay?



Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 14, 2014, 06:20:34 AM
I was reminded recently of the "tollbooth graveyard" that is on the side of the NB GSP lanes right before the Asbury tolls, shown here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.249091,-74.081659&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.249198,-74.081891&panoid=2yFT93Wo2zd-LVMmS3oBkg&cbp=12,60.34,,1,-0.53)


When you go out of GSV and into satalite mode, you see a big parking lot, which is now used by 1 or 2 vehicles.  The toll plaza, once about 15 lanes wide with maybe half or more of those lanes staffed, only needs  1 or 2 manned lanes anymore.  The EZ Pass effect. :-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 02, 2014, 12:22:26 PM
Exits 142 is now 142 A-B-C?  What is the NB US 22 exit 142A and B is for NJ 82 Westbound on the SB side with 142C being the SB US 22 ramp?

Also why is US 22 EB directed via the ramp for US 22 WB and navigating the NJ 82 off and on ramps instead of using Exit 141 and Vauxhall Road?  Going WB to NB the GSP northbound motorists are directed off of US 22 WB at Vauxhall Road, so why not do the opposite maneuver here?  In fact I believe it once was as back in the 80's as the control city for the US 22 EB ramp from EB Vauxhall Road had both "Newark Airport & New York" as other US 22 EB ramps always used "New York" in that general area.  Plus an old AAA exit directory guide from 1960 did refer to Exit 141 as being Vauxhall Road- To US 22 East- Union- Newark Airport, as I saw it as a youngster in my dad's belongings.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 02, 2014, 07:54:50 PM
gibberish

The first paragraph of your "opinions" are wrong. The second paragraph is also wrong. You should look at a map and only post facts, Richard Bullis.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 03, 2014, 09:54:33 AM
gibberish

The first paragraph of your "opinions" are wrong. The second paragraph is also wrong. You should look at a map and only post facts, Richard Bullis.
I got my exit numbers wrong just like you did as well in a previous post.  Sorry I am only human.

Anyway, in the second paragraph it is fact that US 22 east is signed from Exit 140 A and required that you u turn to US 22 East from US 22 West via NJ 82.  The 140A ramp is only for US 22 WB not for both directions. 

Also US 22 WB to NB GSP is directed via Vauxhall Road! That is not IMO, but fact easily proven by going to GSV.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on September 03, 2014, 05:18:05 PM
Does anyone have any information of the current status of the Parkway interchange construction between exits 5 and 13?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 03, 2014, 10:20:34 PM
Does anyone have any information of the current status of the Parkway interchange construction between exits 5 and 13?
We're due for one of our Cape May day trips now that it's entering the off-season, so I should be able to report back sometime soon.  Just looking at GSV, the image dates of October of last year in the "exit" 10 and 11 vicinity look pretty much like I remember it most recently, with the lane shifts toward the outside to start grading for the overpasses.  I'm curious myself about the progress.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 03, 2014, 11:20:29 PM
I was there a week ago. The southbound sides of all the overpasses are done, but no traffic shifts have taken place.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 04, 2014, 11:58:21 PM
gibberish

The first paragraph of your "opinions" are wrong. The second paragraph is also wrong. You should look at a map and only post facts, Richard Bullis.
I got my exit numbers wrong just like you did as well in a previous post.  Sorry I am only human.

Anyway, in the second paragraph it is fact that US 22 east is signed from Exit 140 A and required that you u turn to US 22 East from US 22 West via NJ 82.  The 140A ramp is only for US 22 WB not for both directions. 

Also US 22 WB to NB GSP is directed via Vauxhall Road! That is not IMO, but fact easily proven by going to GSV.
Let's go...
GSP NB, you take the one exit to US 22 EB, and then you keep left for the U-turn to 22 WB. Easy.
GSP SB, you would THINK you should take Vauxhall Rd. to 22 EB, but now you're dealing with two left turns. Using 82 keeps it as two right turns, so it makes sense.
22W to GSP N, of course you use Vauxhall. You're barely on it and it's a low-demand movement.
22E to GSP S, you just use the U-turn onto 22W.
That's it for the freeway to Jersey-freeway movements.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2014, 05:15:42 PM
22E to GSP S, you just use the U-turn onto 22W.
That's it for the freeway to Jersey-freeway movements.

The locals don't go this route, because its too far out of the way. There is a shortcut.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 05, 2014, 07:45:50 PM
22E to GSP S, you just use the U-turn onto 22W.
That's it for the freeway to Jersey-freeway movements.

The locals don't go this route, because its too far out of the way. There is a shortcut.
Just working the interchange itself, not shortcuts farther from it. There are others, of course.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 11, 2014, 11:37:26 AM
I've seen contractors putting up the supports for new overhead gantries between the 129 onramp and 131. Looks like we'll see some new MUTCD signs in the very near future.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 10:54:23 AM
I am anxious to see the new Exit 129 southbound signs with "Camden" as a control rather than "Del. Mem. Br." as it always was since the mid 80's.

Also is "Shore Points" still being kept or is the NJTA going to use "Toms River" as the selected control city south of Woodbridge is that?  Already the new Exit 89 signs have the Ocean County Seat as control point on the pull through signs there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on September 13, 2014, 11:00:40 AM
I am anxious to see the new Exit 129 southbound signs with "Camden" as a control rather than "Del. Mem. Br." as it has been since the mid 80's.

Maybe it's just me, but I think Bellmawr might work better then Camden heading south on the Turnpike. There are only a select few ways you can actually get to Camden from the Turnpike - Exit 4 (NJ 73) to NJ 38 West, or Exit 3 - (NJ 168) north into Camden.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 11:05:40 AM
The problem is that Bellmawr is not used on any exit signs. 
 
Yeah, it would work, but Exit 3 is now signed "Camden- Atlantic City Expressway"  It used to be "Camden- Woodbury" up until the NJTA updated its signs recently.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 13, 2014, 12:31:46 PM
The problem is also that most Turnpike travelers have never heard of Bellmawr, very few of the remainder are going there and potential confusion with Belmar along the shore.  Camden or Del. Mem. Br. are about the only reasonable controls.  Toms River is OK along the GSP, but Shore Points is a better description.  I do like the Toms River pull through at 89, but more so because I live close by and it's more like rooting for the home team.
Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on September 13, 2014, 01:24:00 PM
The problem is also that most Turnpike travelers have never heard of Bellmawr, very few of the remainder are going there and potential confusion with Belmar along the shore.  Camden or Del. Mem. Br. are about the only reasonable controls.  Toms River is OK along the GSP, but Shore Points is a better description.  I do like the Toms River pull through at 89, but more so because I live close by and it's more like rooting for the home team.

Bellmawr?  What's that?  I grew up in New Jersey and Bellmawr is meaningless to me.  Sounds like the next Brewster, NY, as control cities go.

Del Mem Br might be weird but it's where the Turnpike goes.  Camden is way off the Turnpike; I'd use "Wilmington, DE" if a control city well off the road is acceptable.  The best reason I could see justifying signing Camden is to promote Camden, which, while clearly a New Jersey state goal to a fault, shouldn't be the motivation for a control city.  If it's going to be Camden, it should instead be Philadelphia.  78 East is signed primarily for New York, not Jersey City.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
Baltimore might work even better.  It has been suggested that it is a better control than Wilmington on past threads by some users here. Given the NJ Turnpike has no real cities directly along this path I think Baltimore should really be.

However, I have no real quarrel with Trenton, Camden, or even Wilmington as they are points served indirectly by the NJT like some  of us here do.  I only am stating that perfectly Baltimore, even from the GSP hundreds of miles away, is a great choice over all of them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on September 13, 2014, 01:28:29 PM
Driving on the Parkway the other day, several exit signs are being replaced, north of exit 129. I wonder if they will eventually replace the ones south of this. The old ones have the arrow next to the number, as opposed to beneath it. I like the new ones they put up better, where they are easier to see and not as cramped. Also the new ones have better wooden posts and brackets supporting them from the back, instead of just nailing them in directly into the post. I also noticed a lot of overhead signs being replaced too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:37:01 PM
I wish I can answer this one for you better, but I have not lived in NJ for almost a quarter of a century.  From what I hear on here it seems that NJTA is going MUTCD.

IMO about the wooden signs, those are nice and always gave the Parkway its own identity, but from what you say about the new supports behind the sign, maybe it might be because Sandy wakened engineers up to the possibility that another storm like that one could take out those.  I really do not know, but its possible.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on September 13, 2014, 01:38:37 PM

Bellmawr?  What's that?  I grew up in New Jersey and Bellmawr is meaningless to me.  Sounds like the next Brewster, NY, as control cities go.

Del Mem Br might be weird but it's where the Turnpike goes.  Camden is way off the Turnpike; I'd use "Wilmington, DE" if a control city well off the road is acceptable.  The best reason I could see justifying signing Camden is to promote Camden, which, while clearly a New Jersey state goal to a fault, shouldn't be the motivation for a control city.  If it's going to be Camden, it should instead be Philadelphia.  78 East is signed primarily for New York, not Jersey City.

Being that the State Aquarium is in Camden, among with other Waterfront attractions I can see why they signed Camden for the Turnpike, but I'd have a feeling most Aquarium users would take either 295 or they are coming from Philadelphia where they can take 676 from the get-go instead of the Turnpike. The pullthrough signs are new though for the Turnpike Authority so signing Camden when the Turnpike goes into the Camden area isn't the worst thing I guess. Unlike Trenton, there's really nothing to do in Camden but go to the Waterfront, because most of the city isn't exactly a bustling place to begin with.

Also, the Turnpike will have Trenton as a control city, and it doesn't go anywhere near Trenton, but it does provide access to I-195 which will take you directly to Trenton should you follow it all the way to the western terminus at NJ 29 and I-295. In the case of Camden, you can take 168 all the way up (albeit you will go through some sketchy areas) and if you kept staying the same road you would reach Camden.

I wish I can answer this one for you better, but I have not lived in NJ for almost a quarter of a century.  From what I hear on here it seems that NJTA is going MUTCD.

Yes, that is true. The FHWA pretty much forced them to, but I hope they continue using some of their signing practices on the MUTCD-spec signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 13, 2014, 01:43:21 PM
I myself always liked the GSP wooden posts along with the rusted gantries.  I am only disappointed that they were indeed forced to abandon the original exit gore signs with the arrow inside a circle on the top right corners for right side exits and top left for left side exits.  That was neat back in the 70's to see them signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 13, 2014, 08:10:55 PM
Lewes, DE :)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 11:44:22 AM
Driving along the parkway yesterday, they still have the old exit signs north of exit 142 at gore points such as these: http://goo.gl/maps/osc8d Hopefully they will move north and replace the remaining ones. That arrow should not be next to the word 'exit'. The new ones are much better and clearer.

Also some exit ramps such as the one in the link above, lack advisory speed signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 15, 2014, 12:08:51 PM
Driving along the parkway yesterday, they still have the old exit signs north of exit 142 at gore points such as these: http://goo.gl/maps/osc8d Hopefully they will move north and replace the remaining ones. That arrow should not be next to the word 'exit'. The new ones are much better and clearer.

I disagree. I think the old signs were nice and had a bit of charm. I'm pretty sure they'll be replaced eventually, though. Right now the NJTA is focusing on the "free" section of the Parkway between 129 and 141, although they did replace a couple of signs for 144 going SB when they put up one of the new VMS gantries.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on September 15, 2014, 12:43:28 PM
Driving along the parkway yesterday, they still have the old exit signs north of exit 142 at gore points such as these: http://goo.gl/maps/osc8d Hopefully they will move north and replace the remaining ones. That arrow should not be next to the word 'exit'. The new ones are much better and clearer.

I disagree. I think the old signs were nice and had a bit of charm. I'm pretty sure they'll be replaced eventually, though. Right now the NJTA is focusing on the "free" section of the Parkway between 129 and 141, although they did replace a couple of signs for 144 going SB when they put up one of the new VMS gantries.

Yeah I suppose they make the parkway "unique" and such.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on September 28, 2014, 07:51:52 PM
Roadman65, I agree with you about those gore signs with the arrow in the circle. Wish they would have kept those!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2014, 08:07:31 PM
I myself always liked the GSP wooden posts along with the rusted gantries.  I am only disappointed that they were indeed forced to abandon the original exit gore signs with the arrow inside a circle on the top right corners for right side exits and top left for left side exits.  That was neat back in the 70's to see them signs.

Roadman65, I agree with you about those gore signs with the arrow in the circle. Wish they would have kept those!

Are there any photos of what we are talking about here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 30, 2014, 08:02:43 PM
Does anyone know if Michael Suma has them?  He used to always have vintage photos from the early 70's that he shared with many.  Maybe he might have some old GSP signs back when exit numbers were just numbers with no "EXIT" worded on the tabs and of the old exit gore signs as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 01, 2014, 02:15:48 AM
Does anyone know if Michael Suma has them?  He used to always have vintage photos from the early 70's that he shared with many.  Maybe he might have some old GSP signs back when exit numbers were just numbers with no "EXIT" worded on the tabs and of the old exit gore signs as well.

I know someone posted a great vintage photo of the southbound Parkway approaching 145 from the 60s or early 70s. Ground mounted sign and everything. I think it was before they widened anything in that area. More pictures like that would be fascinating.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on October 01, 2014, 04:01:46 AM
Does anyone know if Michael Suma has them?  He used to always have vintage photos from the early 70's that he shared with many.  Maybe he might have some old GSP signs back when exit numbers were just numbers with no "EXIT" worded on the tabs and of the old exit gore signs as well.

It appears that the GSP set the standard for...Ontario freeways? ("exit"-less exit tabs).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Brandon on October 01, 2014, 01:29:12 PM
Del Mem Br might be weird but it's where the Turnpike goes.

It's not much different than "Mackinac Bridge" for I-75 in Michigan.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 02, 2014, 12:02:36 AM
found this on a website about parkway history that the Turnpike Authority apparently has up. You can see one of the old ground mount BGS with the exit tab with just the number.

(http://i.imgur.com/adq4UYx.jpg) (http://imgur.com/adq4UYx)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 02, 2014, 08:16:08 AM
I grew up with those. Turns out I do have a modern photo or three:
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/n171.jpg)
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/s165.jpg)
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/s105l.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 02, 2014, 11:37:42 AM
Is the one for 165 still out there? I know when I drove up that part of the Parkway a few years back, there were still a few of the old signs with the old number only exit tabs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on October 02, 2014, 11:56:19 AM
Is the one for 165 still out there? I know when I drove up that part of the Parkway a few years back, there were still a few of the old signs with the old number only exit tabs.

The only thing I'm seeing on GMSV are signs that include the word EXIT in the exit tab (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.973954,-74.069363,3a,41.3y,168.91h,88.36t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sVnQ5LCJT1HP6EWSouQTIXQ!2e0).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 02, 2014, 12:02:06 PM
If you use the newer GSV, you can dial it back to 2007, and it says 'Exit 165' then as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 02, 2014, 01:44:06 PM
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/gsp/n2.html Scroll down to the bottom of the page as alpsroads.net has the old sign for Exit 171 without the word exit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 03, 2014, 12:03:17 AM
Is the one for 165 still out there? I know when I drove up that part of the Parkway a few years back, there were still a few of the old signs with the old number only exit tabs.
I don't think any of these are left now. There MIGHT be one or two scattered in the northern reaches of the Pkwy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 07, 2014, 11:17:35 PM
The Garden State Parkway is free of traffic lights southbound in Cape May County: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/news/court+house/103316-under+20+months+traffic+flows+southbound

Photos: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152197655945730.1073741830.62719310729&type=3
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 07, 2014, 11:44:29 PM
The Garden State Parkway is free of traffic lights southbound in Cape May County: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/news/court+house/103316-under+20+months+traffic+flows+southbound

Photos: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152197655945730.1073741830.62719310729&type=3
Wow...that's great!  I'm due for a trip south to check it out.  Nice photos on the Herald's site too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on October 08, 2014, 12:08:09 AM
^^^YesyesyesYES! Most likely I'll never drive it since the majority of my family up there is down South, but it was always the most aggravating part of the annual neighborhood bus trip to the Wildwoods. Magnificent pictures!

Don't think I'll see the freeway stub of 47 extend down anywhere near the Wildwoods in my lifetime, if ever...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 08, 2014, 12:32:05 AM
Good thing I filmed the whole area last year to preserve the "with traffic lights" experience. They are moving pretty fast with this project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on October 11, 2014, 08:36:52 PM
I read someplace they will be fixing/upgrading the GSP with Route 109 (the southern terminus). There is a traffic signal, where many accidents have occurred as well, but I am not sure about the details with this project. They should reconfigure this and eliminate the signal here, too if possible. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 11, 2014, 10:57:15 PM
Plans are online, I just have to find them again. They plan on putting in a jughandle and reconfiguring the Exit "0" setup.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 12:13:41 AM
This article describes it to some extent:
http://www.ocsentinel.com/oc_sureguide/community/project-aims-to-increase-safety-at-exit-on-garden-state/article_06022da4-ec0e-11e3-8177-0017a43b2370.html (http://www.ocsentinel.com/oc_sureguide/community/project-aims-to-increase-safety-at-exit-on-garden-state/article_06022da4-ec0e-11e3-8177-0017a43b2370.html)
It's not exactly clear, but it sounds like two jughandles in a row south of Exit 0 - the first to allow a U-turn for 109 SB to access GSP NB (which already exists now without a signal) and a second one further south for 109 SB to Ocean Drive (replacing the left turn).  Currently, there are two options to make the U-turn before the bridge - the U-turn loop on the left immediately after the GSP merges into 109, and a second existing jughandle a little further south without a signal.  Neither work that great with heavy traffic coming SB from the GSP.  I can't imagine having back to back jughandles at signals in such close proximity.  I would think one jughandle at Ocean Drive allowing the left turn and U-turn would work OK.

As for the traffic signal you encounter now at the end of the GSP (to allow 109 NB to cross GSP SB), that is relatively recent.  I remember when that was just a stop sign for 109 NB.  I think that signal is here to stay, just maybe with some better advance warning. 

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 12, 2014, 01:18:04 AM
http://www.capemaycountygov.net/FCpdf/Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Conference%20-%20Withers%2003122013.pdf

Page 13-15.

The signal at NJ-109 north has been there for at least 14 years now. Not really all that recent anymore.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
http://www.capemaycountygov.net/FCpdf/Transportation%20Infrastructure%20Conference%20-%20Withers%2003122013.pdf

Page 13-15.

The signal at NJ-109 north has been there for at least 14 years now. Not really all that recent anymore.
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

As for the signal at the end of the GSP, it still feels new to me, as my family would vacation in Cape May Point since I was a baby almost 40 years ago until I was about 17 or so.  I spent a lot of time going through an unsignalized intersection there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on October 12, 2014, 11:25:10 AM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 06:12:05 PM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.

I know nothing about traffic in the area, but I could foresee a flyover ramp. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 12, 2014, 08:09:22 PM
Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.

I know nothing about traffic in the area, but I could foresee a flyover ramp. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive?
Probably yes...and the area is tight with surrounding wetlands.  Traffic is pretty light for the off-season down here too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on October 12, 2014, 09:13:27 PM

Cool, thanks for posting.  This configuration looks really good - except I'm a little concerned if there is enough traffic coming from 109SB to GSP NB, that it could back up in that relatively tight jughandle between the signal (such as when a ferry comes in).  But I guess it's still far safer than the current weave.

I can definitely forsee that happening, since sometimes on a heavy traffic day the jughandle into the Hamilton Center mall complex gets backed up for most of the loop. One thing I noticed are left exits and entrances, which seem to be a bit more popular than in the past. Unfortunately, I also feel like most people are worse at merging from a left than merging from the right.

I know nothing about traffic in the area, but I could foresee a flyover ramp. Unless it would be prohibitively expensive?
Probably yes...and the area is tight with surrounding wetlands.  Traffic is pretty light for the off-season down here too.

But it's important to build infrastructure for all times of the year. If we're going to spend money on rebuilding this junction, we should do it right.

Maybe a roundabout, Zeffy? Lol.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 09:09:46 PM
A few pics in the southern area of the GSP (taken at dusk thru a dirty windshield, so clarity isn't all that great):

The Travel Time Sign for Exit 0 (31 miles; 32 minutes).  Because of the LED issues, you can't really tell but the majority of the sign is green.  The digits for the minutes are actually on a black background...with room for 3 digits (I HOPE it's never over 100 minutes for that distance!)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/3F64E6F9-C7F8-4AB2-93C3-A9DAD6EA7710.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/3F64E6F9-C7F8-4AB2-93C3-A9DAD6EA7710.jpg.html)

Construction of the new bridge over Great Egg Harbor.  I was zoomed in a bit much to capture the entire pier here, but you can see the height of the new bridge on the north side of the harbor will be considerably higher at this point.  Unlike the current bridge which remains flat for a bit then rises (from the perspective of a driver heading south), this bridge will rise earlier  At mid-point, the height will be a few feet higher, but nothing substantial.

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/88850F5F-7951-4330-9105-53C4117B9405.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/88850F5F-7951-4330-9105-53C4117B9405.jpg.html)

On the south side, the slope will be about equivalent to what exists now, but again will be a few feet higher (maybe about 6 feet or so higher, when you factor in the bridge beams underneath the current bridge.  (When we got down to the base of the bridge, a cop had pulled into the median there.  Typical Jersey attitude...the traffic was flowing at about 60 mph in a 35 mph construction zone right past the cop...and that was considered completely normal).

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/9A860467-4143-4D2A-B78D-1AF72F139AFE.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/9A860467-4143-4D2A-B78D-1AF72F139AFE.jpg.html)

I won't show the pictures of the new overpasses at Exits 11, 10 & 9, because the ones shown previously are much better in quality.  Here's one pic of the new Exit 10 signage though.  Previously (and still true for the NB side), the traffic lights operated like a normal intersection: Left Turns kept left; Right Turns kept Right.  For some reason, only Exit 10 was signed 10A for left turns and 10B for right turns (and the opposite, of course, going in the opposite direction). 

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/72f78a99-efcb-4799-b282-8f72336613e3.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/72f78a99-efcb-4799-b282-8f72336613e3.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 25, 2014, 09:35:14 PM
Nice - We were thinking about taking a day trip down to Cape May, so these photos are about as close as I'll get.  Maybe next weekend, so I can see the 9/10/11 progress and the Great Egg Harbor Bridge work.  I assume when the bridge is finished, they will route all traffic onto it, so they can rehabilitate the original span next?

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2014, 09:37:32 PM
I believe that's the plan - the new bridge will be wide enough for 4 lanes; good for the construction period, but when it's done it'll be 2 lanes wide, a wide shoulder (to accommodate a 3rd lane in the future) and a bike/ped path.

I didn't go northbound on the Parkway on this trip - we went to Wildwood for pizza and the Cape May Brewery for, well, brews...then took 47/55 back home.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 09:27:10 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 10:24:39 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.

Saw some signs in the median by Exit 130 tonight. A couple of things that caught my eye:

Exit 130 is getting suffixes (B and A for south and north). Exit 131A doesn't look like it will mention Metropark anymore going northbound. Just going to say S. Wood Ave. Makes sense to me to send traffic to the train station to use 131B which comes out right by the parking garages.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 03, 2014, 10:30:46 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.

Saw some signs in the median by Exit 130 tonight. A couple of things that caught my eye:

Exit 130 is getting suffixes (B and A for south and north). Exit 131A doesn't look like it will mention Metropark anymore going northbound. Just going to say S. Wood Ave. Makes sense to me to send traffic to the train station to use 131B which comes out right by the parking garages.

130 has been open to having suffixes for years, so it's nice to finally see it getting them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 10:42:57 PM
If you like old button copy, better act quick. Many of the new signs between Exits 129 and 140 are in the shoulders awaiting installation.

Saw some signs in the median by Exit 130 tonight. A couple of things that caught my eye:

Exit 130 is getting suffixes (B and A for south and north). Exit 131A doesn't look like it will mention Metropark anymore going northbound. Just going to say S. Wood Ave. Makes sense to me to send traffic to the train station to use 131B which comes out right by the parking garages.

130 has been open to having suffixes for years, so it's nice to finally see it getting them.

I always felt that the signage that was installed when they built the ramp to 1 NB twenty years ago was always odd.

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey444/gsp_sb_exit_130_01.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey444/gsp_sb_exit_130_02.jpg)

The first one shows a weird configuration to show both directions and the second one didn't even have an exit tab for a couple of years until the NJSHA put one up as an afterthought.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 03, 2014, 11:19:45 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.

They are basically classic NJTA practices but to MUTCD standards. Turnpike signs have had rounded corners for as long as I can remember.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 04, 2014, 08:34:04 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
NJ Highway Authority produced those signs, using NJDOT specs. They're instantly identifiable as NJHA designs, what with the centered exit tabs over multiple signs.
On another note, what's happening with the numbering at 131, 131A, 131B?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 04, 2014, 09:53:50 PM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
NJ Highway Authority produced those signs, using NJDOT specs. They're instantly identifiable as NJHA designs, what with the centered exit tabs over multiple signs.
On another note, what's happening with the numbering at 131, 131A, 131B?

They already put up new gore point signs. NB 131A and 131B were replaced. At 131, they put up a new one with an obvious plaque underneath but they're still covered, which leads me to believe that they're renumbering it, either to 131C or 132. SB 131 and 131A both have new gore point signs with plaques underneath, but are still covered. If they renumber 131 as 132, they may make 131A southbound just be 131 and then 130 will become 130B-A.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 05, 2014, 12:27:43 AM
NJDOT likely produced those signs. The new signs going up seem much smaller to me. That and they have rounded corners, an uncommon sight in NJ. NJTA also seems to go with a darker green sheeting as well.
NJ Highway Authority produced those signs, using NJDOT specs. They're instantly identifiable as NJHA designs, what with the centered exit tabs over multiple signs.
On another note, what's happening with the numbering at 131, 131A, 131B?

They already put up new gore point signs. NB 131A and 131B were replaced. At 131, they put up a new one with an obvious plaque underneath but they're still covered, which leads me to believe that they're renumbering it, either to 131C or 132. SB 131 and 131A both have new gore point signs with plaques underneath, but are still covered. If they renumber 131 as 132, they may make 131A southbound just be 131 and then 130 will become 130B-A.
I don't think 132 is happening. They've just been shuffling letters at interchanges, not numbers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 03:09:22 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 



How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 06:16:07 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on November 05, 2014, 06:51:25 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C.

The Southbound gore point exit sign is now Exit 89 C - B - Covered spot for A.  The entrance/exit ramp at Airport Road now has a traffic signal (not active at this time).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 08:48:34 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C.
The Southbound gore point exit sign is now Exit 89 C - B - Covered spot for A.  The entrance/exit ramp at Airport Road now has a traffic signal (not active at this time).
I just saw that tonight - they must have put that up in the last 24 hours or maybe I just wasn't paying attention going through yesterday.  There were a couple of VMS's noting that 88 was going to be closed on 11/10 (If I recall), and that Route 70 would now be from 89.  The mainline SB traffic currently running on the future C/D lanes is kind of tight to do what they are doing in the NB direction (3 lanes through + Jersey Barrier + single on-ramp lane from 70).   Unless they plan on pushing into the current median, it looked like there wasn't enough room to jam a barrier and an 89B lane on the right side (the new light poles were pretty close to the barrier).  I hope they don't think they're going to get away with routing Route 70 traffic via Airport Road for awhile, which will be a disaster.  I can see that for a quick overnight session of moving barriers around and restriping but nothing longer than that...

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 05, 2014, 08:49:09 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".


In theory, the argument about missing the 88 exit holds water, but in reality it doesn't assuming the new Advance guide signs will have the NJ 70 route marker on them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 05, 2014, 10:26:31 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".


In theory, the argument about missing the 88 exit holds water, but in reality it doesn't assuming the new Advance guide signs will have the NJ 70 route marker on them.

Many people call into one of two categories: those that use exit numbers, and those that use route numbers.

Those that use route numbers should be fine.

Those that use exit numbers will wonder what happened to exit 88, no matter how many advanced warning signs are out there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 05, 2014, 10:40:36 PM
I noticed last night that a new exit sign for "89C" has gone up beyond the SB tolls at 89, for the current ramp to Airport Road which will eventually be just the first exit ramp off the C/D lanes also incorporating exit 88.  I had thought they might cosign 89 and 88 for the current 89 exit, and one of the BGSs up now seemed to reinforce that with a second new covered exit number tab next to the current 89.  With 89C it sounds like 88 is going to disappear in favor of 89A/B/C. 
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
It's not really the 'Former' exit, since it has always been just 89.  The ramp location from the mainline for 88 is going to disappear completely in favor of it being within the C/D lanes after the toll barrier for 89.  In the short term, there's going to be a lot of angry people who 'missed' their exit when they zip past 89, expecting 88 a short distance beyond (not to mention businesses that need to reprint their marketing materials with directions on them).  But it is what it is, and I suppose 89 C/B/A is fine and makes the most sense.  Maybe a sign is warranted on the mainline where the exit used to be indicating "Former Exit 88 - Pay Attention Next Time - Next Exit 7 Miles".


In theory, the argument about missing the 88 exit holds water, but in reality it doesn't assuming the new Advance guide signs will have the NJ 70 route marker on them.

Many people call into one of two categories: those that use exit numbers, and those that use route numbers.

Those that use route numbers should be fine.

Those that use exit numbers will wonder what happened to exit 88, no matter how many advanced warning signs are out there.
Category #3:  Those that just do whatever the GPS tells them to do.  I fully expect to see some idiot 'exit' where 88 used to be, barreling through the grass / barrier / construction debris.

For the record, I use route numbers.  I suspect most people here do as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 11:16:51 AM
Category #3:  Those that just do whatever the GPS tells them to do.  I fully expect to see some idiot 'exit' where 88 used to be, barreling through the grass / barrier / construction debris.

For the record, I use route numbers.  I suspect most people here do as well.


If the GPS has an exit number, yes this might be a problem, but there are mitigating factors in play:
1. The GPS warns the user in advance that their exit is coming up.
2. The GPS is often slightly off on the distances
The combination of the above will put the user on the alert at the first advanced warning. If the GPS mentions the exit number, or better yet, the text on the exit, then with adequate signing, the exit will not be missed.

I use a combination of exit numbers and route numbers (and occasionally GPS) because the same route can interchange with your freeway many times in different places (sometimes close together), for example many "companion" US routes to interstates.

Sometimes a destination can also help when you remember the route number, but not the exit number, or if there are no exit numbers. For example, there are 2 US-30 exits on NJ-73. The southern one lists Berlin, Camden, Atco, and Hammonton as destinations. The northern one is signed "TO US-30, CR-561" with just road names as destinations (Walker Ave, Berlin-Cross Keys Rd). Oddly enough, NJ-73 itself passes through Berlin and Atco, while Camden is closer to the northern interchange
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:11:35 PM
How in hell would the E1-5 header panel be designed:  [EXITS 89-88 A-B]?  A C-D road is likely via one departure point.  Hence, one exit number (integer) with as many suffixes as practical.  89 C-B-A would be correct.  This means it should be conveyed to the road user that it is FORMER EXIT 88 (FORMER instead of OLD per NJDOT Standard)
That's how NY has done it in the past.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0669345,-76.1649978,3a,75y,292.72h,80.6t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sD8RuguXK1YscBjeoC-X6SQ!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0825607,-76.1726334,3a,75y,202.73h,78.35t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sf9rGtmUp9SaaCm0_r9hytQ!2e0

We even have c/d roads with NO suffixes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1132149,-76.142596,3a,75y,68.27h,78.37t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sNQGme6Fs2hWQeE9iGce4kg!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1194642,-76.1292882,3a,75y,246.79h,80.5t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJcZja4iMko8oR9CezvQVpQ!2e0

There's also this thing on I-690.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0552494,-76.1627489,3a,75y,100.81h,85.39t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1srSKU7snOOxkdpLv_oVKkdQ!2e0

And I just realized all these examples are from Region 3.  That might mean something.

If the GPS has an exit number, yes this might be a problem, but there are mitigating factors in play:
1. The GPS warns the user in advance that their exit is coming up.
2. The GPS is often slightly off on the distances
The combination of the above will put the user on the alert at the first advanced warning. If the GPS mentions the exit number, or better yet, the text on the exit, then with adequate signing, the exit will not be missed.
You're assuming that people with GPS even notice that road signs still exist.

For what it's worth, the exit number setup as noted above solves the problem with people who navigate by exit number because then 88 would still exist... you'd just need to get on a c/d road first.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 01:44:14 PM
You're assuming that people with GPS even notice that road signs still exist.
My GPS routinely says things like "In one mile, take exit 4 toward NJ 73 Mount Laurel". It clearly assumes people with GPS will be looking for that information
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on November 06, 2014, 01:49:42 PM
You're assuming that people with GPS even notice that road signs still exist.
My GPS routinely says things like "In one mile, take exit 4 toward NJ 73 Mount Laurel". It clearly assumes people with GPS will be looking for that information
Except the turn won't be in one mile, it will be right there.  And even something as simple as changing a left exit to a right exit causes GPS confusion these days.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 06, 2014, 02:04:22 PM
In my limited experiences with GPS, verbal highway instructions aren't an issue.  If the GPS is stating "in a mile", chances are it's about a mile.  A few feet here or there isn't an issue. 

The problems come up in a more localized area, where you have to figure out if it's this intersection or the next intersection, and the intersections are closely spaced together.

How many people use GPSs anyway?  The overall feeling on these forums make it out to be that nearly everyone has a GPS.  I think actual usage is way below that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 06, 2014, 02:31:36 PM
In my limited experiences with GPS, verbal highway instructions aren't an issue.  If the GPS is stating "in a mile", chances are it's about a mile.  A few feet here or there isn't an issue. 

I think @vdeane was specifically talking about GSP's exit 88 moving by a mile, which would render the "1 mile" warning on the outdated GPS data too late

Quote
How many people use GPSs anyway?  The overall feeling on these forums make it out to be that nearly everyone has a GPS.  I think actual usage is way below that.
According to http://www.ceoutlook.com/2013/04/25/%C2%BE-of-smartphone-owners-often-use-phone-to-navigate/ 76% of all smartphone owners use them to navigate. Given smart phone penetration in the US is 56.4% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_smartphone_penetration), at least 42.3% of the public use GPS navigation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 06, 2014, 04:44:46 PM
You can't fix stupid. Any time you change a roadway configuration, people who are driving until their GPS tells them to stop will get lost.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 06, 2014, 04:50:49 PM
You can't fix stupid. Any time you change a roadway configuration, people who are driving until their GPS tells them to stop will get lost.

+ about 1 billion.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 06, 2014, 05:20:09 PM

You can't fix stupid. Any time you change a roadway configuration, people who are driving until their GPS tells them to stop will get lost.

But as GPS has proven, you can indeed make stupid worse.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 08, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 03:45:33 AM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.
Interesting!  That sounds more than strange that two signs going up at the same time are different.

Then again, its about time control cities are used.  I wonder if the NJT will install control cities for the GSP post Exit 11 toll plaza?  Better yet on the NB guide for Exit 11 which only uses Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 09, 2014, 10:00:17 AM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.

Isn't it because a southbound truss or two outside Metropark also says Trenton for Exit 130? If there is an Advance guide sign for both Exits 130 and 129 on the same truss, you can't have the same exact destination for two different exits.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2014, 10:11:58 AM
Interesting thing I noted today. The new signage for 129 going southbound gives New York and Camden as the control cities. The signage for 129 going northbound shows New York and Trenton as control cities. I would have figured that they would have the same control cities going both directions.

Isn't it because a southbound truss or two outside Metropark also says Trenton for Exit 130? If there is an Advance guide sign for both Exits 130 and 129 on the same truss, you can't have the same exact destination for two different exits.
Not necessarily.  I have seen many times when two different routes used the same exact control points.  Look at the sign in Battleboro, NC at the US 301 and NC 4 split.  Both NC 4 and US 301 use Richmond as control point and DelDOT used to use it for the signs leaving the Delaware Memorial Bridge.  Baltimore was used as control city for where US 40 left the I-295 freeway for US 13 on the same bridge that I-95 advanced guides were using Baltimore as well.

However, the fact that Trenton is control point for Exit 130 may be why Camden is used for the NJT SB as Northbound on the GSP there is no exit for Exit 130.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 09, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on November 09, 2014, 06:44:29 PM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
All the time. I live outside Trenton, and when heading northbound it's only up to traffic whether the right way to go is Route 1 or 195 to the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 03:24:46 AM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
Actually they did when I lived there over 20 years ago.  It is not that bad as the lights were pretty much timed right.

As far as Newark goes, yes it is dumb to use.  Considering the GSP just came from there 10 miles ago, but FDOT does the same thing in Florida.  Look at the Exit 414 SB I-75 sign for Lake City!  It was just passed over 15 miles ago and yet it is used as a control point.  Even better yet, the I-75/ US 27 interchange in Broward County, FL did the same going NB for Miami on I-75 using Miami for SB US 27.  Now its Hialeah, but still the same effect being that I-75 just came from there as its southern terminus is there.

You are right the NJTA could come up with better control points for Exit 130.  Woodbridge, Avenel, Rahway, and even Linden would work for NB US 1 and for SB you could use Edison or even New Brunswick.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 07:54:37 AM
Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn

You are right the NJTA could come up with better control points for Exit 130.  Woodbridge, Avenel, Rahway, and even Linden would work for NB US 1 and for SB you could use Edison or even New Brunswick.

None of these would be better. Maybe all, at best, would be equally as bad, but i personally find them all worse. I think NJTA used Trenton correctly and here's why.  Woodbridge is on the Exit 129 Advance guide sign. Notwithstanding the same reasons i would cite from other posts above, you now would put Woodbridge AND Trenton twice on the same truss, because as i understand it, you see zero potential in that disorienting the motorist.

I don't even know what Avenel is. Is that like a Johnson and Johnson cream and/or campus in the area?  So, exactly what benefit does Avenel serve as a destination? Who goes there?

Rahway and Linden are both signed for at Exit 131 i think.  So the U-Turn issue some may or may not think is worthy is the same logic here. So what criteria is to be used when picking a destination to U-Turn to?  There are several destinations all applicable along the US 1 corridor.

There is a dinky EDISON NEXT 4 EXITS sign somewhere southbound. Although it should be more prominent, when you use a Community Idetification Interchange sign or whatever they're called, you don't plop that same destination back up on an Advance gude sign as this WILL disorient the motorist. 

New Brunswick is currently sugned for as a Supplemental destination at southbound Exit 130. Now you can't use the same destination both as a supplemental destination AND as a primary destination for the same exit, but if you argue that New Brunswick should have replaced Trenton, i suspect New Brunswick is too long to fit on the available trusses when it had to fit with other contiguous signs like the Exit 129 Advance guide signs on the mainline or the US 1 northbound Exit guide sign on the ramp.

Not as straightforward as you make it out to be.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 08:56:23 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.

Secondly, Woodbridge can be used as a control point twice or even have it removed from the Exit 129 guide and have Staten Island replace it at its guide sign.  It would be Perth Amboy- Staten Island instead of Woodbridge- Perth Amboy.  Also as far as having a sign on a X Next Exit sign and then on the guide sign for the mentioned exit, it is done in many places.  Plus both exits for US 1 and  US 378 near Lexington, SC on I-20 both use West Columbia and Lexington as control points.  Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps.  Avenel is the first town north on US 1 from Exit 130.  Though part of Woodbridge as Iselin is previously at Exit 131, it still is like its own entity.

It is straight forward as it is already in practice.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2014, 10:10:38 AM

Do people really take US-1 all the way to Trenton, or Newark for that matter, from Exit 130 on the Parkway? I would think they would take the Turnpike for the former. For the latter, I suppose if they missed all those exits on the Parkway further north, they could use Exit 130 to make a U-Turn
All the time. I live outside Trenton, and when heading northbound it's only up to traffic whether the right way to go is Route 1 or 195 to the Turnpike.

I'll see your Trenton and raise you a Philly.  This was the free alternative to the Turnpike when I lived in NJ.  I wouldn't sign for Philly this way, but Trenton for sure.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on November 10, 2014, 10:22:22 AM
Apart from a few annoying areas on US 1, it definitely isn't the worst road to use to get places. If I'm heading south towards Trenton, it takes me about 25 minutes or so to get to the I-95/I-295 interchange, and considering it isn't tolled, I'm not too angry with it either. The only quips I have with US 1 is the right lane endings where people speed up to get ahead of everyone nearly causing a wreck.

The control cities for US 1 are fine on the Parkway. The same two control cities are used at the US 1 interchange with NJ 18 in New Brunswick as well. Plus, US 1 both enter these cities fully, and in Trenton's case, it is the only full-freeway within the actual city itself. People can also use it to cross back into Pennsylvania if they heading south anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:40:39 AM
Apart from a few annoying areas on US 1, it definitely isn't the worst road to use to get places. If I'm heading south towards Trenton, it takes me about 25 minutes or so to get to the I-95/I-295 interchange, and considering it isn't tolled, I'm not too angry with it either. The only quips I have with US 1 is the right lane endings where people speed up to get ahead of everyone nearly causing a wreck.

The control cities for US 1 are fine on the Parkway. The same two control cities are used at the US 1 interchange with NJ 18 in New Brunswick as well. Plus, US 1 both enter these cities fully, and in Trenton's case, it is the only full-freeway within the actual city itself. People can also use it to cross back into Pennsylvania if they heading south anyway.
Do not forget I-287 uses both Newark and Trenton as well as many side streets.  Woodbridge Center Drive also uses both.

I do think for regional freeways more local points should be used.  Yes US 1 does enter Newark, but also does the GSP.   I am more in favor of signing the GSP from US 1 for Newark like it was originally before the 130 NB ramp was added back in the 90's as many use the free section of the GSP to avoid the lights on US 1 in Woodbridge, Rahway, Linden, and Elizabeth by using it and US 22 together.  It makes sense to sign it that way, but the GSP SB should not use a place that someone has already been.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 10, 2014, 10:42:28 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0

Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

This is being corrected as I understand it.  A wrong being righted.

Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps. 

You do know the BIG difference between a control city/point and a destination?

It is straight forward as it is already in practice.

Disagree.  Jut because you see in South Carolina or Battleboro, NC doesn't mean it is correct practice.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 11:37:02 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0
That particular BGS was added when the ramp was modified.  Roadman65 was referring to the approach & exit BGS (many of them have since been replaced and/or being replaced) prior to the location shown. 

The previous message on those BGS' originally read:

EXIT 129 130
1 SOUTH
New Brunswick
Trenton


As far as the one in the pic being modified; that 1 SOUTH Trenton panel would have to be replaced with one that could use a 2-line listing for New Brunswick to keep the sign width in check.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 10, 2014, 03:26:34 PM
That would be amazing if US 1 was Exit 129, because I'd be one of millions who misread that as a 130.  :wave:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 10, 2014, 03:40:14 PM
That would be amazing if US 1 was Exit 129, because I'd be one of millions who misread that as a 130.  :wave:
That's what I get for typing too quick.  :)
My earlier post has since been corrected.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2014, 05:47:19 PM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0
That particular BGS was added when the ramp was modified.  Roadman65 was referring to the approach & exit BGS (many of them have since been replaced and/or being replaced) prior to the location shown. 

The previous message on those BGS' originally read:

EXIT 129 130
1 SOUTH
New Brunswick
Trenton


As far as the one in the pic being modified; that 1 SOUTH Trenton panel would have to be replaced with one that could use a 2-line listing for New Brunswick to keep the sign width in check.

It shan't be modified. They've had a ground mounted sign for New Brunswick as a secondary destination ever since they added the NB ramp in the early 90s. They just replaced it with a new one in this round of signage.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 10, 2014, 05:48:40 PM
Also, it looks like tonight is the night that Exit 88 goes bye-bye forever (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/parkway_exit_to_close_permanently_monday_night.html#incart_river).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on November 10, 2014, 10:10:08 PM
Technically it's not going bye-bye, it's moving to a service road and getting a new number.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 10, 2014, 10:42:03 PM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0

Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

This is being corrected as I understand it.  A wrong being righted.

Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps. 

You do know the BIG difference between a control city/point and a destination?

It is straight forward as it is already in practice.

Disagree.  Jut because you see in South Carolina or Battleboro, NC doesn't mean it is correct practice.

The New Brunswick was there on another sign as before Exit 130 was reconfigured, the current panel was not needed because only the SB Ramp was present.  Think a little, why would this current sign be there before if the sole purpose of the current sign is for the current situation?  The original Exit 130 sign was different and used both New Brunswick and Trenton as control cities for both.

Exit 88 and 87 are being combined, but not to correct the wrong you suggested.   There is no law saying that exits cannot be the same as far as control cities or points go.  Florida also has two exits once (or still has) two exits signed just for North Port on Interstate 75.  Being Florida would rather put up street names on supplemental signs and many roads have no route numbers, FDOT left a blank space on top of most signs for future shields to be added later.  It just so happened that former exits 33 and 34 both went to North Port and was signed just plain "North Port."

I see your point, but also others do not see our points either.  Sometimes the DOT engineers do not see things in color but black and white.  Heck one engineer on the NJ Turnpike once told me back in the 90's that I-95 exit numbering north of US 46 on the free section was the way it is now because it continues I-80's scheme even though it does not.  Anyone here can tell you (and our very own NE 2 would provide the website link to information regarding route exit numbers in NJ) that those are from the mileage of I-95 had the Somerset Freeway been built.

Anyway, signing for local points (or cities however you want to say it) was changed in many places.  The US 46 interchange for one used to have Hackensack/ Fort Lee instead of The Ridgefields and Palisades Park like it does now.  That was carbon copied from when the NJT ended at US 46 prior to 1971 when the section from US 46 to I-80 was opened and US 46 was the major east west route to connect the Turnpike with the GWB and points along I-80.  Remember the NJT was built even before I-80 in that part of the state, so Hackensack (the seat of Bergen) was prominent even back then.  It was only in the last twenty years that more local points were added even though Fort Lee for US 46 EB was misleading motorists to a degree as I-95 does go there and most of the time quicker.

I am not saying that Newark and Trenton should not be used, but it is in many places on freeway signs for roads shadowing interstates or toll roads to use more local points.  Even US 22 on I-287 has New York City for the EB Exit 14 even when I-78 was only signed for Newark.  That one is in unison with other road signs that use New York for control cities, which I can see the need to sign it on I-287, but really being it was carbon copied from before I-78 was completed I would think that now if engineers had to come up with a from scratch sign assembly as if that I-287 was brand new, it would be either Green Brook or North Plainfield for EB US 22 just like Franklin Park is for NJ 208 several miles to the north where I believe that either Fair Lawn or Parmamus is used on other EB NJ 208 signs in the area.

Bottom line the MUTCD does not cover everything and there is no set rules for how many times a city can be used on exit signing or else multiple city exits on interstates would only sign one exit for the city even if there are five.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 11, 2014, 09:53:05 AM
Also, it looks like tonight is the night that Exit 88 goes bye-bye forever (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2014/11/parkway_exit_to_close_permanently_monday_night.html#incart_river).
Going NB this morning, I could see that the SB BGSs for exit 89 now have the Route 70 shields uncovered, so I assume everything was completed last night to close off 88.  I look forward to some good entertainment tonight going home, with people crawling in the right lane looking for their missing exit.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 11, 2014, 04:32:13 PM
Apart from a few annoying areas on US 1, it definitely isn't the worst road to use to get places. If I'm heading south towards Trenton, it takes me about 25 minutes or so to get to the I-95/I-295 interchange, and considering it isn't tolled, I'm not too angry with it either. The only quips I have with US 1 is the right lane endings where people speed up to get ahead of everyone nearly causing a wreck.

The control cities for US 1 are fine on the Parkway. The same two control cities are used at the US 1 interchange with NJ 18 in New Brunswick as well. Plus, US 1 both enter these cities fully, and in Trenton's case, it is the only full-freeway within the actual city itself. People can also use it to cross back into Pennsylvania if they heading south anyway.

When I lived in Edison 5 years ago, I'd avoid US 1 like the plague even for local trips in the middle of the day, due to its always being congested. I did take it all the way from I 295 on occasion, but only Sunday nights when the infamous 6 to 8A congestion on the Turnpike required it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 11, 2014, 08:37:16 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 11, 2014, 08:46:14 PM

Anyway, signing for local points (or cities however you want to say it) was changed in many places.  The US 46 interchange for one used to have Hackensack/ Fort Lee instead of The Ridgefields and Palisades Park like it does now.  That was carbon copied from when the NJT ended at US 46 prior to 1971 when the section from US 46 to I-80 was opened and US 46 was the major east west route to connect the Turnpike with the GWB and points along I-80.  Remember the NJT was built even before I-80 in that part of the state, so Hackensack (the seat of Bergen) was prominent even back then.  It was only in the last twenty years that more local points were added even though Fort Lee for US 46 EB was misleading motorists to a degree as I-95 does go there and most of the time quicker.

The Ridgefields has been there at least 35 years.  I'd have them tell you themselves, but they're dining with the Caldwells tonight.


Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2014, 09:53:12 PM
I guess the Oranges and the Amboys weren't invited again.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 11, 2014, 10:12:55 PM
New exit 89B is open for business, and I tried it out for myself tonight.  Good shoehorn job last night turning 3 lanes into 4 + Jersey barrier in a tight space.  I noticed some guy stopped partially in the left lane of the mainline just opposite the old 88 - hopefully a breakdown and not some idiot trying to figure out where the exit went. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mtantillo on November 11, 2014, 11:30:34 PM
Nah, but the Apples and Amgirls were :)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 11, 2014, 11:37:35 PM

Anyway, signing for local points (or cities however you want to say it) was changed in many places.  The US 46 interchange for one used to have Hackensack/ Fort Lee instead of The Ridgefields and Palisades Park like it does now.  That was carbon copied from when the NJT ended at US 46 prior to 1971 when the section from US 46 to I-80 was opened and US 46 was the major east west route to connect the Turnpike with the GWB and points along I-80.  Remember the NJT was built even before I-80 in that part of the state, so Hackensack (the seat of Bergen) was prominent even back then.  It was only in the last twenty years that more local points were added even though Fort Lee for US 46 EB was misleading motorists to a degree as I-95 does go there and most of the time quicker.

The Ridgefields has been there at least 35 years.  I'd have them tell you themselves, but they're dining with the Caldwells tonight.



Northbound it was not there for 35 years.  The southbound lanes were not part of the original turnpike and those signs on that side were NJDOT when first erected as the Turnpike did not assume the maintenance on it until the mid 90's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 11, 2014, 11:45:17 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
Okay, that's interesting. Now I don't know what to expect. Definitely the right answer in this case - no Exit 132, north of MP 132, and north of 131A/B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 12:33:13 AM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
Okay, that's interesting. Now I don't know what to expect. Definitely the right answer in this case - no Exit 132, north of MP 132, and north of 131A/B.

I didn't either. They already put up the first BGS bridge for 131A going south, but it would be easy to green out the A going SB (and adding the B-A suffices for 130). I have to take a ride further up that part of the Parkway to see if they're going to renumber anything else. Properly suffixing 140 and 140A going SB would come to mind (to be 140B-A even though they don't both go to 22).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 12, 2014, 12:44:30 AM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.

Which is what I figured. SLDs put this at 131.97 anyway, so just round up. Considering 131 was my home exit for 16 years, it's kind of sad to see it go, because it's not 131 anymore. Everyone in the area always knows it as Exit 131. I wonder what happens if when NJ Turnpike goes milepost and we get Exit 83 instead of Exit 9, because Exit 9 has a big local thing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2014, 12:18:58 PM
Wow this is so impressive!  Exit numbers on the Parkway are important reference terms used by New Jereyians for decades.  It is like baseball and apple pie, to the Garden State.  To have a major interchange move one whole number up the scale must be annoying and confusing many locals who relied on the 131 number for years.

It is not like I-78's change with only a slight adjustment of the letters as it still all is 142 not creating that much confusion, but a whole number is being changed here.

BTW, Exit 140 going SB was always a fluke.  I am surprised it lasted that long as going NB it was always for US 22 while its southbound counterpart was given the same number to NJ 82 WB while US 22 got alphabet soup.  This, if they change it, would be an improvement and just like I-78 would create minimal confusion.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 12, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on November 12, 2014, 04:44:36 PM
Okay Exit 89.

BGS just passed the toll plaza now shows Exit 89 B Rte 70 Brick/Lakehurst and Exit 89 C CR528 Lakewood

I took the collector ramp to rte 70 this morning.  Right now its single lane.  The toll plaza at Exit 88 has now been removed.

 

 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 12, 2014, 05:00:32 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 12, 2014, 06:17:23 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
There are covered gore signs up at NJ 27. The other place I saw a covered gore sign? 140. So that pretty much tells you the 140/140A thing will disappear.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2014, 06:24:20 PM
Looks like Paragraph 3 of Section 3E.31 is at work here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 12, 2014, 07:15:07 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
There are covered gore signs up at NJ 27. The other place I saw a covered gore sign? 140. So that pretty much tells you the 140/140A thing will disappear.

Those covered up gores have been there for a couple months at 140/140A. I am hoping to see 140B/140A come out of it.

 From August 5:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14849153155_9d9d96cf65_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14849103375_09bb6d6e96_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 12, 2014, 07:35:39 PM
Don'tKnowYet, did you actually mean Section 2E-31?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2014, 08:59:58 PM
Don'tKnowYet, did you actually mean Section 2E-31?

I did.  Thank you for noticing.  2E.31.03.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 12, 2014, 10:12:33 PM
Between exits 143 and 171 the exit signs are not even touched yet. Also between 117 and 100.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 09:29:38 AM
If they do touch the signs in those areas will the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge still be kept  at 153 and 159 or will they have to change them to "New York City" as the tone of the MUTCD seems to be going with these days of leaving out state names and waterway crossings?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 10:37:44 AM
First of all, New Brunswick was used prior to the addition of the NB US 1 ramp at Exit 130.  So it could fit on the sign!  The supplemental could be removed it the destination became primary.


Enlighten me.  How would New Brunswick fit on this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5541583,-74.3183185,3a,75y,160.74h,87.75t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJXIggCh8OAvIeW2oR0Ao5A!2e0

Heck look further south on the GSP!  Both Brick and Lakewood are used on Exits 91, 89, and 88.  That is three exits with the same guide (soon to be two as GSP is currently making Exits 88 and 89 into one interchange) that is doing what you think cannot be done.

This is being corrected as I understand it.  A wrong being righted.

Finally control cities do not have to be well known or famous either.   Lots of places are on exit guides that are not even on maps. 

You do know the BIG difference between a control city/point and a destination?

It is straight forward as it is already in practice.

Disagree.  Jut because you see in South Carolina or Battleboro, NC doesn't mean it is correct practice.

http://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0075ncga Visit here, and if you open Picture 16, you will see an overhead assembly recently installed in GA along I-75 with two different exits having panels on the same gantry both being signed for Perry, GA.  Now how would you sign it if you say that GDOT is wrong here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 11:07:54 AM
http://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0075ncga Visit here, and if you open Picture 16, you will see an overhead assembly recently installed in GA along I-75 with two different exits having panels on the same gantry both being signed for Perry, GA.  Now how would you sign it if you say that GDOT is wrong here?

Don't know. I don't know shit about Georgia, but the fact that they are using EXIT to describe the distance in addition to the use of EXIT in the exit header sign leads me to believe that GDOT doesn't know shit about guide sign design, and thus the basic principles and needs of motorist navigation.  But the use of the same destination on the same truss has a high potential to disorient the non-familiar motorist.

The NJ Turnpike has a similar error from slapping Jersey City on every sign that a ramp of theirs happens to dump you off in.  To solve the Jersey City error, they should use a Jersey City NEXT X EXITS sign at the appropriate location and then sign for the neighborhood (or street as is othwise done). As you might know, Exchange Place and Communipaw for example are two completely different neighborhoods.  The non-familiar motorist or Manhattan visitor using mass transit from NJ would benefit from knowing that information.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 11:41:19 AM
http://www.aaroads.com/guide.php?page=i0075ncga Visit here, and if you open Picture 16, you will see an overhead assembly recently installed in GA along I-75 with two different exits having panels on the same gantry both being signed for Perry, GA.  Now how would you sign it if you say that GDOT is wrong here?

Don't know. I don't know shit about Georgia, but the fact that they are using EXIT to describe the distance in addition to the use of EXIT in the exit header sign leads me to believe that GDOT doesn't know shit about guide sign design, and thus the basic principles and needs of motorist navigation.  But the use of the same destination on the same truss has a high potential to disorient the non-familiar motorist.

The NJ Turnpike has a similar error from slapping Jersey City on every sign that a ramp of theirs happens to dump you off in.  To solve the Jersey City error, they should use a Jersey City NEXT X EXITS sign at the appropriate location and then sign for the neighborhood (or street as is othwise done). As you might know, Exchange Place and Communipaw for example are two completely different neighborhoods.  The non-familiar motorist or Manhattan visitor using mass transit from NJ would benefit from knowing that information.
Lets see you have one Jersey City exit on the mainline and two on the Extension that are separated by Exits 14 and 14A.  You cannot have the Next X Exits before Exit 14, so being Exit 15E is not for one specific neighborhood as its located in Newark.  Oh yes, what about Newark being signed on both Exits 15E and 15W?  I guess that is totally wrong as well!

On the extension yes, approaching Exit 14 it could be signed as Garfield Avenue for Exit 14B, and for the Columbus Drive exit green out the "Jersey City" and perhaps use "Downtown" there.    Approaching 14B have a Next 3 Exits sign as the third would be the terminus of the Extension, or have a directory board like Newark has now on the GSP with the different areas as you say should have.  Sort of like PA does with city streets, as a big city on most freeways use the street name to the various exits and do not use the Next X Exits thing, but use the region or neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 12:55:43 PM
On the extension yes, approaching Exit 14 it could be signed as Garfield Avenue for Exit 14B, and for the Columbus Drive exit green out the "Jersey City" and perhaps use "Downtown" there.    Approaching 14B have a Next 3 Exits sign as the third would be the terminus of the Extension, or have a directory board like Newark has now on the GSP with the different areas as you say should have.  Sort of like PA does with city streets, as a big city on most freeways use the street name to the various exits and do not use the Next X Exits thing, but use the region or neighborhoods.

Hence the word "appropriate".

Newark is a better example.  Thank you.  In fact, that southbound supplemental guide sign that says Newark Airport USE EXIT 14 or 13A is one of the most worthless signs ever in terms of helping motorists with navigation.

The Newark Bay Extension could benefit from a NEXT 5 EXITS sign at least.  14 A backtracking using Garfield Ave of via NJ 440 to the north takes you immediately into the Greenville section of Jersey City.  5 Exits would also include the slip ramp to Liberty State Park, Columbus Boulevard, and the Holland Tunnel in addition to 14 B.  Maybe the end of the viaduct could be Holland Tunnel or Pavonia-Newport as LAST EXIT IN NJ.

I'm exhausted.  I eagerly await to hear how i'm misinformed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 13, 2014, 04:40:13 PM
I forgot about the new slip ramp to the Liberty Park and Park and Ride.  That would add four, unless, like you said, 14A would be a good way to reach Greenville to make five.

As far as Newark goes, Ironbound should be used for Exit 15E in small letters with the already mentioned Newark.  Then Downtown Newark should be used for Exit 15W via I-280 to NJ 21 SB.  Sign it as Newark in big letters and then in small letters use Downtown.

The airport needs to be more specific like for Air Cargo and Terminals C & B to use 14 while Terminal A and the South Area to use Exit 13A.  Of course then you run confusion to which terminal is a driver's airline in.   Anyway i do not see the use both exits sign as that much of safety threat as both exits will take you where you want to go.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 13, 2014, 08:22:04 PM
Isn't this the G.S. Parkway thread?
Title: Re: Not the Garden State Parkway thread
Post by: NE2 on November 13, 2014, 08:23:51 PM
Isn't this the G.S. Parkway thread?
Nope.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 13, 2014, 09:05:04 PM
God forbid there is a two- or three-post tangent because comparisons or other examples are never helpful. Jeez.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 13, 2014, 11:24:13 PM
If they do touch the signs in those areas will the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge still be kept  at 153 and 159 or will they have to change them to "New York City" as the tone of the MUTCD seems to be going with these days of leaving out state names and waterway crossings?
No, NJ is going to keep the crossing names to Manhattan, because it's critical for navigation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2014, 01:17:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/KyWlS4n.jpg)

Snapped that this morning on my way to Metropark. Not sure why they covered the panels for 131A and B unless it's because they're not signing 131A as Metropark anymore (just S Wood Ave). 131B I believe is the same Metropark sign they're using for 131A SB except that it's green instead of blue (I never got the blue signs to begin with. Metropark Train Station is a destination, not a service if you want to really classify it properly). Also, no more Iselin on the (soon to be) 132 signage. They did put up an auxillary sign before the Rt 1 onramps that says Iselin Next 3 Exits so that's OK. I'll be curious to see some of the other signage that will go up soon. It looks like the sign bridge for 130 going SB is ready to go up shortly as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 14, 2014, 01:20:14 PM
So 131 is now becoming 132. Saw a new BGS sign complete with a yellow "Formerly 131" tab on it. So 131 becomes 132 and SB 131A will likely become 131 since there isn't a 131B southbound.
That change must've occured this Monday (Nov. 10).  I was on the GSP on this past weekend (northbound on Saturday/southbound on Sunday) in that area and saw no changes to the exit tabs at all.

They haven't put the new signs up yet. They are sitting in the median by 130 which is where I saw that.
There are covered gore signs up at NJ 27. The other place I saw a covered gore sign? 140. So that pretty much tells you the 140/140A thing will disappear.

Those covered up gores have been there for a couple months at 140/140A. I am hoping to see 140B/140A come out of it.

 From August 5:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14849153155_9d9d96cf65_c.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3914/14849103375_09bb6d6e96_c.jpg)

I'm still not 100% sure why they didn't do that when they put up all the new signage for 142A-B since they replaced all the SB signage for 141 and 140/A at that time. Should have just fixed it to be 140B-A when they did that.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 14, 2014, 01:33:00 PM
I can understand why the put up Iselin on supplemental signs and signing it for 3 exits because I used to work at Prudential on S. Wood Avenue and it was addressed in Iselin as so are the other offices along S. Wood Avenue.  Many visitors frequent the companies as corporate executives from the home office someplace else, or clients so that is understandable to have now.

What gets me is now the control cities are not using the Downtown as the point for it, but are now taking in the city/town/area limits as we as citizens have evolved into something different from what we once were.  Not being negative about us as humans, but just pointing out that our demands have been changing over time, so now must signs on the roads catch up with us.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 14, 2014, 03:58:07 PM
NJTA or NJDOT took down the new carbon copy signs on the Exit 129 southbound service road at New Brunswick Ave. that showed NJ-440 EAST/WEST. Hopefully they get a correction. Also, NJDOT finally re-striped US-9 south there with an auxiliary lane from the end of the service road to the Exit for NJ-440 South/Riverside Ave. (another replacement sign with a now incorrect street name!).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 15, 2014, 11:59:33 AM
NJTA or NJDOT took down the new carbon copy signs on the Exit 129 southbound service road at New Brunswick Ave. that showed NJ-440 EAST/WEST. Hopefully they get a correction. Also, NJDOT finally re-striped US-9 south there with an auxiliary lane from the end of the service road to the Exit for NJ-440 South/Riverside Ave. (another replacement sign with a now incorrect street name!).
Oh yeah, what does it say now?  Did they move the I-287 shield to the US 9 South guide finally as well?
I take that they still use "Industrial Avenue" then?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 15, 2014, 03:57:05 PM
NJTA or NJDOT took down the new carbon copy signs on the Exit 129 southbound service road at New Brunswick Ave. that showed NJ-440 EAST/WEST. Hopefully they get a correction. Also, NJDOT finally re-striped US-9 south there with an auxiliary lane from the end of the service road to the Exit for NJ-440 South/Riverside Ave. (another replacement sign with a now incorrect street name!).

That was a long time coming. They replaced those signs in like 1998 or so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 16, 2014, 11:23:40 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 16, 2014, 11:46:21 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

If I read what NJRoadFan said correctly, that should be happening. I say should without any certainty, because NJTA isn't always known to make sure that legends are updated when signs are replaced. This is why we still have signs for 440 East on the circle ramp at Exit 10.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 16, 2014, 11:53:26 PM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

Those signs are the ones that went missing, they were put up about 2-3 years ago to replace the old NJHA ones from who knows how long ago (see below for a 2001 shot). Besides saying East/West, the left sign should be SOUTH 9 TO 440. Replacement is likely part of the larger signing project from 129 to 140 although no other signs (mainly the NJTP ramp signs on that service road) have been touched yet.

(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/nj-440_east_west.jpg)

The other carbon copy replacement is at the exit ramp and was replaced around the same time, one reason why I suspect the above sign was replaced by NJDOT (its also on a NJDOT style gantry that matches the rest of the tangle). http://goo.gl/maps/JbUvE

It should say "Riverside Dr." as the road was renamed before that sign was replaced. The actual split got the correct name though and it looks like the signs were put in back in 2010. http://goo.gl/maps/0Rnfe
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 17, 2014, 12:18:51 AM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

If I read what NJRoadFan said correctly, that should be happening. I say should without any certainty, because NJTA isn't always known to make sure that legends are updated when signs are replaced. This is why we still have signs for 440 East on the circle ramp at Exit 10.

Ah, true. I have yet to go up there to check it out. What's funny is, Rt 440 runs more east-west, than north-south, especially on the NJ side. I-287 is more north-south, anyhow.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 17, 2014, 11:56:58 AM
These signs need to be corrected to read 440 north and 440 south: http://goo.gl/maps/xSgj8

If I read what NJRoadFan said correctly, that should be happening. I say should without any certainty, because NJTA isn't always known to make sure that legends are updated when signs are replaced. This is why we still have signs for 440 East on the circle ramp at Exit 10.

Ah, true. I have yet to go up there to check it out. What's funny is, Rt 440 runs more east-west, than north-south, especially on the NJ side. I-287 is more north-south, anyhow.

They made it N-S so that it matched up both with NY440 and the northern section of NJ 440 in Bayonne, so you have one stretch of N-S road all the way through Middlesex County, SI NY, and Hudson County. It's also why you have the weird thing of 287 Southbound becoming 440 Northbound at the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2014, 11:39:32 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5794095,-74.4574375,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sAAJERcmQ6V10KYduUASdCw!2e0 I was noticing this here when cruising GSV.  I see "Tuckerton" is now a control city for US 9 North at Exit 50 instead of Batso Village.  In addition I see "Toms River" is control city for the GSP pull through over Newark or New York at this location.

However, nice job they did here on replacing the overpass and with the signage on overheads here.  This image was prior to the construction complete, as the lanes are still shifted on to the shoulders, but still nice job they did.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 19, 2014, 12:45:37 AM
I noticed that on the NB C/D lanes at 98, the overhead BGS just before the on-ramp tolls appears to have eliminated text that indicated it as a toll road (or that the toll barrier was just ahead - can't recall exactly) just under the text "Parkway North".  The old text appears on the GSV here but is almost impossible to read:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.17143,-74.098309&spn=0.000008,0.004866&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.17152,-74.099317&panoid=CWMC9J4cMJmZhFhyaWNyUA&cbp=12,51.51,,0,1.88 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.17143,-74.098309&spn=0.000008,0.004866&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.17152,-74.099317&panoid=CWMC9J4cMJmZhFhyaWNyUA&cbp=12,51.51,,0,1.88)
The current text can be seen from the NJ 138 overpass here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.170567,-74.098926&spn=0.000004,0.002433&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.170569,-74.09907&panoid=htkxDWkJKPc8-iTtnmz1kw&cbp=12,357.28,,0,7.74 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.170567,-74.098926&spn=0.000004,0.002433&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.170569,-74.09907&panoid=htkxDWkJKPc8-iTtnmz1kw&cbp=12,357.28,,0,7.74)
I don't recall the exact text, but I'm not sure why they would eliminate this from the sign unless it specifically called out the toll price at the time (was $0.25, but I believe is now $0.50 - never know anymore with EZPass....).  Although anyone on the C/D lanes would have had to pass a standard GSP entrance sign with 'toll road' indicated, it was at least a good heads up that you were coming up on the booths.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on November 19, 2014, 12:57:00 AM
(http://www.interstate-guide.com/images195/i-195_nj_et_13.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 19, 2014, 01:20:50 AM
Well that resolves that...  Guess I should've checked the photos on this same site.  They could've blanked out the '25c' for a more informative, if more stupid looking sign.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 19, 2014, 06:47:14 AM
Well that resolves that...  Guess I should've checked the photos on this same site.  They could've blanked out the '25c' for a more informative, if more stupid looking sign.


They did that on the previous sign, which I just discovered is not yet uploaded.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2014, 12:59:37 PM
Well that resolves that...  Guess I should've checked the photos on this same site.  They could've blanked out the '25c' for a more informative, if more stupid looking sign.


Not only is the GSP doing this, but many signs on Florida's many toll roads have been covering up the price of the tolls as well.   With everything going to electronic tolling, the price now is irrelevant in most minds.

Plus the constant rate increases, which now more than ever seem to take place, many toll road agencies do not want to keep hiring a crew to keep greening out a sign every other month or so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:09:33 PM
When I passed under the sign yesterday that was referenced in my earlier post, I could see that there is still a blanked out portion under "Parkway North", even though I think the current BGS is newer than the original one shown in the photo with the toll price (it now has the yellow "Only" section at the bottom rather than the arrows).  I think when they first put up this newer sign there was just "Toll Road" text which is now blanked out.  I remember passing it one day and thinking "Why would they bother blanking that out?".

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 20, 2014, 01:16:14 PM
Who knows with that one.  I like the one where they fail to mention that Wood Avenue in Iselin is DEAD END for truckers as it terminates at the trumpet of former Exit 131A.  I have seen so many 18 wheelers make u turns because it comes as a surprise to the drivers that Wood Avenue splits into two ramps for the GSP that prohibits trucks on it.   At Thornall Street, the last major intersection a sign should be placed saying LOCAL TRUCKS ONLY and at about 1000 feet before the end of Wood Avenue another sign should be placed saying LAST TURN FOR TRUCKS and also LAST TURN BEFORE PARKWAY for cars who, I am sure accidentally, end up on the Parkway because who would think a local street would default onto a toll road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 20, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on November 20, 2014, 04:02:17 PM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)

Yeah, what's the deal with 649 just dumping you onto the GSP once you're past the intersection with Hilton? I was following the road from the light with NJ 27 and there isn't even a hint of signage that suggests the GSP is straight ahead.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2014, 12:22:15 AM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)

Yeah, what's the deal with 649 just dumping you onto the GSP once you're past the intersection with Hilton? I was following the road from the light with NJ 27 and there isn't even a hint of signage that suggests the GSP is straight ahead.
I have worked at Prudential back in the late 80's, which is right across a street from Hilton, and I have seen many tractor trailers making 4 point k turns to turn around because the lack of signage informing motorist that the road ends and defaults onto two freeway ramps that excludes trucks.

I am glad that I am not the only one to notice this mistake.  It should be marked at the Thornall Street intersection NO THRU TRUCKS and then just before the Hilton and Prudential Drives a LAST TURN FOR TRUCKS and post intersection maybe on overhead saying PARKWAY ONLY!

Also, I was noticing that on GSV at NB Exit 144 there is no guide sign for that exit.  Only the gore point exit sign and a 3/4 mile guide on the Madison Avenue Bridge prior to the ramp.  If the GSP can goof this one up, as guide signs are supposed to be at each exit as well as in advance, they can screw up things like this for Wood Avenue which is Middlesex County and not even their own roadway.

Middlesex County, is also the blame here, as they should be the ones to install signs along Wood Avenue as the GSP cannot do all of their dirty work.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 21, 2014, 12:27:58 AM
Ah, yes - Metro Park.  That does abruptly dump you onto the GSP.  They really do need a sign - a big sign - telling you that you are GSP bound beyond the light.  At least something like this:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.287321,-74.078158&spn=0.000002,0.001328&cbll=40.287275,-74.078513&layer=c&panoid=LkzU7JzrkX-cHGo-BbL4mQ&cbp=12,236.7,,0,0&t=h&z=20)

Before clicking the link, I said, "If that's not Exit 105, I'll post that in response."
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 22, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
I just watched a new youtube video of the modified Exit 89 which takes motorists to the now defunct Exit 88 as well via a long service road.   However it is marked Exits 89 C-B and a covered A (for the completed EB cloverleaf) which is very interesting.  More so than the 131 saga is and the 140 sign coverup is this here, as we are now seeing a system wide change for exit numbers in the works.
http://patch.com/new-jersey/manchester-nj/parkway-exit-88-may-be-gone-89-will-still-get-you-manchesters-route-70-villages 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 03, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(http://i.imgur.com/S7YCjok.jpg)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on January 03, 2015, 10:31:04 AM
storm2k:  Now that's a Parkway sign!  Thanks.😊
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SidS1045 on January 03, 2015, 10:52:49 PM
So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(http://i.imgur.com/S7YCjok.jpg)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.

I took that exit many times to visit my aunt, uncle and cousins in Little Silver.  I believe the original shield was a plain black-on-white rectangle:

MONMOUTH
  COUNTY
     520
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 05, 2015, 10:14:05 PM

So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(http://i.imgur.com/S7YCjok.jpg)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.

I took that exit many times to visit my aunt, uncle and cousins in Little Silver.  I believe the original shield was a plain black-on-white rectangle:

MONMOUTH
  COUNTY
     520

Both words on top?  Bergen had/has a square with

BERGEN
    503
COUNTY

(small words above and below large numerals)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 06, 2015, 08:06:45 AM
All the blue pentagon county route shields were added slowly from the 70's to the 80's.  I remember when the white squares were used with the county names inside the independent shields and just plain on freeway guides except for Morris County which already had the present day shields in place as far as I can remember.   I am guessing that Morris was the first to implement them because as a kid visiting my aunt in Parsippany, NJ I remember seeing them while all the other counties had the white ones, which I thought was cool.  It was like Morris had their own neat little shields until slowly statewide I seen them pop up more and more.

In fact, Middlessex County did not start adding them until the very late 80's along their road system.  I was living in Fords, NJ when I seen them first go up on CR 514 and then CR 501 (at least from King George Road and westward) did not have them east of Downtown Fords, but did along Amboy Avenue, Middlessex Avenue (in Metuchen) and along New Durham Road.  I lived there from 1987 to 1990, so it goes to show how late NJ counties were in signing their own state secondary roads.  I believe Union was even after that as I did not see blue signs go up until after I moved here  to Florida except at some intersections in some bedroom communities when I used to travel to work up in the hills of Watchung. 

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SidS1045 on January 06, 2015, 11:46:43 AM

So NJ.com has a gallery (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/vintage_photos_of_winter_scenes_in_nj.html) about old snow storms in NJ, and it includes this gem of a Parkway sign:

(http://i.imgur.com/S7YCjok.jpg)

It looks like the CR-520 shield was attached after the fact. Wonder if it's covering a different shield.

I took that exit many times to visit my aunt, uncle and cousins in Little Silver.  I believe the original shield was a plain black-on-white rectangle:

MONMOUTH
  COUNTY
     520

Both words on top?  Bergen had/has a square with

BERGEN
    503
COUNTY

(small words above and below large numerals)

It very well could be the way you remember it.  It was many, many moons ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on January 07, 2015, 10:34:18 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):

(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_202/s620.jpg)

From: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_202/6.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):
I miss those old county route signs.  Are there any still around in NJ? 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 12:32:30 PM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):
Also in Monmouth County:
(http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_13/s520.jpg)
from http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/cr_13/
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on January 07, 2015, 01:03:15 PM
I thought that first CR sign was a really old photo - but sure enough:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51)
Good to see some still exist.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 07, 2015, 02:25:36 PM
I thought that first CR sign was a really old photo - but sure enough:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.647106,-74.640309&spn=0.000004,0.002575&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.647034,-74.640724&panoid=ce0bVOFfyYRyveV2PTEbZA&cbp=12,166.54,,0,6.51)
Good to see some still exist.



Unfortunately, I think that gem is gone now, victim to construction to the buildings directly to the right of the original sign.

There used to be an old black and white CR-527 shield on the offramp from Exit 10 from 287 NB. I think that one met its maker as well, however.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 07, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
Still several on NJ 41 where it's signed as CR 573 (Kings Hwy.).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 17, 2015, 08:50:00 PM
They put up new signage for Exit 129 SB and in spite of the official designations found on this drawing (http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/SD-NJTA-SL18.pdf), the pull through guide signs still use Shore Points as the control city. I'll try to grab a picture or two if I can at some point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 18, 2015, 09:43:34 AM
Old-style County Routes were signed like so (at least in Somerset County):
I miss those old county route signs.  Are there any still around in NJ?

Here's another, in Hackensack.  There are a lot of these in Bergen, particularly on the non-500 routes.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8592/16307211781_aacac31874.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qR1HVP)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 20, 2015, 01:24:04 AM
I still see Bergen County still mounts the truss style mast arms up side down at some of their maintained signals.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on January 20, 2015, 09:37:12 PM
The exit sign for Exit 41 (future Jimmy Leeds Rd) is up but covered. Red lights at that exit are in place but also covered. Should be any week now that the exit is open, so we don't have to use a service plaza to get to the road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 22, 2015, 11:38:14 AM
How is the Exit 44 ramps coming along?

Also about Shore Points verses Toms River thing we should be grateful that the NJTA is using any control city as for years (well  anyway elsewhere on the GSP) there were no control cities listed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 22, 2015, 05:43:55 PM
Also about Shore Points verses Toms River thing we should be grateful that the NJTA is using any control city as for years (well  anyway elsewhere on the GSP) there were no control cities listed.

Actually the pullthroughs at 129 listed Shore Points and the Cape May Ferry as control cities for at least 21 or 22 years, from whenever they replaced the signs along that stretch, which was when they put in those first generation VMS's that used the mechanical dots to display messages. I'm not old enough to concretely remember what was there before, but I'm pretty sure there was some designation for Shore Points there before as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on January 22, 2015, 11:46:23 PM
I heard that exit 40 would become a full interchange, it's needed since US 30 is a major artery to and from Atlantic City and such. But it's up to the residents of the community.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 23, 2015, 02:10:34 AM
Also about Shore Points verses Toms River thing we should be grateful that the NJTA is using any control city as for years (well  anyway elsewhere on the GSP) there were no control cities listed.

Actually the pullthroughs at 129 listed Shore Points and the Cape May Ferry as control cities for at least 21 or 22 years, from whenever they replaced the signs along that stretch, which was when they put in those first generation VMS's that used the mechanical dots to display messages. I'm not old enough to concretely remember what was there before, but I'm pretty sure there was some designation for Shore Points there before as well.
That is why I said elsewhere.  Shore Points and the Cape May Ferry have always been there as long as I can remember anyway.  I know the Tangle signs that were erected when the whole area between Exits 127 and 129 was redone to accommodate NJ 440 and the present day Exit 11 back in the early 70's.  However, pull through signing elsewhere on the Parkway always said either PARKWAY NORTH or PARKWAY SOUTH.  That always was an exception and not the norm.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 27, 2015, 08:43:49 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 10:22:00 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 27, 2015, 11:10:03 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 27, 2015, 11:31:27 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.

He said unveiled. When I was there earlier this month, There was an Exit 132 sign on the side of an Exit 131A ramp that was uncovered. Wish I had a chance to get a shot.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 28, 2015, 11:39:33 PM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.

He said unveiled. When I was there earlier this month, There was an Exit 132 sign on the side of an Exit 131A ramp that was uncovered. Wish I had a chance to get a shot.

It's still there. Not sure what the wait is on getting the rest of the signs up. Either the cold weather slowed them down or they're waiting on some more signs to be manufactured. They did get the exit point sign up for the future 132 northbound. It's behind the old school button copy sign. No longer says Iselin on it, just Rahway and Metuchen. And it's higher up than the existing sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 29, 2015, 12:13:33 AM
Has the new signs at Exits 131 and 140 yet been unveiled?

As of a week and a half ago, no.
Some of them are up at 131, but the exit numbers are covered, and the old signs remain behind the new ones. The rest are close by, so it won't be too long. Not sure what the wait is. 140, other than a covered gore sign, I haven't seen anything new.

He said unveiled. When I was there earlier this month, There was an Exit 132 sign on the side of an Exit 131A ramp that was uncovered. Wish I had a chance to get a shot.

It's still there. Not sure what the wait is on getting the rest of the signs up. Either the cold weather slowed them down or they're waiting on some more signs to be manufactured. They did get the exit point sign up for the future 132 northbound. It's behind the old school button copy sign. No longer says Iselin on it, just Rahway and Metuchen. And it's higher up than the existing sign.
Iselin isn't a thing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 29, 2015, 02:57:27 PM
Iselin isn't a thing.
I beg to differ. More than half of the business park in the area has Iselin addresses including where I used to work. Also Microsoft has its New Jersey office is in Iselin.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 29, 2015, 03:55:48 PM
Iselin isn't a thing.
I beg to differ. More than half of the business park in the area has Iselin addresses including where I used to work. Also Microsoft has its New Jersey office is in Iselin.

The post office will use the smallest of hamlets to have a location.

Yes, Iselin is not a municipality, but a section of Woodbridge. I agree though that Iselin is a census-designated place with a population in the mid-18,000s (18,695). (Like its sister communities: Avenel (17,011), Fords (15,187), Colonia (17,795)). What justification does Iselin have to be on the BGS if the other three do not, and you can get to Colonia easily from Exit 131 (to be 132)?

However, it is not a municipality and is not required to be put on the sign. Argument can also be made to the fact that Winfield Park, a section of Winfield Township, has been removed from Exit 136.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 29, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
However, it is not a municipality and is not required to be put on the sign. Argument can also be made to the fact that Winfield Park, a section of Winfield Township, has been removed from Exit 136.

Winfield Township = Winfield Park, its not like the place is big or anything. The latter is what everyone calls the town.

What you are seeing is the signing differences between NJDOT and NJTPA. NJDOT almost always signs place names on exits when they are used frequently by the locals. I think Colonia landed up on a new ground mounted auxiliary sign where it wasn't signed at all before. Iselin will likely land up on Exit 131A/B somewhere, remember that the NJ-27 exit used to serve the entire area before those Metropark exits were built.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on January 29, 2015, 05:28:51 PM
Iselin is a place. Who gives a fuck if it won the incorporation lottery?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 29, 2015, 05:40:16 PM

Yes, Iselin is not a municipality, but a section of Woodbridge. I agree though that Iselin is a census-designated place with a population in the mid-18,000s (18,695). (Like its sister communities: Avenel (17,011), Fords (15,187), Colonia (17,795)). What justification does Iselin have to be on the BGS if the other three do not, and you can get to Colonia easily from Exit 131 (to be 132)?

How about rather than population, studying trip destinations from the exit and labeling it accordingly?  A large employment center may be a more reasonable destination to sign than comparably-populated places.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 30, 2015, 09:40:43 PM
However, it is not a municipality and is not required to be put on the sign. Argument can also be made to the fact that Winfield Park, a section of Winfield Township, has been removed from Exit 136.

Winfield Township = Winfield Park, its not like the place is big or anything. The latter is what everyone calls the town.

What you are seeing is the signing differences between NJDOT and NJTPA. NJDOT almost always signs place names on exits when they are used frequently by the locals. I think Colonia landed up on a new ground mounted auxiliary sign where it wasn't signed at all before. Iselin will likely land up on Exit 131A/B somewhere, remember that the NJ-27 exit used to serve the entire area before those Metropark exits were built.

Iselin is on a ground mounted auxiliary sign going NB after the Turnpike on-ramp and before the Colonia gas stations SB.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 31, 2015, 12:40:06 PM
Wow Winfield Park is removed from the Exit 136 guide!  Hopefully they replaced Cranford back on it as it was removed by NJDOT back in the 1980 during the 6 lane upgrade project in Union and Northern Middlesex.

Also going SB it was never followed up at the jughandle on CR 619 anyway.  As we all know you cannot turn left onto CR 619 directly from the ramp, so traffic is forced to turn right onto CR 619 and u turn at Concord Street.  That jughandle did not even have Roselle listed on the guide sign as much as Winfield Park was not there, so drivers to two of the three listed control cities were not aided once off the ramp.

In fact all three control cities of Linden, Roselle, and Winfield Park were all to the left of SB Exit 136 in which that ramp was a right turn only.  Ironic to say the least.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 31, 2015, 04:37:51 PM
Wow Winfield Park is removed from the Exit 136 guide!  Hopefully they replaced Cranford back on it as it was removed by NJDOT back in the 1980 during the 6 lane upgrade project in Union and Northern Middlesex.

Also going SB it was never followed up at the jughandle on CR 619 anyway.  As we all know you cannot turn left onto CR 619 directly from the ramp, so traffic is forced to turn right onto CR 619 and u turn at Concord Street.  That jughandle did not even have Roselle listed on the guide sign as much as Winfield Park was not there, so drivers to two of the three listed control cities were not aided once off the ramp.

In fact all three control cities of Linden, Roselle, and Winfield Park were all to the left of SB Exit 136 in which that ramp was a right turn only.  Ironic to say the least.

Signs only say Linden & Roselle.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7485/16311285882_6011669028_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 31, 2015, 06:54:23 PM
Their math isn't adding up, the old sign has 1.5 miles to Exit 136 at the 135 ramp itself. :P

http://goo.gl/maps/yJ5TG

Didn't there used to be a Exit 137 sign in the now empty spot on the left of this gantry?

I also suspect there was an Exit 135 sign on this gantry as well: http://goo.gl/maps/lxSrH
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 31, 2015, 07:35:59 PM
No these were all HOV lanes that were only used a short while back in 1980 and 1981.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on January 31, 2015, 08:18:57 PM
Why are there no road names on those signs?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 31, 2015, 10:44:54 PM
Why are there no road names on those signs?

They are two county routes each, I see no need for them. Plus both exits have numerous roads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on February 01, 2015, 02:24:35 PM
No these were all HOV lanes that were only used a short while back in 1980 and 1981.

Thanks for finally answering a question that I've had for years about the blank spots on all of those NJDOT spec sign bridges on the free section.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 01, 2015, 02:32:54 PM
What was the extent of those HOV lanes? NJDOT controlled the "free" section still in 1980-82 when they were built, but news reports of the time said it was a NJHA lead venture.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2015, 03:03:33 PM
I think they might of had influence over that.  It was started when the left (4th) lane was opened after a long widening project took place that completed in 1980.  It was to induce carpooling at the time, but was an immediate flop and it was abandoned with the signs coming down within a couple of years.

I-80 in Morris County had something similar that was abandoned a short time later.  In fact along I-80 in the Denville- Dover area you will see blank sign gantries from the center still there (or at least the time that some enthusiasts here last shot that part of I-80 for their websites). 

In Florida, I-4 had a similar set up near Orlando back in the late 80s and early 90s.  It had the left lane restricted during peak hours for HOV2 and near the Kirlman Interchange just those exiting on the left for part of it.  However, no one heeded the signs and it got to the point where FDOT and Florida Highway Patrol stopped enforcing it and just let the signs be until a road project removed them.
Title: Exit signs with town names only
Post by: SignBridge on February 01, 2015, 08:34:12 PM
Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 02, 2015, 12:25:36 PM
Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Using Exit 136 as an example, no one up here knows what CR 615 (Stiles Street) and CR 607 (Raritan Road) are by their number.

NJTPA chose not to put Stiles Street on the sign. That's up to them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:28:50 PM
Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Using Exit 136 as an example, no one up here knows what CR 615 (Stiles Street) and CR 607 (Raritan Road) are by their number.

NJTPA chose not to put Stiles Street on the sign. That's up to them.

In general (at least in NJ), most people know street names, not route numbers.  But the MUTCD doesn't go by one person's opinion of what local people may or may not know; they are primarily for those that *don't* know the area.

From the MUTCD:
Quote
Section 2E.02 Freeway and Expressway Signing Principles
Support:
01 The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:34:36 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.  One exception There are some exceptions, however; one of them being NJTP signage for Exit 5 (CR 541).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:38:18 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.

NJ Turnpike Exit 5 for Rt. 541 wails in agony.

http://goo.gl/maps/fYy4H
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on February 02, 2015, 01:41:25 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.

There's an exception to that rule:

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey280/i-287_nb_exit_053_01.jpg)

But on the whole, 6xx county roads are seldom signed on overheads and large ground-mounted signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 01:47:19 PM
NJ Turnpike Exit 5 for Rt. 541 wails in agony.

http://goo.gl/maps/fYy4H
I was under the impression that replacement signage for that interchange was going to have CR 541 shields per MUTCD.  I guess not.

There's an exception to that rule:

(http://www.aaroads.com/northeast/new_jersey280/i-287_nb_exit_053_01.jpg)
That's probably the only known exception that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 01:49:39 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.

And as far as NJDOT goes, there's a LOT of 6xx signs posted.  Hell, Exit 21-22 North on 295 has FOUR  6xx on a single BGS! http://goo.gl/maps/DBJMX

Other examples:

2 exits with 6xx on I-295:  http://goo.gl/maps/eF8Rp

Creek Rd exit with 'To 7xx':  http://goo.gl/maps/ofdyA
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on February 02, 2015, 01:52:17 PM
5xx routes are intended for through travel, while 6xx routes are more for inventory purposes.

PS: doesn't I-78 have a 6xx signed at one of the former spur 5xxes? And yes, the part of I-295 that replaced US 130 on the spot has a bunch.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on February 02, 2015, 01:52:35 PM

Roadgeek Adam, I disagree. If there are numbered county routes at those exits, the route shields should be on the signs. I hate not knowing what road I'm exiting on to. Town names by themselves are too general. A route number or road name is specific.

Using Exit 136 as an example, no one up here knows what CR 615 (Stiles Street) and CR 607 (Raritan Road) are by their number.

NJTPA chose not to put Stiles Street on the sign. That's up to them.

In general (at least in NJ), most people know street names, not route numbers.  But the MUTCD doesn't go by one person's opinion of what local people may or may not know; they are primarily for those that *don't* know the area.

From the MUTCD:
Quote
Section 2E.02 Freeway and Expressway Signing Principles
Support:
01 The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area.

Unfortunately, when you require an arbitrary standard that is not what locals use or even know, you don't give the unfamiliar user the best possible information to work with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on February 02, 2015, 02:08:40 PM
Exit 135 has the issue of having three roads at the exit, Central Avenue, Brant Avenue and Valley Road. Signage off the exit goes to Central and Bryant.

Do we really want signs of:

EXIT 135
[CR 613]
Central Avenue
Bryant Avenue
Valley Road
Clark
Westfield
EXIT 1/2 MILE

or

EXIT 136
[CR 615] [CR 607]
Stiles Street
Raritan Road
Linden
Roselle
EXIT 1 1/2 MILES

I think that's a bit excessive if you ask me. I understand the MUTCD wants streets and stuff, but it's not exactly helpful.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 03:20:16 PM
Exit 135 has the issue of having three roads at the exit, Central Avenue, Brant Avenue and Valley Road. Signage off the exit goes to Central and Bryant.

Do we really want signs of:

EXIT 135
[CR 613]
Central Avenue
Bryant Avenue
Valley Road
Clark
Westfield
EXIT 1/2 MILE

or

EXIT 136
[CR 615] [CR 607]
Stiles Street
Raritan Road
Clark
Westfield
EXIT 1 1/2 MILES

I think that's a bit excessive if you ask me. I understand the MUTCD wants streets and stuff, but it's not exactly helpful.
How about:

EXIT 135
[CR 613]
Clark
Westfield
1/2 MILE


The above would meet MUTCD criteria.  A supplemental BGS for the one street that isn't part of CR 613 could be added.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on February 02, 2015, 03:37:25 PM
IIRC, neither NJDOT nor NJTPA (& NJHA when it existed) place CR 6XX (or 7XX (?)) shields on BGS' (or LGS').  Stand-alone trailblazers/reassurance markers, street blades and overpass signs are the only places where the driving public sees CR 6XX shields & labels.

OTOH, CR 5XX routes are fully signed.  One exception being NJTP signage for Exit 5 (CR 541).

I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 02, 2015, 04:25:50 PM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
Jeffandnicole on the previous page of this thread already posted a similar BGS near that interchange.

Nonetheless, I have since re-worded/corrected my original post.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 02, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
I'm more frustrated that the local radio reports (from Philadelphia) give route numbers instead of exit numbers or road names. That serves no one as those who are familiar with the area will not know the (county) route numbers, while those who are unfamiliar will only have looked up the destination and not some random place that might end up being congested, so have no idea if it's on the way. NJ 511 reports seem to mostly recite all of the information on overhead signs, so they are more understandable to everyone. For that matter, so do most GPS devices.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on February 02, 2015, 07:20:34 PM
 I agree with PHLBOS's suggestion on for the legend on that sign for Exit-135. That seems like a good compromise. Other road names/shields could be shown on a supplemental sign. BTW, the MUTCD specifies route shields should be used where they exist, not street names; so I wasn't suggesting all those street names be displayed with the town names. That would be an excessive amount of legend. Also, I did not know that New Jersey distinguished between primary and secondary county routes using a 500 series number vs. a 600/700 series number and that "normally" only the 500 routes were signed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 02, 2015, 08:10:52 PM
...NJ 511 reports seem to mostly recite all of the information on overhead signs, so they are more understandable to everyone. For that matter, so do most GPS devices.

511 basically takes from the NJDOT database, so they should always match up to (or give more info than) what is seen on the highway.

...I did not know that New Jersey distinguished between primary and secondary county routes using a 500 series number vs. a 600/700 series number and that "normally" only the 500 routes were signed.

Throughout the state, on can encounter several duplicate 6xx's, although each county would only have 1 of each number (ie: there may be a 601 in Salem County & Mercer County, completely unrelated to each other). But, there will only be one 5xx, such as 501, in the state. They can be several counties long in distance.  7xx are relatively rare. I can't think of an example off the top of my head of a duped 7xx, although some seem to carry a good deal of traffic (such as my Creek Rd example on the previous page).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 02, 2015, 08:19:43 PM
Wow, a whole page of this before I get to it.
The official rule is that the NJTA will post all 5xx routes and no 6xx (etc.) routes. Any exceptions will be corrected in due course, including CR 541 at Exit 5 and any 6xx's on the southern Parkway.
No reason to sign 6xx's in North Jersey from any intersecting highway. Even if you're not from the area, you will be looking for street names, not numbers. This applies to Union, Essex, Passaic, Bergen, and Hudson Counties, as well as eastern Ocean and Monmouth Counties.
NJDOT has no policy. They'll sign 6xx routes if it makes sense to do so, i.e. outside of the above counties.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on February 03, 2015, 12:16:52 AM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
I always thought the gratuitous use of four 600 series routes on this BGS was absolutely ridiculous.  I believe at one time, CR 534 was signed all the way to this interchange, and it would be just as well to continue to sign it here directly or with a "TO" (or just add yet another "TO 44" on the sign and be done with it).

They recently removed the 600 series shields from GSP exits 77 and 74 in Ocean County when they widened the roadway through that area.  I don't think the 600 shields were up for that long before that either.  Ocean County itself is very sloppy with signing 600 series routes, if they bother to sign them at all.  New Hampshire Ave. in the Lakewood area (CR 623) is only sporadically signed at certain intersections.  Why even bother?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 06:25:07 AM
I-295 in Gloucester and Salem Counties have 6/700 series CR shields on all of its interchanges' BGSes. In fact there's one that is a confluence of 4 different CRs all in the 600s:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.842779,-75.188154,3a,24.7y,57.36h,90.65t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sfd-FYJnDnNMzP7qnFngDPw!2e0
I always thought the gratuitous use of four 600 series routes on this BGS was absolutely ridiculous.  I believe at one time, CR 534 was signed all the way to this interchange, and it would be just as well to continue to sign it here directly or with a "TO" (or just add yet another "TO 44" on the sign and be done with it).

The 4, 6xx routes on the sign is a new addition - there were 2 routes on the advanced signage, and as one entered the ramp area, the individual exits had the additional 6xx routes that could be accessed from the ramp.  Last summer or so is when they modified the advanced BGSs to show all 4, 6xx routes that could be accessed thru the interchange area.

Exit 21 (Delaware St) can also be used to get to the AC Expressway.  No, there's no sign on 295 for that.  But there's a single, lone sign along Delaware St that provides you this info.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 01:41:38 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on February 03, 2015, 02:03:20 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.
Just because NJDOT maintains it doesn't mean it can't have a county route number.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 03, 2015, 02:10:24 PM
Whats funny is one of the routes on that sign is decommissioned. All of CR-631 was transferred to NJDOT to maintain as a service road for I-295/US-130.

The whole thing, or just the portion from the Exit 22 ramp to the Red Bank Ave light (CR 644)?  I think from Red Bank up to the ramp leading traffic back onto 130/295 is still county maintained.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 03, 2015, 05:21:50 PM
The whole thing as per the county. Any signs that are up are old and likely won't be replaced.

Its also omitted from their map: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
and route log: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 09:54:00 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!

I never really thought about that and I live about a half mile from the exit. Middlesex County indeed does not sign CR-602, but the Turnpike authority did when they rebuilt Exit 12. There are also county shields on the overhead street signs that the Turnpike Authority controls (Roosevelt and Harrison and from the Turnpike off-ramp). There's also a covered up county shield for the Industrial Highway because Carteret and the county could not come to an agreement about jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on February 04, 2015, 10:01:20 PM
5xx routes are intended for through travel, while 6xx routes are more for inventory purposes.

PS: doesn't I-78 have a 6xx signed at one of the former spur 5xxes? And yes, the part of I-295 that replaced US 130 on the spot has a bunch.

Exit 36 certainly does have shields for CR-651 (https://goo.gl/maps/0OQXa). Holdover from the days when it had a spur route. When the spur route was replaced with a 600 route, they replaced the shield, and the contractor actually replaced it verbatim
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 04, 2015, 11:22:39 PM
The street names are well marked with signs on the off ramp into the former circle. NJTA's documents state they don't sign 6XX routes even though they are signed on the offramp for Exit 12, a route that Middlesex County DPW didn't even bother to sign themselves!

I never really thought about that and I live about a half mile from the exit. Middlesex County indeed does not sign CR-602, but the Turnpike authority did when they rebuilt Exit 12. There are also county shields on the overhead street signs that the Turnpike Authority controls (Roosevelt and Harrison and from the Turnpike off-ramp). There's also a covered up county shield for the Industrial Highway because Carteret and the county could not come to an agreement about jurisdiction.
You can have 6xx signs on the ramps, just not the mainline guide signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 05, 2015, 08:12:38 AM
The whole thing as per the county. Any signs that are up are old and likely won't be replaced.

Its also omitted from their map: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3927
and route log: http://www.gloucestercountynj.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3882

Yet, per NJDOT's Straight Line Diagram, the portion I thought was county maintained does show to be under county jurisdiction: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/08000631__-.pdf

The traffic light at Crown Point/Hessian Ave is definitely county maintained, whereas the light at Crown Point/Red Bank is state maintained.  In Gloucester County, one easy way to tell is by the street signs hanging from the masts: State signs were printed with first letter capitalized; rest are small letters.  GloCo used all caps on their signs.

This is also in the area of my NJDOT plowing zone.  We salt and plow Crown Point on the west side of 295 (from Red Bank to Delaware), and Crown Point on the east side from Exit 22 down to Red Bank.  But we don't treat Crown Point from Red Bank thru Hessian to 295...the county comes by and gets that.

I'm thinking the county data sheet is wrong on this one, based on what I know of the area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 06, 2015, 09:43:53 AM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 06, 2015, 12:38:49 PM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
Saving space? Decreasing the time needed to process the info on the sign?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 06, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
I am confused here about the 600 series route signs on the Parkway guides.  I understand that it is not mandatory, and that most people do not even refer to them in everyday talk, but what harm is it to have especially when they were there one day and gone the next like during the changeover of the sign during the 63-80 widening project?
"not mandatory" = "mandatory NOT to have"
It's just a policy. The NJTA has decided that 6xx routes are not important enough to sign by number, and they would rather sign the destinations it reaches.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 03, 2015, 11:09:06 PM
Update on sign replacement on the free section: They replaced the exit tabs at 131A SB (now shows 131 with a yellow "Former 131A" tab above it) and changed the 130 tabs to show 130B-A. They also replaced the signs at 131B NB. Interestingly, they reused the existing sign bridge, even though it looks like they put in the concrete base for at least a cantilever sign. Did not expect that. Also, the Metropark sign does not have the NJT or Amtrak logos on it, even though it looks like there is room for them. Not sure if they will add them later or just put up a ground mount sign for them. Curious because the sign is for a train station. I will try to grab some pics when I can.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman on March 04, 2015, 01:20:21 PM
Also, the Metropark sign does not have the NJT or Amtrak logos on it, even though it looks like there is room for them. Not sure if they will add them later or just put up a ground mount sign for them.
Not sure what the exact policy in the NJ area is, but the FHWA region office that oversees Massachusetts have had a long time aversion to placing transit logos on overhead guide signs (despite the fact there is no such provision in the MUTCD), even if the exit serves a transit or rail station.  This is why the overhead signs on I-95 (MA 128) for University Avenue have "Amtrak/MBTA Station" spelled out instead of using logos.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on March 04, 2015, 03:50:33 PM
NJDOT has placed logo signs on I-295 (PATCO at Exit 31/Woodcrest Sta (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.876096,-75.015034,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sdL4WMIHPeEZooja0K7F1LQ!2e0)) and NJ 29 (NJ Transit and Amtrak at the southbound exit TO NJ 33 / US 1 NORTH / Market St / NJ 129 Arena (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.214631,-74.768524,3a,75y,180h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbwICDCzVZY43XEpfawialA!2e0)), so there's precedent for NJTA to follow if they chose to do so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on March 04, 2015, 03:59:19 PM
On the subject of transit logo/shields on BGS': PennDOT, at least for 30th St. Station placed both Amtrak & SEPTA logo shields for this exit BGS (http://goo.gl/maps/JWCoJ) off I-76 (this exit serves more than just 30th St. Station BTW) but yet there's still no PA 3 shield present whatsoever, not even a supplemental trailblazer.  :banghead:

We now bring you back to our regularly-scheduled GSP thread topic already in progress.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 04, 2015, 04:25:55 PM
The reason I find this curious is that the 131 sign SB (formerly 131A) says Metropark and has the NJT/Amtrak logos on it, so I figured they'd repeat it NB. The old blue signs for 131A and B had the logos on it. Given that 131B was built for the express purpose of accessing the train station, I don't know why they stayed away from it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 12:14:40 AM
A correction that I did not realize. They have taken down the Metropark sign at 131 SB (former 131A) and now it's for Wood Ave South, no transit logos on it at all. I think they put up a ground mount sign before 132 (for Rt 27) saying Use next 2 exits for Metropark.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 06, 2015, 12:29:17 AM
Have the Exit 132 signs finally been uncovered?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2015, 12:47:10 AM
A correction that I did not realize. They have taken down the Metropark sign at 131 SB (former 131A) and now it's for Wood Ave South, no transit logos on it at all. I think they put up a ground mount sign before 132 (for Rt 27) saying Use next 2 exits for Metropark.
I actually think that is a good move on their part.  As most people who exit at the former 131A trumpet are not destined for the station anyway.  In fact going NB I always saw the sign prior to the defunct Reading Railroad bridge, saying the two exits for Metro Park had 131A for Wood Avenue S. and 131B for the Parking Garage.  So going NB it was indirectly stating that the station proper was 131B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on March 06, 2015, 12:59:39 AM
What's the reasoning behind the MUTCD disallowing this?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 06, 2015, 12:59:06 PM
Speaking of the GSP and logos, was the logo (NJ in the "M") on the right side of the Turnpike exit BGS in this GSV link for the Meadowlands complex?  I think I used to see more of these in the past.  I may have the location wrong, but I think this is the spot where there is a new gantry and signage right in front of (and to replace) the bridge mounted signs.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38)

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 06, 2015, 03:36:44 PM
Yes, the M was for the Meadowlands. That logo was phased out a long time ago, this is the current one: https://goo.gl/maps/aUVGa
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 06:16:37 PM
Speaking of the GSP and logos, was the logo (NJ in the "M") on the right side of the Turnpike exit BGS in this GSV link for the Meadowlands complex?  I think I used to see more of these in the past.  I may have the location wrong, but I think this is the spot where there is a new gantry and signage right in front of (and to replace) the bridge mounted signs.
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.534271,-74.300626&spn=0.000004,0.002615&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.534323,-74.301203&panoid=JOlodK3kAUR_fwhkxYreLA&cbp=12,309.47,,0,-3.38)



It was for the Meadowlands Sports Complex. I believe they're being phased out for a lot of places. They're not on the new signs for 129 anymore. On the Turnpike proper, there are brown signs for MetLife and the Izod Center to use 16W (much more standard MUTCD). 16W always had "Sports Complex" as a destination in text. The random M's never made much sense if you ask me.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 06, 2015, 06:17:21 PM
Have the Exit 132 signs finally been uncovered?

The new signs are up and the old ones removed, but the exit tab is still covered. Not sure what they're waiting for, but it hasn't happened yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mergingtraffic on March 06, 2015, 06:33:38 PM
have they finished the sign replacement project yet by exit 135 etc?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 07, 2015, 01:48:44 AM
have they finished the sign replacement project yet by exit 135 etc?

In short, no.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 07, 2015, 02:54:00 PM
The one for Exit 144 is neat as I never saw the northern part of Irvington called N. Irvington.  Now, Newark is not even signed there anymore either as the Parkway just uses CR 510 and South Orange Avenue to sign it and no mention of any part of Irvington as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on March 08, 2015, 09:44:51 AM
A correction that I did not realize. They have taken down the Metropark sign at 131 SB (former 131A) and now it's for Wood Ave South, no transit logos on it at all. I think they put up a ground mount sign before 132 (for Rt 27) saying Use next 2 exits for Metropark.
I actually think that is a good move on their part.  As most people who exit at the former 131A trumpet are not destined for the station anyway.  In fact going NB I always saw the sign prior to the defunct Reading Railroad bridge, saying the two exits for Metro Park had 131A for Wood Avenue S. and 131B for the Parking Garage.  So going NB it was indirectly stating that the station proper was 131B.

Agreed. If i recall correctly, the rumor was that the Hilton and some other big outfit at that exit (Prudential maybe?) complained because for the Hilton rumor, non-familiar users were driving right by the exit because they incorrectly assumed the exit was only for a train station. With the sign now disseminating Wood Avenue South (that's South, not SOUTH by the way), all people seeking a destination with that address can be reassured that is their exit. I think that was the reason for the change. Hilton told NJTA that they were exhausted fielding complaints from hotel patrons when they arrived at the front desk.

Plus, they were misusing blue. The NJHA always overapplied blue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 08, 2015, 05:07:25 PM
I worked at Prudential from 1986 to 1990 and I can tell you that Prudential had some influence with the then NJHA.  The original sign that showed the upcomming split for the two ramps of the Parkway that Wood Avenue defaulted into, was confusing to motorists that the SB Parkway crowd would be riding around Prudential's Parking Lot dumbfounded expecting to be on the Parkway.  The interesting thing is the arrow was not erroneous in anyway.  It was on a LGS post Prudential Driveway with an up and right arrow pointing away from the driveway and at 2 o clock.  How anyone could turn before that sign is beyond me, but we all here are amazed at what non road geeks can do even with idiot proof signing as well.

Nonetheless, the Parkway replaced the sign at Pru's request and featured two up arrows side by side until the NJHA replaced the sign soon afterwards with all text lettering but carbon copied the lane control arrows.

So that theory is valid if the NJTA did go green for that and making it look like a normal street exit instead of it being just a special exit for train commuters.  If they did it then, they could have done it three decades later as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on March 09, 2015, 10:16:14 AM
The existence of Wood Avenue South and the house numbering on it is extremely confusing. First of all, nobody (in New Jersey anyway) cares about the directional suffixes on road names. Secondly, most people assume that within one town the house numbers will not repeat on the same road in the same municipality. I used to work in that Hilton (part of the building is office space) and people would confuse "120 Wood Avenue S" with "120 Wood Avenue" (3 blocks away from each other) all the time, especially since the businesses did not always mention that the building was the Hilton. Why couldn't they pick a different name when that portion was built?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 09, 2015, 10:41:14 AM
That is because Woodbridge Township, New Jersey does not use a base line for directional suffixed roads.  One line that the whole community uses that is.

 Some towns do pat attention though. For example nearby Scotch Plains has two streets with directional prefixes (the same even though its ahead of the name). One is East Second Street and the other is West Broad Street.   East Second is on the West side of Martine/ Park Avenues and West Broad Street is on the east side of it.  Martine/ Park Avenues are not a regular base line for Scotch Plains, it is just that East Second is considered an extension of Plainfield's East Second Street and West Broad Street is an extension of Westfield's West Broad Street.  All are kept to keep continuity as people who live in Scotch Plains do use the whole name and no one ever says Broad Street.

I think Wood Avenue South is kept with the same name as the road it branches from because of continuity as well, but it ended up being one of those things.  So the address numbers are a bit screwed up, however I have seen worse.

Go to Franklin Township, NJ in Somerset and you will find 11 Campus Drive across a street from 399 Campus Drive.  Now why is a two digit number and a three digit in the same block, is beyond me?  Or better yet why a significant number jump just for crossing the street?  You would never think that 11 Campus and 399 Campus would be that close.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on March 13, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
Star Ledger article on exit number / signage changes at 131, as well as opening of 41 and later, a full interchange at 44.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 13, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
Star Ledger article on exit number / signage changes at 131, as well as opening of 41 and later, a full interchange at 44.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/03/what_exit_parkway_exit_numbers_officially_change_today_as_new_exit_opens.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)


I went through myself finally. One of the SB Exit 131/132 signs has been uncovered, but all the rest of the exit number panels remain covered for now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 15, 2015, 04:51:54 PM
What about the Exit 143 in Irvington and the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges?

I know that they are to have number changes as well, but the Star Ledger did not mention those changes as they focused just on the 131-131A thing only.  Have they done them yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 15, 2015, 07:30:44 PM
What about the Exit 143 in Irvington and the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges?

I know that they are to have number changes as well, but the Star Ledger did not mention those changes as they focused just on the 131-131A thing only.  Have they done them yet?
In what world do you believe those are changing? Wait, I forgot, not ours.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on March 16, 2015, 10:45:14 AM
What about the Exit 143 in Irvington and the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges?

I know that they are to have number changes as well, but the Star Ledger did not mention those changes as they focused just on the 131-131A thing only.  Have they done them yet?
In what world do you believe those are changing? Wait, I forgot, not ours.
  Ha Ha Steve.  You mean yours and NE 2's world.  Anyway did not we discuss here the MUTCD having effect on the Parkway now with so far the change at 142 going A and B from the 140, it was in fact mentioned that eventually all those including 38-38A going 38A-38B? 

I just asked the status of the other interchanges with some numbering offs as the article seemed to focus on the 131 issue.  There is nothing spacy about that.  What is more spacy is you going out of your way to protect an insane user on here that you only knew in person years ago when you were in college. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on March 16, 2015, 02:56:22 PM
What does this have to do with me?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on March 19, 2015, 03:36:22 AM
Rode up the Parkway NB from 131 thru 163 today. Couple of notes:
-137 and 138 are losing some control cities. 137 had 3, which is more frowned upon, so now it will only have Roselle Pk and Cranford I believe. I think 138 will just be Kenilworth.
-139AB will soon be ditching any mention of Chestnut St or NJ-82.
-140 is going to be be signed for US-22 and NJ-82 (not just 82 East). Makes sense to do this and have traffic access 82 WB via the U-turn. The way you would go via Chestnut St off 139B was always quite out of the way. And in one of the best things to happen with this project, they're finally taking Holland Tunnel off as the destination for 140. It never made any sense. It's going to be Hillside, even though I think Newark is still a better control city (since 22 ends at 1-9 and also has a ramp directly to NJ-21, which takes you into downtown Newark proper). It would have been nice to see Elizabeth as a control city also (as exists on the SB signs for 140 that were installed with the 142 work a few years back) since NJ-82 takes you straight into Elizabeth's central business district.
-163 has temp ground mounted signage while they work on that area. The temp signs are done in the current NJTP-MUTCD style, including shields with no black backing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: spooky on March 19, 2015, 07:35:37 AM
What does this have to do with me?

It's your world.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2015, 05:21:42 PM
Rode up the Parkway NB from 131 thru 163 today. Couple of notes:
-137 and 138 are losing some control cities. 137 had 3, which is more frowned upon, so now it will only have Roselle Pk and Cranford I believe. I think 138 will just be Kenilworth.
-139AB will soon be ditching any mention of Chestnut St or NJ-82.
-140 is going to be be signed for US-22 and NJ-82 (not just 82 East). Makes sense to do this and have traffic access 82 WB via the U-turn. The way you would go via Chestnut St off 139B was always quite out of the way. And in one of the best things to happen with this project, they're finally taking Holland Tunnel off as the destination for 140. It never made any sense. It's going to be Hillside, even though I think Newark is still a better control city (since 22 ends at 1-9 and also has a ramp directly to NJ-21, which takes you into downtown Newark proper). It would have been nice to see Elizabeth as a control city also (as exists on the SB signs for 140 that were installed with the 142 work a few years back) since NJ-82 takes you straight into Elizabeth's central business district.
-163 has temp ground mounted signage while they work on that area. The temp signs are done in the current NJTP-MUTCD style, including shields with no black backing.
Disagree with most of your commentary.
* 139B always made sense to head west on 82. 140 adds distance and time and takes you through Union instead of around the downtown.
* 140 makes more sense for Holland Tunnel than 142. Not only is it a shorter distance, but it's TOLL FREE. Hey, I like that. Parkway is all cars, so everyone can use the Skyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 19, 2015, 06:42:13 PM
Pretty sure the Holland Tunnel destination is from an era before I-78 was built.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on April 07, 2015, 12:20:17 AM
Update, tonight I saw a pull thru sign with the control city of "Paterson" was installed northbound around interchange 140. Sorry, no picture this time...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:00:39 AM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Quote
Garden State parkway officials will talk one-on-one with drivers and residents from 4:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Middletown Public Library, 55 New Monmouth Road, about the proposed $60 million Exit 109 project. "It's in design now. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2017 and be completed in 2019," said Tom Feeney, a spokesman for the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs the Parkway...The core of the project calls for replacing four aging bridges that carry the express and local lanes of the parkway over Newman Springs Road and widening the road, also known as county Route 520.   The project would move the Parkway's Northbound lanes to the west and toward the highway center median to improve conditions at the interchange and bring it to current design standards, Feeney said.

What's entertaining/irritating about the article are the photos used (as of 8:30am 4/22).  The first photo at the top of the article is just a generic G.S. Parkway sign over an area of single carriageway-per-direction roadway.  Exit 109 is in a dual carriageway section of the Parkway.

At the bottom of the article is a small series of photos of a construction truck accident...on the Parkway near Brick. 

All the pics have absolutely nothing to do with the interchange in question.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 09:17:57 AM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Looking at a nearby intersection on GSV (http://goo.gl/maps/NWFEA) that's due to be reconstructed as part of the project (Half Mile at Newman), I noted this may be one of the few intersections in the state with 2 right turn lanes, which permits right turns on red from the right lane, but not the left.  In every other case I was familiar with, RTOR is prohibited from both lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on April 22, 2015, 01:12:49 PM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Looking at a nearby intersection on GSV (http://goo.gl/maps/NWFEA) that's due to be reconstructed as part of the project (Half Mile at Newman), I noted this may be one of the few intersections in the state with 2 right turn lanes, which permits right turns on red from the right lane, but not the left.  In every other case I was familiar with, RTOR is prohibited from both lanes.
I like the signage in your example.  Here's another one in the Toms River area, with just a single text sign allowing RTOR from the right lane only: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06)
And an example of dual right turn lanes both allowed to make a RTOR (outside of the morning rush hour) in Jersey City:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17)

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 22, 2015, 01:38:37 PM
"Parkway set to unveil plan to fix Exit 109"

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/parkway_set_to_unveil_plan_to_fix_exit_109_heres_a_sneak_peak.html#incart_river

Looking at a nearby intersection on GSV (http://goo.gl/maps/NWFEA) that's due to be reconstructed as part of the project (Half Mile at Newman), I noted this may be one of the few intersections in the state with 2 right turn lanes, which permits right turns on red from the right lane, but not the left.  In every other case I was familiar with, RTOR is prohibited from both lanes.
I like the signage in your example.  Here's another one in the Toms River area, with just a single text sign allowing RTOR from the right lane only: https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.971955,-74.23747&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=39.972043,-74.2379&panoid=MmZugmkGDkIagvu8w4mYiw&cbp=12,49.41,,0,1.06)
And an example of dual right turn lanes both allowed to make a RTOR (outside of the morning rush hour) in Jersey City:
https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.717054,-74.054707&spn=0.000004,0.002612&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=40.717002,-74.054796&panoid=3JCGfcekg9e1gVVAcBWnVA&cbp=12,31.66,,0,6.17)

That does remind me - there's one intersection where the right lane turns right, the next lane over is dual straight/right: http://goo.gl/maps/Dwazt .  Per the (lack of) signage, RTOR is permitted from either lane.  Note the 'Stop Here On Red' sign, which sometimes people may interpret as "No Turn On Red" because they don't get it.  Thus, the supplemental sign above it (ignore the ugliness of it), stating yes, go turn on red. 

This was one of the Red Light Camera intersections, so some people refused to turn right on red after getting their violation notice in the mail.  Thankfully those days are over (for now).

FWIW, I've never seen anyone turn right from the dual-function lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 22, 2015, 03:03:37 PM
The first place I ever encountered a double right turn lane that permitted turning on red was in North Carolina, I honestly didn't know it was possible or safe for that matter. The cross street was configured as a "Super Street" and they had closed the median break, forcing a U-turn at the next light.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on April 22, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
Is it uncommon to have two right turn lanes that can both yield on red? I'm quite used to it out "west".
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on April 22, 2015, 05:15:57 PM
Is it uncommon to have two right turn lanes that can both yield on red? I'm quite used to it out "west".
Very uncommon. You usually have to stop before turning if the light's red.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jakeroot on April 22, 2015, 05:25:53 PM
Is it uncommon to have two right turn lanes that can both yield on red? I'm quite used to it out "west".

Very uncommon. You usually have to stop before turning if the light's red.

You know what I meant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on April 22, 2015, 08:12:06 PM
We have a few double right turns that are allowed right on red in NY.  The two that come to mind are I-390 south to Brighton-Henrietta Town Line Rd and I-87 to NY 2 and NY 7 at the SPUI.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on April 23, 2015, 12:14:40 PM
All the pics have absolutely nothing to do with the interchange in question.

"So you've decided to visit NJ.com for the first time..."

(I only stay for the dummies in the comment section)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 25, 2015, 03:00:19 AM
Signage replacement from the Driscoll Bridge to the Union Tolls looks like it's almost complete. There are only a few signs left to erect, including the existing sign bridge at 135 going NB (one of the last 1980 NJDOT non-reflective button copy installs). I will try to grab some pictures at some point. I'm usually driving when I'm through that area, so it's not easy to try and get pics.

Of note, it looks like they're replacing signs on the ramps at 127 and 129. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5417,-74.309372,3a,75y,152.48h,86.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssc5dTRmKIcg0YbvLNGi_vQ!2e0) is now gone. This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.539688,-74.307977,3a,75y,156.87h,92.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc5w7BczMfsFbX9Lpx9LuxA!2e0) will likely be gone in the next week or so (they just put the new signs on the gantry on Thursday, they just need to mount it now). Maybe this also means they'll replace the gantry for the New Brunswick Rd exit and actually refer to its connections to 440 properly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 25, 2015, 11:20:36 AM
The 129 ramp has "New York CitY" as a destination for the NJTP. Who knows how that happened. It would be nice if that whole exit got lettered ramps, it certainly has enough of them! Odd that they would rip down a basically new NJDOT sign at New Brunswick Ave. though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 27, 2015, 04:25:11 PM
Signage replacement from the Driscoll Bridge to the Union Tolls looks like it's almost complete. There are only a few signs left to erect, including the existing sign bridge at 135 going NB (one of the last 1980 NJDOT non-reflective button copy installs). I will try to grab some pictures at some point. I'm usually driving when I'm through that area, so it's not easy to try and get pics.

Of note, it looks like they're replacing signs on the ramps at 127 and 129. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5417,-74.309372,3a,75y,152.48h,86.04t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1ssc5dTRmKIcg0YbvLNGi_vQ!2e0) is now gone. This one (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.539688,-74.307977,3a,75y,156.87h,92.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc5w7BczMfsFbX9Lpx9LuxA!2e0) will likely be gone in the next week or so (they just put the new signs on the gantry on Thursday, they just need to mount it now). Maybe this also means they'll replace the gantry for the New Brunswick Rd exit and actually refer to its connections to 440 properly.

The one at the split for the NJ Turnpike always irked me.  I am glad its coming down as its been there for years with the all upper case lettering and no destinations.  I do like that the NJT is finally getting destinations after all these years though.  I only hope that NJTA replaces the post toll plaza photos with follow up signs that show the same control cities as the Exit 129 guide signs now feature.

Another peeve of mine was when they changed out the button copy signs in the late 80's that used both Trenton in New York, for the interstate designations of I-95 with either TURNPIKE NORTH or TURNPIKE SOUTH with no more of New York AND North or Trenton AND South.

I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 28, 2015, 08:27:34 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on April 28, 2015, 10:03:12 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.

This probably was brought up before, but they haven't even touched the signage between exits 143-172? Some of these should be updated as well. I haven't been up there for a while, so I am not sure what is going on in that area. Street view is still from 2012 in most areas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on April 28, 2015, 10:52:07 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.

This probably was brought up before, but they haven't even touched the signage between exits 143-172? Some of these should be updated as well. I haven't been up there for a while, so I am not sure what is going on in that area. Street view is still from 2012 in most areas.
No, they haven't yet. Those signs are generally newer than the ones south of 142. The upcoming work at 145 will replace those signs, but there are a lot of nonstandard ones up in the 150s that need a thorough replacement.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 29, 2015, 11:32:08 AM
The one at the split for the NJ Turnpike always irked me.  I am glad its coming down as its been there for years with the all upper case lettering and no destinations.  I do like that the NJT is finally getting destinations after all these years though.  I only hope that NJTA replaces the post toll plaza photos with follow up signs that show the same control cities as the Exit 129 guide signs now feature.

Another peeve of mine was when they changed out the button copy signs in the late 80's that used both Trenton in New York, for the interstate designations of I-95 with either TURNPIKE NORTH or TURNPIKE SOUTH with no more of New York AND North or Trenton AND South.
The new exit signs for the Turnpike, at least along the southbound GSP, now list Camden as a southbound destination (instead of Del. Mem. Bridge).

The rationale for skipping over Trenton is due to the preceeding US 1 interchange signage listing Trenton for a southbound destination.

Maybe New Brunswick (which is a supplemental BGS but it was on the primary BGS w/Trenton when the exit ramp was for US 1 southbound only) should be the southbound destination for the US 1 interchange signage; thereby allowing for a more consistent signing of Trenton for a southbound NJTP/I-95 destination in this vicinity.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 29, 2015, 04:50:42 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.

This probably was brought up before, but they haven't even touched the signage between exits 143-172? Some of these should be updated as well. I haven't been up there for a while, so I am not sure what is going on in that area. Street view is still from 2012 in most areas.

There's a new one for 144SB. 143A-B got new ones as part of the 142 project. 145 is going to get new signage. 163 will also. All the old signage there is gone (which makes sense). There are a lot of older vintage GSP oddities in the 150s and up which could use replacement.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: KEVIN_224 on April 29, 2015, 10:36:33 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain that "rusted" brown gantry on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge, just before the Metropark Amtrak/NJ Transit train station, wasn't there a few months ago? This was looking northward on a southbound train to Philadelphia on Tuesday morning, April 28th:

(http://i.imgur.com/d8EQr4U.jpg)

The same bridge, from January 28, 2012...for comparison's sake:

(http://i.imgur.com/NLzD63d.jpg)

 :hmmm:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 29, 2015, 10:51:14 PM
Brand new, holds advance signs for Exit 131, 130 and 129. Also note the new sign northbound for NJ-27 with a "formerly Exit 131" tab on it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on April 30, 2015, 12:54:37 AM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain that "rusted" brown gantry on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge, just before the Metropark Amtrak/NJ Transit train station, wasn't there a few months ago? This was looking northward on a southbound train to Philadelphia on Tuesday morning, April 28th:

(http://i.imgur.com/d8EQr4U.jpg)

Yeah! What's the deal with that, by the way?!?! I travel the GSP everyday and was wondering about all these new rusted gantries, myself. Why were they not painted or plated or something? Would it really have cost that much extra? Or is it some nostalgic throwback to the old wooden members they once used?

The same bridge, from January 28, 2012...for comparison's sake:

(http://i.imgur.com/NLzD63d.jpg)

 :hmmm:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2015, 02:09:57 AM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Then Exit 136 which uses three destinations as well (all three east of the Parkway, with the SB Parkway having to make a u turn on Centennial Avenue to access all three), I take, must of had one of them removed as well.

To me Roselle should not be used going SB anyway, as it is better served via NJ 28 as the borough is located just to the south of NJ 28 immediately east of the Parkway.   Also Cranford should be used (and it was used prior to 1980 for Exit 136) as NB Centennial Avenue happens to service Downtown Cranford.  It never seemed right that all three destinations were in one direction (east) only  and also with Winfield Park one of them that is a very small community that should be on an auxillary sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on April 30, 2015, 03:48:47 PM

Yeah! What's the deal with that, by the way?!?! I travel the GSP everyday and was wondering about all these new rusted gantries, myself. Why were they not painted or plated or something? Would it really have cost that much extra? Or is it some nostalgic throwback to the old wooden members they once used?


The GSP uses these sign gantries a lot. Also I-95 near Baltimore uses them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 30, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on April 30, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?

How the hell do you not know where Camden is if you live in this state? Just look next to Philadelphia, across the Delaware River and you'll find it soon enough.

Also, I thought the FHWA was literally forcing the NJTA to implement their standards into their signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on April 30, 2015, 08:11:01 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?

Oh for Christ sake. This guy claims it's a familiar sign, but drove right by the exit?  I call bullshit. What, did he think they moved his exit?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 30, 2015, 10:05:21 PM
Apparently some people in New Jersey don't know where Camden is. The MUTCD policy to eliminate river crossings as control cities is mentioned too: http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/04/ask_commutinglarry_why_are_the_signs_on_the_parkway_are_changing.html

Who thought the most anti-MUTCD agency of all would become the strictest?

How the hell do you not know where Camden is if you live in this state? Just look next to Philadelphia, across the Delaware River and you'll find it soon enough.

Also, I thought the FHWA was literally forcing the NJTA to implement their standards into their signs.

Fact: Not everyone is good at geography.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 30, 2015, 11:31:34 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Then Exit 136 which uses three destinations as well (all three east of the Parkway, with the SB Parkway having to make a u turn on Centennial Avenue to access all three), I take, must of had one of them removed as well.

To me Roselle should not be used going SB anyway, as it is better served via NJ 28 as the borough is located just to the south of NJ 28 immediately east of the Parkway.   Also Cranford should be used (and it was used prior to 1980 for Exit 136) as NB Centennial Avenue happens to service Downtown Cranford.  It never seemed right that all three destinations were in one direction (east) only  and also with Winfield Park one of them that is a very small community that should be on an auxillary sign.

136 eliminated Winfield Park in both directions. Now just Linden and Roselle. I didn't know where Winfield Park even was until last year or so when I noticed some signs for it driving to the parkway at 136 from 27 in Linden.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 30, 2015, 11:56:38 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm certain that "rusted" brown gantry on the Garden State Parkway in Woodbridge, just before the Metropark Amtrak/NJ Transit train station, wasn't there a few months ago? This was looking northward on a southbound train to Philadelphia on Tuesday morning, April 28th:

(http://i.imgur.com/d8EQr4U.jpg)

The same bridge, from January 28, 2012...for comparison's sake:

(http://i.imgur.com/NLzD63d.jpg)

 :hmmm:

The rusted looking gantries are a GSP tradition. They are all over the place elsewhere on the Parkway. Now both the Turnpike and the Parkway are implementing them statewide. In fact, the aluminum gantries in the Middlesex-Union segment is one of the only places with those style gantries, as most of the signage was erected by NJDOT and not the NJHA in the early 80s (since NJDOT had jurisdiction over that section until 1987).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 01, 2015, 01:55:57 PM
Interesting development on the signage replacement project. They are replacing some of the signs erected during the 142 improvements. They've replaced the 1 mile approach sign for 142A-B going NB. Also new signage for 141 and 140/140A (or whatever they'll be numbered once the NJTA renumbers them) going SB. I'm surprised since they designed those signs to be MUTCD-ish compliant. They were only installed a few years ago. Not sure why they're being replaced, honestly.

The other thing that baffles me is why they're not taking the effort to move the advance signage for the Union Toll Plaza to an overhead gantry. Good luck seeing that "Union Toll Plaza 1 Mile" sign tucked away as an afterthought on the shoulder. Also, those dinky "Car toll $1.50" signs are worthless when you're on a road that's about 5-7 lanes wide approaching the toll plaza. I know we'll never get true MUTCD compliant toll signage on the Parkway, but they could do a bit better. I mean, they did it for all the EZ Pass Express plazas, why not the others?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 01, 2015, 05:41:55 PM
I can tell you from living in New Jersey at one time.  The Parkway always had its own way of doing things, especially with tolls.  Other toll roads kept the attended lanes on the right and the coin drops to the left, they always scattered them except at Great Egg and Cape May where they got that one right.  Most likely cause those two toll plazas were the smallest of the 11 tolls it did not have much lanes to play with.

I am surprised that the GSP is going along with this, but they are.

BTW, is "Holland Tunnel" still the EB US 22 control point on Exit 140 going NB?  I do not have a problem with it as that was how I always went to the Tunnel when I lived in Clark and you have the same amount of traffic lights going 140 as you do going 142.  In fact the same 4 in Jersey City as both approaches use the signalized section of I-78 to reach the tunnel.  However, if the MUTCD frowns now upon crossings as control cities, I would think this would have to go.  Also Hillside is along the way and it gets no mention until after the Union Toll Plaza at Exit 142C for Union Avenue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 01, 2015, 05:52:35 PM
I wonder though if the NB GSP is still using the three cities of Cranford, Rosselle Park, and Elizabeth at 137 being that the new 132 signs feature only two cities now with Iselin being removed there I would figure they would sacrifice one here too.

Not anymore. Control cities are Elizabeth and Cranford NB and Roselle Park and Cranford SB. Most signs are going on a diet to be MUTCD compliant.
Then Exit 136 which uses three destinations as well (all three east of the Parkway, with the SB Parkway having to make a u turn on Centennial Avenue to access all three), I take, must of had one of them removed as well.

To me Roselle should not be used going SB anyway, as it is better served via NJ 28 as the borough is located just to the south of NJ 28 immediately east of the Parkway.   Also Cranford should be used (and it was used prior to 1980 for Exit 136) as NB Centennial Avenue happens to service Downtown Cranford.  It never seemed right that all three destinations were in one direction (east) only  and also with Winfield Park one of them that is a very small community that should be on an auxillary sign.

136 eliminated Winfield Park in both directions. Now just Linden and Roselle. I didn't know where Winfield Park even was until last year or so when I noticed some signs for it driving to the parkway at 136 from 27 in Linden.
Winfield Park was probably a legacy from the original Parkway signing in the early 50s.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 01, 2015, 09:15:22 PM
BTW, is "Holland Tunnel" still the EB US 22 control point on Exit 140 going NB?  I do not have a problem with it as that was how I always went to the Tunnel when I lived in Clark and you have the same amount of traffic lights going 140 as you do going 142.  In fact the same 4 in Jersey City as both approaches use the signalized section of I-78 to reach the tunnel.  However, if the MUTCD frowns now upon crossings as control cities, I would think this would have to go.  Also Hillside is along the way and it gets no mention until after the Union Toll Plaza at Exit 142C for Union Avenue.

Nope. 140 is signed for Hillside now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 01, 2015, 10:38:09 PM
Roadman re: the GSP's history of toll-lane configuration; back in the 1960's they used to have the "exact-change" lanes (coin-drops) all the way on the right, contrary to normal toll road practice. At least at the Essex Toll Plaza Northbound anyway. I assume they were all like that back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2015, 02:03:48 PM
Roadman re: the GSP's history of toll-lane configuration; back in the 1960's they used to have the "exact-change" lanes (coin-drops) all the way on the right, contrary to normal toll road practice. At least at the Essex Toll Plaza Northbound anyway. I assume they were all like that back then.
Interesting, as I always wondered that one.  One thing I will admit that I like the Parkway does is have a steady green light for the attended lanes and flashing green for coin drops.  Then later when the tokens came in it was double green, and of course now its flashing yellow for EZ Pass.

If you know the lane control signals on the plazas itself, then finding an attendant for change was not that hard.  After I figured it out it made travel much easier through the plazas.  However, most of the motoring public has not figured these things out unfortunately.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2015, 03:54:10 PM
The old signs marking the lane types weren't the best, so the lights were helpful. For those who have never seen them, the pre-E-ZPass lane signing was as follows:

-Full Service: No banner
-Exact Change: "TOKEN OR EXACT CHANGE ONLY" Black text on orange.
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/GSPSBjstaftrExit142.jpg)
-Tokens Only: "TOKEN ONLY" Black text on White mounted above the plaza.
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/GSPSBbfExit17.jpg)
Sign itself isn't viable, but you can see it mounted above.

These signs were phased out as E-ZPass was installed in 2001-2002.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 04, 2015, 10:44:42 AM
I also like how the Parkway has the lane assignment markings on the road. I'm not sure if they're the first to do this, but it makes things a lot easier. The Thruway now has this at the TZB toll plaza. Fair trade, I think, since I think the Parkway copped the "pick a lane" signage from the Thruway Authority (red for staffed cash lanes, blue for coin drop lanes, and green/purple for EZ-Pass).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 04, 2015, 05:01:21 PM
The lane assignment markings started on the Parkway. It was setup due to an optical illusion at the plaza, people thought they were in one lane, but were really in another because of the way the road curved before the plaza. This lead to last minute toll lane switches and accidents. The pick a lane signs are definitely from the Thurway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 04, 2015, 07:05:56 PM
I also like how the Parkway has the lane assignment markings on the road. I'm not sure if they're the first to do this, but it makes things a lot easier. The Thruway now has this at the TZB toll plaza. Fair trade, I think, since I think the Parkway copped the "pick a lane" signage from the Thruway Authority (red for staffed cash lanes, blue for coin drop lanes, and green/purple for EZ-Pass).
The red/blue/green are MUTCD standards.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Enginerd on May 04, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2015, 06:09:46 AM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 05, 2015, 06:11:48 PM
Likely the faithful reproduction of Mr Toad's Wild Ride if its still like it was last year.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2015, 08:27:34 AM
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/public_hearing_Interchange_0.html

Garden State Parkway Interchange 0 Improvement project public meeting - May 20, 4-6pm.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 06, 2015, 09:37:59 AM
Looks like new signage is up around 140-140A going SB with the exit tabs covered so the change in exit numbers will be happening there in the next few weeks.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 11:38:23 AM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?

It looks like this:
(http://pronel.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/bumpy-road.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2015, 11:53:17 AM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?

It looks like this:
(http://pronel.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/bumpy-road.jpg)

It would be nice to have a serious discussion about it, rather than act like this forum is a comments section on a newspaper website.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Enginerd on May 06, 2015, 12:04:43 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.

Can you describe what is wrong with it?

It looks like this:
(http://pronel.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/bumpy-road.jpg)

It would be nice to have a serious discussion about it, rather than act like this forum is a comments section on a newspaper website.

Gladly.  Do you know if the contractor is bound to a certain finish date?  Do you know when the cattle chute will be eliminated?  There is also a section from 83-87 that appears to be final paved - is that the final pavement or is the contractor going to do a complete superpave job the entire length of the job once all construction is completed? The section that appears complete is rather bumpy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 07, 2015, 09:43:30 PM
Got a chance to get a bunch of pictures of the new Parkway signs from 135 to 142.

(http://i.imgur.com/1uixLIw.jpg) (http://imgur.com/1uixLIw)
(http://i.imgur.com/lkhK4rQ.jpg) (http://imgur.com/lkhK4rQ)
(http://i.imgur.com/dC9639u.jpg) (http://imgur.com/dC9639u)
(http://i.imgur.com/1pMDsB0.jpg) (http://imgur.com/1pMDsB0)
(http://i.imgur.com/rd1Hzur.jpg) (http://imgur.com/rd1Hzur)
(http://i.imgur.com/Pj5Q0DY.jpg) (http://imgur.com/Pj5Q0DY)
(http://i.imgur.com/5My6zGw.jpg) (http://imgur.com/5My6zGw)
(http://i.imgur.com/C1jrHbv.jpg) (http://imgur.com/C1jrHbv)
(http://i.imgur.com/PaRGpsL.jpg) (http://imgur.com/PaRGpsL)
(http://i.imgur.com/m0hm0gE.jpg) (http://imgur.com/m0hm0gE)
(http://i.imgur.com/j3i0N8v.jpg) (http://imgur.com/j3i0N8v)
(http://i.imgur.com/JDWC8BE.jpg) (http://imgur.com/JDWC8BE)
(http://i.imgur.com/3rKNyqF.jpg) (http://imgur.com/3rKNyqF)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on May 07, 2015, 09:51:33 PM
Does anyone know when construction from 98-83 is supposed to wrap up?  I commute through this section of the parkway, the paving job through the area is terrible.  I think Helen Keller was hired to do the temporary paving.
Oh man! Yeah, you got that right!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on May 10, 2015, 09:01:20 AM
Exit 88 Stuff:

Rte 70 Eastbound:  the former ramp to Parkway North has been reopened. 
Rte 70 Westbound:   The entrance to parkway north at Shorrock St now has a BGS.  Parkway North Toll - Control City is Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 10, 2015, 11:44:59 AM
Nice pictures. They still have the old exit 138 sign, just 100 yards after the new signs. Wonder if that will be removed since it's redundant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 10, 2015, 04:45:20 PM
Nice photos.  Although I think they should follow Caltrans and use one panel for upcoming exits instead of three exits on separate panels spread across the roadway. 

I lived in NJ half of my life and liked that they had two exits listed on a sign as here in Florida they did away with that and now have one exit without the next exit advance guide on the same gantry. 

Also I liked how NJDOT always had at least three guide signs per exit.  Most states use only two being the one mile advanced and the at exit either arrow or former NEXT RIGHT.  However the Garden State used one mile, NEXT RIGHT, and at exit.  The NEXT RIGHT is now replaced with one quarter mile, but nonetheless still three.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 10, 2015, 08:50:21 PM
Nice pictures. They still have the old exit 138 sign, just 100 yards after the new signs. Wonder if that will be removed since it's redundant.

It will be eventually. They've been taking down all the old signs after the new ones go up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 10, 2015, 10:09:13 PM
Exit 88 Stuff:

Rte 70 Eastbound:  the former ramp to Parkway North has been reopened. 
Rte 70 Westbound:   The entrance to parkway north at Shorrock St now has a BGS.  Parkway North Toll - Control City is Woodbridge.
I just noticed the on-ramp has reopened a few days ago - I thought it was just construction traffic at first, but sure enough there are cars running down the C/D lanes.  Just waiting for the southbound on/off to open, which will save a lot of time for me, and for the line of cars jammed up at 90 every morning.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 10, 2015, 11:24:22 PM
Nice pictures. They still have the old exit 138 sign, just 100 yards after the new signs. Wonder if that will be removed since it's redundant.

It'll be removed.  Contractors rarely install and remove signage at the same time. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2015, 07:33:26 AM
I did notice that for some time now the Exit 140 ramp going NB was with the typical Parkway gantry.  I imagine that one was not replaced completely then, but just had its panel replaced then.

Also is "Morristown" still the control city for NJ 82 West at former SB Exit 140?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 15, 2015, 01:11:34 AM
Some more pictures, SB near 130 and 129, including the new Turnpike signs on the C-D road.

(http://i.imgur.com/9t51jVH.jpg) (http://imgur.com/9t51jVH)

(http://i.imgur.com/GULNXRe.jpg) (http://imgur.com/GULNXRe)
note they haven't taken the older signs from 1994 down yet. not sure why.

(http://i.imgur.com/VHMSpG3.jpg) (http://imgur.com/VHMSpG3)

(http://i.imgur.com/TiWTyNm.jpg) (http://imgur.com/TiWTyNm)

(http://i.imgur.com/EAeG9yh.jpg) (http://imgur.com/EAeG9yh)

(http://i.imgur.com/674CyAj.jpg) (http://imgur.com/674CyAj)
raritan center gets a mention here. it's slowly popped up on njdot signs in the tangle over the years, now it's in njta signs too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 15, 2015, 08:41:19 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/GULNXRe.jpg) (http://imgur.com/GULNXRe)
note they haven't taken the older signs from 1994 down yet. not sure why.
Is that a photo distortion or did the lower-part of the new Exit 129 BGS already get hit? 

Is that why the old gantry & BGS' are still up?  *sarcasm*
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2015, 09:08:01 AM
Yep, that looks like a hit there: (http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/hit.png) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/hit.png.html)

Lesson learned: Don't stick a 2x4x16 vertically out your moonroof!  (I don't know how it actually happened)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2015, 09:59:24 AM
I like the "y" on one of the signs as it is above the other letters in "New York City."  Someone really goofed up on that one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 10:37:10 AM
Interesting how they continued to use Shore Points as a control city for the Parkway southbound. To be fair, I'm not sure what control city I'd use since there's a lot of possibilities along the New Jersey Shore.

Also, shouldn't there be a TOLL banner next to the I-95 and NJTP shields since it's a toll road? Or does it not matter because you're already on a toll road?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 15, 2015, 11:00:09 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on May 15, 2015, 11:26:42 AM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2015, 12:30:01 PM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.

Nope, you're right - there should be a 'Toll' banner next to Turnpike/95. 

As far as the Parkway goes, there should be a 'Toll' banner on all entrance ramps as well, regardless if you'll be on a free or tolled stretch.   Technically, the Parkway could add tolls at any time, which they have done to some ramps.  The Parkway Commission (I don't think it was NJTA at the time) had said long ago they would work on the Interchange 9/10/11 project earlier if they were permitted to put tolls on the ramps. When Cape May County said no, the Parkway said no problem, but you're going to have to wait until we can fund the project.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2015, 12:31:21 PM
I thought too, when i first saw these, that a yellow TOLL plate should be used.  Then I remembered that here in Florida they do not use them on the Florida Turnpike signs from US 17, 92, and 441 in Orlando either.

This is the FREE section of the Parkway so it should be marked as a toll route.

At least they got rid of the redundant "NJ Turnpike" text in favor of control cities though.  One milestone they came about.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on May 15, 2015, 03:17:31 PM
Interesting how they continued to use Shore Points as a control city for the Parkway southbound. To be fair, I'm not sure what control city I'd use since there's a lot of possibilities along the New Jersey Shore.

Also, shouldn't there be a TOLL banner next to the I-95 and NJTP shields since it's a toll road? Or does it not matter because you're already on a toll road?

Control city ideas:

NB: New York City (until I-95 interchange); Clifton; Albany, NY
SB: Clifton; Woodbridge; Atlantic City; Cape May

Incidentally, the control city for the SB NJTP  should be Trenton instead of Camden at the point where the Parkway crosses the NJTP.

 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on May 15, 2015, 03:25:07 PM
Incidentally, the control city for the SB NJTP  should be Trenton instead of Camden at the point where the Parkway crosses the NJTP.
i disagree - traffic to Trenton is better served by US 1.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2015, 04:27:03 PM
It always was both Trenton and New Brunswick before the NB US 1 ramp opened, but later added Newark and dropped New Brunswick in favor of Trenton.  Trenton is better served by US 1 no doubtingly.  However, Newark for US 1 north is dumb  considering you just left there already.   

I think Woodbridge should be used for US 1 North and on Exit 129, "Staten Island" should be added where Woodbridge is now.


As far as "Shore Points" goes, probably both "Toms River" and "Atlantic City" should be used as pull through on the 129 pull through.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 15, 2015, 05:57:31 PM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

My bad, I thought that started a bit more northward. Even then, there should definitely be a TOLL banner next to the shields if it's on a "free" road.

Agree with you on that one.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 15, 2015, 07:59:44 PM
I wonder if they'll change "Camden" to "Philadelphia" once the 95-PA Turnpike interchange is completed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 15, 2015, 10:15:03 PM
These exits are on the free sector of the Parkway.

The entire overall Parkway is considered a Toll Road. The NJTA owns this segment of roadway, they have since 1987. They're just not allowed to put up ramp tolls in this section. Therefore, the Toll banner isn't really needed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 15, 2015, 10:22:20 PM
Seems like no matter how they set the signs up, it's always a compromise at these complex interchanges with multiple routes and destinations. I agree that Staten Island should be shown for Exit-129. But those signs at Exit-129 are already overloaded with too many shields and destinations to be read easily at highway speed. In fact the MUTCD recommends a maximum of only 3 destinations in any sign display and these signs far exceed that by necessity. And although I think the Toll banner should be used it would only add to the visual complexity of this series of signs.

And I agree that the GS Parkway would do better to show Toms River/Atlantic City/Cape May instead of Shore Points.

No easy solutions to any of these complex sign issues.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 12:29:44 AM
The replacement for this sign is sitting on the side of the road:
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/nj-440_east_west.jpg)

The new sign is almost right. The exit for New Brunswick Ave. is now signed for NJ-440 NORTH... the left sign.... NJ-440 WEST. Oops.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 12:37:27 AM
Control city ideas:

NB: New York City (until I-95 interchange); Clifton; Albany, NY
SB: Clifton; Woodbridge; Atlantic City; Cape May

Control City Reality (direct from NJTA)
Albany (NB only)
Paterson
Newark
Woodbridge
Toms River
Atlantic City

Older signs have used Asbury Park (at the local-express split), and there is at least one sign showing Cape May southbound in the vicinity of US-40/322.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:23:27 PM
Should not Cape May be used south of AC?

Also the ACE uses "New York" as northbound control city at Exit 7N which are the ramps to the Parkway North.  So like it or not, the NJTA has "New York" because they have no control over the Expressway's signage.  I believe that will be (and has been) the only instance that NYC is used on the whole entire system.

Yes The Parkway does not go directly to NYC, but it enters its metro area though and being there are a lot of motorists going between AC and NYC it is fitting to use "New York" or even "New York City" at the Parkway and Expressway interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2015, 03:48:21 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2015, 03:55:18 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
What about a pull through at the ACE interchange proper? Or they planning not to use one being its two lanes and US 40/322 exits soon after, especially now with the NJTA reconfiguring the ACE merge and Exit 37 off ramp?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on May 17, 2015, 06:50:06 AM
Should not Cape May be used south of AC?

Also the ACE uses "New York" as northbound control city at Exit 7N which are the ramps to the Parkway North.  So like it or not, the NJTA has "New York" because they have no control over the Expressway's signage.  I believe that will be (and has been) the only instance that NYC is used on the whole entire system.

Yes The Parkway does not go directly to NYC, but it enters its metro area though and being there are a lot of motorists going between AC and NYC it is fitting to use "New York" or even "New York City" at the Parkway and Expressway interchange.


Yes, this is why I recommended New York City on my earlier post. 

IMO, control cities should not list every city that a freeway passes through, but rather to the extent that they pass near or in the direction of a major city, those should be mentioned.

So the Parkway does serve as the connection from the NJ shore to NYC.  Traffic continuing to NYC should then take a bridge or a tunnel, most of which connect to the NJTP.  North of the NJTP, the northbound Parkway will serve Paterson and provide a connection to the NY Thruway to Albany.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 17, 2015, 01:16:39 PM
Control city ideas:

NB: New York City (until I-95 interchange); Clifton; Albany, NY
SB: Clifton; Woodbridge; Atlantic City; Cape May

Control City Reality (direct from NJTA)
Albany (NB only)
Paterson
Newark
Woodbridge
Toms River
Atlantic City

Older signs have used Asbury Park (at the local-express split), and there is at least one sign showing Cape May southbound in the vicinity of US-40/322.
Makes one wonder where Shore Points came from.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 17, 2015, 06:20:48 PM
There is an unrestrained irrational attraction to the allurement of The Shore in this state.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2015, 06:39:56 PM
Here is the one Cape May sign: https://goo.gl/maps/AWAMb
Northbound is signed Toms River and Camden (for the ACE).

It's odd to see Shore Points considering NJDOT is getting away from using it. At least it doesn't say "Down the Shore".  :-D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 17, 2015, 08:03:03 PM
That is on the entrance from Fire Road.  Yes, its very odd that "Camden" is used here, but many from AC get on the highway here and there is just as much from New York as there is for Philly that visit AC.

Also, there are no intermediate points along the ACE, so that is why "Camden" is used for that.  Because you have "Toms River" and "Woodbridge" in between AC and NYC, is why "New York" is not used here.

I must say, at least these are something, as for years the GSP only used control cities in two places: NJ 17 South in Paramus, and NJ 37 in Toms River.  The ACE signs there own so the control cities at Exit 7 is not GSP or NJTA so I did not count it.  The only reason why NJ 37 had them is cause US 9 is concurrent with the GSP at its interchange with the GSP so those signs were mainly for US 9 more than the GSP.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 17, 2015, 11:07:23 PM
The onramp at NJ-4 West has Saddle Brook as a control city for the GSP for some reason. Also can they make up their mind with what the maximum weight limit is for trucks? Some signs say 3.5 tons max and others (including the standard drawings) say 5 tons.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 18, 2015, 02:30:54 AM
Saddle Brook?  Really?  I mean who goes there.  Yes its the connection to I-80, but with Clifton or even better yet Newark would be the better choices.

What gets me is that Newark is the control point for NJ 17 all the way down, where NJ 17 stops way short of that city.  I believe on NJ 4,it says Newark just nearby  for Route 17 south when from Paramus, the GSP is the better route to NJ largest city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 18, 2015, 10:53:53 AM
That is on the entrance from Fire Road.  Yes, its very odd that "Camden" is used here, but many from AC get on the highway here and there is just as much from New York as there is for Philly that visit AC.
It's interesting that Atlantic City is not mentioned, and exiting traffic here is routed onto Fire Road and the Black Horse Pike for AC. I've made the trip both ways, and there is a lot of local traffic on the Black Horse Pike (and even more on Fire Road) making teh extra 75 cents more than worth it. This despite my beach of choice being Albany Street beach, which is directly served by the Black Horse Pike.
Quote
Also, there are no intermediate points along the ACE, so that is why "Camden" is used for that.  Because you have "Toms River" and "Woodbridge" in between AC and NYC, is why "New York" is not used here.
There is an intermediate point signed elsewhere, the AC Airport, but the signage in that area routes you to Tilton Road for that, which might actually make sense (never did the drive in that direction, so don't know how badly Tilton Road backs up).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 18, 2015, 02:18:18 PM
The onramp at NJ-4 West has Saddle Brook as a control city for the GSP for some reason. Also can they make up their mind with what the maximum weight limit is for trucks? Some signs say 3.5 tons max and others (including the standard drawings) say 5 tons.

I believe it's because 159 is signed for Saddle Brook and the idea is NJ-4 -> GSP SB -> Exit 159 for Saddle Brook.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Zeffy on May 20, 2015, 11:57:25 AM
Turnpike Authority to Hold Hearing On Proposals For New Garden State Parkway Interchange 0 in Lower Township (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/05/have_a_thought_in_exit_0_head_south_today_and_let_the_turnpike_authority_know_it.html#incart_river)

Quote
Drivers who use the last exit on Garden State Parkway in Cape May will get a chance to comment about proposals to improve that interchange on Wednesday.

Officials from the New Jersey Turnpike Authority, which runs the Parkway, will hold a second hearing about the project, starting at 3 p.m. in the Lower Township hall meeting room, 2600 Bayshore Road.

Quote
A formal hearing will be held starting at 4 p.m. with a presentation about the project to improve the intersection and an opportunity for residents and drivers to comment on it, he said.

The plan calls for modifying the interchange by reconstructing the intersection of the Parkway and Route 109 and adding a different jug handle to accommodate vehicles destined for the northbound Parkway, Feeney said.



In the comments of the article, someone posted the following, and I'm wondering if it's someone from here.. :biggrin:
Quote
They should build the long talked about Cape May - Lewis bridge-tunnel. Then upgrade US-13 through DE, MD, and VA to interstate standards, along with US-17 through VA and NC. Steal back the improperly numbered intrastate interstate highway, I-99 from PA, and make that the coastal expressway. Now you;ll have a full fledged limited access expressway from Montvale to Wilmington NC. I say stop the highway in NC because that's where all of our residents are escaping to anyway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 20, 2015, 12:39:22 PM
Turnpike Authority to Hold Hearing On Proposals For New Garden State Parkway Interchange 0 in Lower Township (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/05/have_a_thought_in_exit_0_head_south_today_and_let_the_turnpike_authority_know_it.html#incart_river)

The documents available on the Turnpike's website unfortunately don't really show much of a diagram, except for a small one on the cover page.

The most interesting feature of the design is a jughandle...in the median between the Northbound and Southbound lanes!  This is where the Parkway and 109 meet.  The uniqueness of this allows the northbound lanes from 109 to the Parkway to be free-flowing, while allowing enough storage capacity for both those continuing on 109 North (which turns west at this intersection), and using 109 South to the Parkway North.

It's a fairly tight area in which they had to reconstruct the intersection, but they are able to do it within existing NJTA/NJDOT right of way.  A grade-separated interchange was looked at, but environmental concerns and costs nixed the idea.

The comment about the bridge tunnel definitely sounds like something someone here would have knowledge of.  Let's look at that alias used there...  :spin:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 22, 2015, 08:18:58 AM
Latest proposed list of control cities seems most logical and well thought out.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 22, 2015, 04:26:23 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
Here's my proposal for control cities along the GSP (to stop inconsistent control cities appearing)
NB: Atlantic City up to MP 41.2
Toms River up to MP 94.4
Asbury Park up to MP 101.5
Perth Amboy up to MP 131.2 - New York as a supplementary destination
Paterson up to MP 162.7
Albany for the rest of the GSP


SB: New York up to MP 160.4
Newark - Springfield (Springfield is a supplementary control city) up to MP 143
New Brunswick up to MP 129.4
Toms River up to MP 82.7
Atlantic City up to MP 39.2
Cape May for the rest

It's a great list. Though just one thing: take out New York on SB up to MP 160.4 and replace with Newark (maybe Springfield, or perhaps Union) and go up to MP 143. Most people I would think would use the NB Parkway to NY, even though a couple exits are for the tunnels.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
Have all the at-grade intersections in the southern portion been eliminated yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 22, 2015, 05:24:52 PM
There are currently no pull-thru overhead signs south of the Atlantic City Expressway, that is why Cape May is not specified as a control city in NJTA's standard drawings. Northbound pull-thrus north of Atlantic City use Toms River.
Here's my proposal for control cities along the GSP (to stop inconsistent control cities appearing)
NB: Atlantic City up to MP 41.2
Toms River up to MP 94.4
Asbury Park up to MP 101.5
Perth Amboy up to MP 131.2 - New York as a supplementary destination
Paterson up to MP 162.7
Albany for the rest of the GSP


SB: New York up to MP 160.4
Newark - Springfield (Springfield is a supplementary control city) up to MP 143
New Brunswick up to MP 129.4
Toms River up to MP 82.7
Atlantic City up to MP 39.2
Cape May for the rest

It's a great list. Though just one thing: take out New York on SB up to MP 160.4 and replace with Newark (maybe Springfield, or perhaps Union) and go up to MP 143. Most people I would think would use the NB Parkway to NY, even though a couple exits are for the tunnels.
I meant New York City. The reason why New York is up to MP 160.4 is because of I-80 is nearby. Albany was used as the last control city because the GSP ends at I-87 in NY (if the GSP connector would be part of the GSP). I didn't specify that because of Albany being used, so New York would be used in this situation, cause of I-80 (and we all know where I-80 eastbound ends at, and we know that route heads to NYC. It's I-95.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 22, 2015, 06:26:20 PM
I agree, New York should not be used as control city SB because most of the traffic there is from I-87, so I doubt anyone would exit the Thruway to go to NYC.  Newark is most appropriate for even the Exit 14A guide on The Thruway proper and should be up  until the Essex Toll Plaza where Woodbridge should take over.

BTW, I hate the fact the NYTA does not feel that NJ cities are worth mentioning on their signs.  Even Exits 15 and 13 use "New Jersey" as control points for I-287 and the PIP.  "Morristown" should be used at Exit 15, and either "Fort Lee" or even "New York" for the SB PIP as I am alright with that one as well.  Just do not refer to the Garden State as a whole city as its not.  It has places too and we sign all our roads into New York State with the cities in mind.

Sory about that last rant but you can take a man out of New Jersey, but you cannot take the New Jersey out of me.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 22, 2015, 06:52:01 PM
I agree, New York should not be used as control city SB because most of the traffic there is from I-87, so I doubt anyone would exit the Thruway to go to NYC.  Newark is most appropriate for even the Exit 14A guide on The Thruway proper and should be up  until the Essex Toll Plaza where Woodbridge should take over.

BTW, I hate the fact the NYTA does not feel that NJ cities are worth mentioning on their signs.  Even Exits 15 and 13 use "New Jersey" as control points for I-287 and the PIP.  "Morristown" should be used at Exit 15, and either "Fort Lee" or even "New York" for the SB PIP as I am alright with that one as well.  Just do not refer to the Garden State as a whole city as its not.  It has places too and we sign all our roads into New York State with the cities in mind.

Sory about that last rant but you can take a man out of New Jersey, but you cannot take the New Jersey out of me.
Alright, I listened and replaced "New York" with "Delaware Water Gap". Seems more sensible.    :-D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on May 22, 2015, 10:16:27 PM
I've heard of GPSs directing drivers heading southbound to NYC on the Thruway to exit onto the Parkway and then take the I-80 to the GWB!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 25, 2015, 07:01:53 PM
The replacement for this sign is sitting on the side of the road:
(http://raymondcmartinjr.com/njfreeways/njroadtrips/nj-440_east_west.jpg)

The new sign is almost right. The exit for New Brunswick Ave. is now signed for NJ-440 NORTH... the left sign.... NJ-440 WEST. Oops.

I drove past here today. I am surprised that this sign is being erected by NJDOT and not the NJTA. I thought it was NJTA property until the merge onto 9 past the New Brunswick Rd exit. But this is clearly an NJDOT sign, with the stainless steel gantry and shields with black backing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 25, 2015, 08:23:29 PM
I hope that they gave US 9 and NJ 440 Southbound the control city of "South Amboy" considering Exit 11 from the NJT uses "The Amboys" as control city for US 9 S Bound.  Also to include I-287 on the sign proper instead of on ground mounted shields like it has for well over 40 years.

Actually storm back in the 60's and 70's the GSP used gantries like this, and before the tangle was created this was an actual exit for New Brunswick Avenue from the Southbound Parkway carriageway.   I am not saying this is left over from that period, but a strong possibility that it might of been left over from then considering the reflective paint and lack of black border shields.  Just so you know before the tangle the GSP SB used current US 9 SB and the NB Parkway used the NB US 9 lanes.  US 9 ran through the middle of the Parkway with no access to or from New Brunswick Avenue. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 25, 2015, 11:34:38 PM
What I'd like to know is what happened to the brand new NJDOT signs that were there a year ago that later vanished.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 26, 2015, 11:16:37 AM
Being New Brunswick Avenue is in all caps, I would say this sign was put up by the Parkway.   NJDOT will use mix case, and always has as far as I know on BGSes.   Whether it was pre or post tangle I could not say for sure, but the GSP has always used all caps for street names and mix case for control cities or points until recently when the new signs started placing cities above the street names in a separate box.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SteveG1988 on May 26, 2015, 08:19:45 PM
The contractor for the new Great Egg Harbor bridge has been updating their website with photos of the progress. Amazing how far they've gotten. http://www.wagman.com/gafc/projects/Garden-State-Parkway-over-Great-Egg-Harbor-Bay.asp#1
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 11, 2015, 02:48:34 PM
The NJTA issued an advisory that the 89A ramps on the Parkway are opening this week: http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_new_ramps_opening_at_gsp_exit_89_CX.pdf

This brings full access to all directions of Rt 70 and CR-528 from both directions of the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 11, 2015, 08:49:35 PM
Roadman, did you say that GSP is going back to putting city names above street names on their signs? Interesting 'cause that's what they had back in the 1960's on their "original" signing, with the street name in upper case letters. I seem to remember at Exit-145 (before I-280 was built) the signs read: "E. Orange, Newark, CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT". Many GSP exits were formatted that way back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 12, 2015, 12:23:40 AM
The NJTA issued an advisory that the 89A ramps on the Parkway are opening this week: http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_new_ramps_opening_at_gsp_exit_89_CX.pdf

This brings full access to all directions of Rt 70 and CR-528 from both directions of the Parkway.
The northbound exit 89 ramps are open as of earlier this week.  Here's a photo:
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/GSP%2089_zpsgxdldruw.jpg)
There is also a nice video of the new exit ramps on the Asbury Park Press's website along with a schedule for the opening of all of the ramps at this link:
http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/)
It looks like we have a few weeks to go before the southbound on-ramps are open. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 12, 2015, 06:37:33 PM
The NJTA issued an advisory that the 89A ramps on the Parkway are opening this week: http://www.nj.gov/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_new_ramps_opening_at_gsp_exit_89_CX.pdf

This brings full access to all directions of Rt 70 and CR-528 from both directions of the Parkway.
The northbound exit 89 ramps are open as of earlier this week.  Here's a photo:
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m23/liam750/GSP%2089_zpsgxdldruw.jpg)
There is also a nice video of the new exit ramps on the Asbury Park Press's website along with a schedule for the opening of all of the ramps at this link:
http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/06/10/gsp-exit-dead-long-live-exit/71040196/)
It looks like we have a few weeks to go before the southbound on-ramps are open. 


Looks like quite a few APL's at this interchange. Also looks like they used them properly, unlike at 142B-C.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 12, 2015, 06:40:46 PM
Looks like quite a few APL's at this interchange. Also looks like they used them properly, unlike at 142B-C.
That's because the best sign engineer in the business designed them (and that's not me).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on June 12, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Why did they go with 89A-B instead of 88-89?  In NY it's more typical to see exits joined by c/d roads like that retain their numbers, even if they are effectively joined into one interchange. Exits 26-28 on I-81 come to mind (as do exits 22/23/24) as well as exits 6-7 on I-87.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 12, 2015, 07:25:32 PM
Roadman, did you say that GSP is going back to putting city names above street names on their signs? Interesting 'cause that's what they had back in the 1960's on their "original" signing, with the street name in upper case letters. I seem to remember at Exit-145 (before I-280 was built) the signs read: "E. Orange, Newark, CENTRAL AVE, NEXT RIGHT". Many GSP exits were formatted that way back then.
Well its been a thing since the mid 90's that every new road sign being added had that.  At Exit 124 it read Sayreville- South Amboy with a line across underneath it with Main St. (mixed casing) in a separate box.   The Exit 141 for Vauxhall Road is the same and so it southbound for Lyons Avenue in Irvington.  The last GSV image still showed them.

Edit: I fixed a typo.  Exit 131 was never for Vauxhall Road. Lol!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 13, 2015, 12:42:51 AM
Why did they go with 89A-B instead of 88-89?  In NY it's more typical to see exits joined by c/d roads like that retain their numbers, even if they are effectively joined into one interchange. Exits 26-28 on I-81 come to mind (as do exits 22/23/24) as well as exits 6-7 on I-87.
Because in the Parkway mindset, this is now one joined interchange, so it gets one number. There was discussion about what to do and this is what they decided.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on June 13, 2015, 09:48:44 PM
You're right Roadman. I just looked at a bunch of GSP signs on Google Earth. I'm surprised they're continuing that signing format with the street name below the destinations. I'd thought that was a thing of the past. Funny how the toll-roads (GSP, NJT, NY Thruway) stubbornly stick to their old ways instead of going with the more standard formats.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:25:20 PM
NJ is the only state to sign urban exits with rural type (route number- control cities) of wording instead of traditional urban (route number- street name) signing on their roads, Parkway included.

Yes in a way that are saying FU to the FHWA, and love to stay in their own ways.  To me I admire that some, but times have changed.  Is Maplewood really necessary to be included on the Lyons Avenue exit ramp?  Springfield Avenue is much more suited I think.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 15, 2015, 09:59:18 AM
NJ is the only state to sign urban exits with rural type (route number- control cities) of wording instead of traditional urban (route number- street name) signing on their roads, Parkway included.

Yes in a way that are saying FU to the FHWA, and love to stay in their own ways.  To me I admire that some, but times have changed.  Is Maplewood really necessary to be included on the Lyons Avenue exit ramp?  Springfield Avenue is much more suited I think.
It's not universally done. For example, 287 has "Morristown Next 3 Exits" and lists road names only on individual exit signs. The parkway and I-280 through and around Newark have some signs with only street names on them as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2015, 02:24:19 PM
No its not universal, but most likely done.  Morristown is one of the rare things, as far as Newark goes only South Orange Avenue is street only.  Also Bloomfield Avenue going S Bound only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 15, 2015, 05:17:58 PM
NJ is the only state to sign urban exits with rural type (route number- control cities) of wording instead of traditional urban (route number- street name) signing on their roads, Parkway included.

Yes in a way that are saying FU to the FHWA, and love to stay in their own ways.  To me I admire that some, but times have changed.  Is Maplewood really necessary to be included on the Lyons Avenue exit ramp?  Springfield Avenue is much more suited I think.

It's changing, though. For example 131/131A now says Wood Ave South which a ground mount sign mentioning that the next X exits are for Iselin (which is what that exit serves). They're hewing much closer to the MUTCD now, even if they're not 100% compliant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 15, 2015, 09:44:56 PM
With the imminent opening of the SB onramps at 89, the GSP widening project will essentially be complete from 89 down to the southern end of the project at 83.  The only remaining significant work on the mainline in that stretch appears to be the addition of a third Express EZ Pass lane (former shoulder) at the Toms River tolls NB, including milling and new top course pavement in that immediate area.  In the northern stretch, there's still some bridge work to wrap up and a section where the grade is being raised, although only one cattle chute remains in the entire project NB at 90.

It looks like the last major project to complete along this stretch are the new ramps at 91, including a new NB exit / SB entrance.  A PDF of the 91 project can be found here on the Ocean County Engineering Dept. website:
http://www.co.ocean.nj.us//PDFs//Interchange91.pdf (http://www.co.ocean.nj.us//PDFs//Interchange91.pdf)
Clearing and grading for the new ramps is finally moving along quickly now.

The OC Engineering site also has a link to a somewhat dormant website for a study to look at a SB offramp at 83. 
http://gspint83.com/ (http://gspint83.com/)
Although this is badly needed, it doesn't look like this is going anywhere at the moment and there's never been a really good place to dump ramp traffic into what is already a very congested area (US 9 / CR 571 intersection).  There was talk in the past about a possible exit further north near Church Road.  Right nearby, Ocean County College has gone nuts with a new road network to serve some new buildings including a fairly long new access road currently under construction out to N. Bay Ave. right near the GSP overpass over Church Road.

The full interchange at 89 has been badly needed for years.  90 is (was) the only NB exit in the Brick area and routinely backed up out onto the mainline every morning.  Complicating matters was that a good amount of traffic from the ramp would clog in the jughandle at the bottom of the ramp to head N/W toward Lakewood.  I still can't believe it took this long for such a heavily populated area as Brick to get decent access to the GSP.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 16, 2015, 10:21:18 AM
Last time I was in that area, it looks liked construction at 91 was well underway. Also, 91 was one of the last signs with a number only tab on it. also looks like they had tacked a Exit Only placard on it. When I drove through, it was on the side of the road in a temp setup until they install new signage once the work is complete.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on June 16, 2015, 03:37:47 PM
They  do not mention very important information: rehabbing the Atlantic City service area. They do not say an exact date to when it reopens, and the project PDF is now gone.

They also forget the Interchange 30-80 Widening, even though the part from 48-80 is done. There is (hopefully) construction on this, I believe this will be done in 2016-2017.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 16, 2015, 10:02:41 PM
Just south of 89, on the SB side, new Speed Limit 65 signs have been uncovered.  Further down by the Toms River tolls, there are 55 Speed Zone Ahead signs, but the 55 limit signs beyond have not been installed.  I assume the stretch from 83 to 80 will remain at 55 after construction is complete (congested area / heavy weaving at 82).  I remember awhile before 83-100 started, the limit in the entire stretch was lowered to 55.  Was there language in the law to allow the phased reestablishment of 65 mph zones in this stretch as portions of the widening project were completed, or are they jumping the gun?  Some of the other signs NB remain covered.

Compared to what I recall on the 63-80 widening, the 83-100 project has been poorly signed for construction speed limits.  Every once in awhile a 45 limit sign will pop up and later disappear (now popular on Ebay?)

They also forget the Interchange 30-80 Widening, even though the part from 48-80 is done. There is (hopefully) construction on this, I believe this will be done in 2016-2017.
There's some clearing on the northern stretch so far if I recall, and of course 41 is now open.  I think we discussed this here before, but it's about time for some flyover ramps at the AC Expressway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 17, 2015, 07:28:04 PM
I think in addition to flyovers at the ACE, a completed interchange with US 40/322 is needed instead of using Fire and Tilton Roads or Washington Avenue to complete the movements.

Also Exit 82 in Toms River going SB to EB needs a flyover bad with that tight turn exit ramp where you must slow down to 10mph to make it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 18, 2015, 09:51:17 AM
Just south of 89, on the SB side, new Speed Limit 65 signs have been uncovered.  Further down by the Toms River tolls, there are 55 Speed Zone Ahead signs, but the 55 limit signs beyond have not been installed.  I assume the stretch from 83 to 80 will remain at 55 after construction is complete (congested area / heavy weaving at 82).  I remember awhile before 83-100 started, the limit in the entire stretch was lowered to 55.  Was there language in the law to allow the phased reestablishment of 65 mph zones in this stretch as portions of the widening project were completed, or are they jumping the gun?  Some of the other signs NB remain covered.

Compared to what I recall on the 63-80 widening, the 83-100 project has been poorly signed for construction speed limits.  Every once in awhile a 45 limit sign will pop up and later disappear (now popular on Ebay?)

They also forget the Interchange 30-80 Widening, even though the part from 48-80 is done. There is (hopefully) construction on this, I believe this will be done in 2016-2017.
There's some clearing on the northern stretch so far if I recall, and of course 41 is now open.  I think we discussed this here before, but it's about time for some flyover ramps at the AC Expressway.


The construction is definitely ongoing at least in the 36-38 area which I frequent. There have been frequent changes in traffic patterns lately. I don't know what exactly they're doing now, but here's the current configuration:

Southbound exit 36 got a deceleration lane. There are intermittent lane closures on Tilton Road, so the exit often backs up.

Northbound, the entrance from exit 36 got its normal acceleration lane back. There is no longer a continuous third lane between exits 37 and 38A. Instead, the entrance from 37 merges into the main line, then an exit only lane for 38, and another single exit only lane for 38A which then opens up into 2 lanes after leaving the Parkway.

From the ACE Eastbound, the two-lane ramp at exit 7S merges into one lane shortly after exiting instead of right before entering the Parkway South.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2015, 11:35:33 AM
Aren't they braiding the Exit 38 on ramp SB with the Exit 37 off ramp SB to avoid the weaving issues generated there?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 18, 2015, 12:02:49 PM
That is in the project description, but I'm just reporting what I'm seeing now, and I can't tell what exactly they're doing. Currently the configuration is unchanged from before construction in that area, except everything is shifted to the left including the through lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 18, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
Eventually ACE EB to GSP SB (Exit 7) will have 2 uninterrupted lanes onto the GSP SB.

Traffic on GSP South to Exit 37 will have an exit ramp that will go under the ramp mentioned above. 

There will be an exit from that ACE Exit 7 to GSP's Exit 37 as well, so that movement will be preserved.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 20, 2015, 02:46:44 PM
Eventually ACE EB to GSP SB (Exit 7) will have 2 uninterrupted lanes onto the GSP SB.

Traffic on GSP South to Exit 37 will have an exit ramp that will go under the ramp mentioned above. 

There will be an exit from that ACE Exit 7 to GSP's Exit 37 as well, so that movement will be preserved.
I am glad they are including the small movements as in Orlando along I-4 when they braid two different ramps, they usually tell those entering who have been traveling that FU.  FDOT once told me in an email that they do that on purpose to keep local traffic off of I-4 when they prevented traffic entering I-4 westbound from Kirkman Road  to use the first interchange almost one mile away for FL 482.  The two ramps did not create weaving issues before the change when Universal Orlando expanded in the late 90's that had FDOT redo everything near the Theme Parks.

To me I think a slip ramp allowing that would have helped and could easily be done, but it never happened and continues to happen every time FDOT D-5 braids two interchange ramps.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 25, 2015, 09:50:03 PM
There is a public information session planned for this Tuesday 6/30 for the desperately needed SB exit 83 on the GSP in Toms River.  The meeting will be at the Ocean County Library in downtown Toms River from 4-7pm.  Here's some links, although they don't have much more info:
http://www.app.com/story/news/local/ocean-county/2015/06/25/new-toms-river-parkway-exit/29262787/ (http://www.app.com/story/news/local/ocean-county/2015/06/25/new-toms-river-parkway-exit/29262787/)
http://www.njtpa.org/Get-Involved/Calendar/Public-Information-Session-Parkway-Exit-Southbound.aspx (http://www.njtpa.org/Get-Involved/Calendar/Public-Information-Session-Parkway-Exit-Southbound.aspx)
Other than the easily missed releases to APP and Patch and NJTPA notice, no government entity is falling over themselves to advertise this meeting - nothing on the OC website I can find (even though the Engineering division has some maps and info on other GSP improvements), nothing on NJTA or elsewhere.  As usual, the goal is to have the design/PR team showing up to outnumber the amount of interested parties who will attend.  There is also a project website that hasn't been updated in a year - still showing a planned meeting for last year.

I assume I will see you all there around, let's say, 6pm?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 01, 2015, 03:00:12 PM
I went to the public info meeting for the new 83 SB exit.  The meeting presentation PDF can be viewed here:
http://gspint83.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Public-Information-Center-0630151.pdf (http://gspint83.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Public-Information-Center-0630151.pdf)

The preferred alternative is closest to 3A (pages 16 and 17 in the PDF).  Exiting traffic would need to go through the barrier tolls on the right at the Toms River plaza (and not via the Express EZ Pass) to a new light at 571.  Left turns from US 9 NB to CR 571 WB would be eliminated (SB 9 already uses a jughandle), requiring a long jughandle via Lomell Lane east of the GSP in order to make the left onto 571 (and to get to the Home Depot plaza).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 06, 2015, 08:01:02 PM
Does anyone know what the control cities are for Jimmie Leeds Road in Galloway Township now that the exit ramps are open?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 06, 2015, 08:13:40 PM
Pomona and Galloway
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 06, 2015, 10:13:41 PM
It looks like the SB entrance ramps at 89 are now finally open in Brick, finally bringing a full interchange to this area.  Other than some work on adding a third NB EZ Pass lane at the Toms River tolls, the 83-89 segment is complete - even the 65mph speed limit is back...


Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 06, 2015, 10:49:09 PM
As of Saturday, the northbound lanes were still split with the left lane doing a cattle chute. I was also reminded of how stupid the whole project is without adding a 4th lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 07, 2015, 06:22:35 PM
Is the headache still between 91 and 98?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 07, 2015, 06:24:09 PM
They still have lanes shifted for bridge widening and re-decking there.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 07, 2015, 06:25:39 PM
So we are looking at, another year or so? Hoping sooner.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 07, 2015, 06:41:00 PM
Looks like to at least the end of the summer.

In other news, the traffic light elimination project appears to be really close to moving northbound traffic to the new overpasses.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152197655945730.1073741830.62719310729&type=3
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 07, 2015, 08:39:42 PM
As of Saturday, the northbound lanes were still split with the left lane doing a cattle chute. I was also reminded of how stupid the whole project is without adding a 4th lane.
The cattle chute wasn't (isn't) actually that bad in the morning.  Surprisingly, slower traffic generally stayed clear and it made a quick 'bypass' of the 90 exit traffic and regular backups in the right lanes where the bridge work was still ongoing.  I expect the summer vacation crowd to ruin that shortly, so the fun of barreling through there is pretty much done.

Agreed on the 4th lane, but the section that is done south of 89 is a big improvement - finally feels like a modern highway and not the shoehorn job with the narrow lanes and no shoulders.  It looks like the 3rd NB Express EZ-Pass lane in Toms River is just about done, and they are paving the final course now through the plaza.  The cattle chute area between 90 and 91 is close to done, and the section between 91 and the bridge widening work near 98 is just awaiting final paving.  The new ramps at 91 are moving along now too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on July 07, 2015, 09:36:42 PM
UPDATE!!!!!!!!!
On the 90 mile stretch (where I was on) between exit 38 and exit 127, really the express local setup could be north of Toms River at MM 93 or so. Because between the middle to leftmost cash lane into the express lanes, there is hard weaving to get into the express lanes.
Construction on the 30-80 widening has reached MM 46 or 47 - there is certainly construction going on.
Atlantic City service plaza is almost done with reconstruction!!!
Cheesequake service area entrance from the express lanes is weird - really, make the express lanes enter from the south end of the parking lot rather than having to merge with people from the local lanes.

All of this was during June 25th, of when my family left AC towards NYC.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 08, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
Because between the middle to leftmost cash lane into the express lanes, there is hard weaving to get into the express lanes.
This has always been a problem just north of the Asbury tolls since the addition of the express EZ-Pass lanes.  The weaving area needs to be lengthened considerably, or a divider should be installed preventing cash toll users from weaving over to the express lanes (but continuing to allow the right express EZ-Pass lane to feed into the left local lane).  They can always add a cross-over further north to allow cash users back to the express side.  Very poor design.

Quote
Cheesequake service area entrance from the express lanes is weird - really, make the express lanes enter from the south end of the parking lot rather than having to merge with people from the local lanes.
If you want weird, check out the SB entrance to the same service area from the local lanes.  Until a few years ago, the plaza could be accessed only from the express lanes.  With the addition of the Express EZ-Pass lanes at the Raritan tolls, they added a ramp from the local lanes, a signal, and sent entering traffic through some bad geometry into the narrow underpass formerly just used for traffic exiting the rest area.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 08, 2015, 10:11:12 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 09, 2015, 10:12:15 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.
Nice...another thing to look forward to on our next Cape May day trip.

I took a short diversion tonight to check out the new SB onramps at 89.  Both ramps from 70 are now open, with some nice advance overhead BGSs at the entrances (unlike the small, blink and you missed it, traditional ground mount GSP entrance signs).  70 under the new overpasses has some work to complete, but at least the ramps are open.  The third new SB on-ramp from Airport Road is not open yet, however, but it looks like that's gonna happen any day now.  I don't think too many people have figured out they have some new options with the ramps yet - until today I haven't seen a single car using them as I pass by, and I was the only car entering from an otherwise typically congested 70 tonight.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: civilmaher on July 10, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 10, 2015, 08:49:21 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.
What about this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 10, 2015, 10:51:39 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.
What about this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.961899,-74.90352,3a,66.8y,182.46h,89.73t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5G7mHudM-mInTpailbyxyQ!2e0)

Yep, technically Mile 0 is south of the light at the 109 SB merge. I'll also note that there is a project in the works to improve the signal, but it's not going anywhere. I drew up a sketch on the side that easily gets rid of this and the next light (Shore Drive) with a single interchange. Shore Drive ties into the old road into Cape May (originally US 9's southern extension) and no one loses a house.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 11, 2015, 02:21:32 AM
They moved Milepost 0 for some reason. I have a 2001 photo showing it right at the light as opposed to being after it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on July 11, 2015, 07:53:26 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.

Either you have that wrinkle or users of the GSP outer sb roadway are denied access to Cheesequake.  OTOH users of the SB inner roadway can enter Cheesequake without a stoplight, but everyone resuming their southbound drive have to put up with the aforementioned stoplight before choosing which roadway to use.

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 12, 2015, 03:42:51 PM
Rumor has it that next Tuesday the GSP will officially be free of all traffic lights. I'll try and get confirmation.

...except for that interesting signal at the Cheesequake Service Area :D
That is off the road itself.  Although on the system its not on the GSP proper.

Either you have that wrinkle or users of the GSP outer sb roadway are denied access to Cheesequake.  OTOH users of the SB inner roadway can enter Cheesequake without a stoplight, but everyone resuming their southbound drive have to put up with the aforementioned stoplight before choosing which roadway to use.

ixnay
Yes but it is not on the freeway itself.  Yes it does effect you if you leave the Service Area going SB, but it is on ramps so therefore you cannot say that The Parkway now has stoplights anymore.  Its no different then the other ramp signals coming from adjacent roads to have to put up with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on July 16, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
I am not sure if this has been mentioned before, but what exactly was the purpose of the Local/Express lanes located where they are? It seems like they would have been in the middle of nowhere when they were built. It would seem more logical for them to be located in a more urban section. Was this a test area for future implementation elsewhere on the GSP? I am curious about the history of this configuration.

Mike, (Home exit 117 GSP)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 16, 2015, 10:22:35 PM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2015, 03:03:40 AM
The Express lanes were added in the early 70's.  I think it has to do with the amount of commuters going between Monmouth and Ocean Counties to Newark/ New York. 

They had a wide enough median to do it, unlike from Exit 129 to Exit 165 where there is not much room to add an express lane setup might also be a reason.

I do remember in 1980, when they added the fourth lane between 129 and 140, it was needed and since they did that it improved traffic flow so much since that project took place.  Basically adding the express lanes added a total of four more lanes to an existing three lane freeway, only two more than the 129-140 did in 1980. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 06:28:29 AM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on July 17, 2015, 06:59:08 AM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is sort of the economic engine of South Jersey, and other shore communities such as Long Branch, Toms River, Ocean City, Cape May, and a whole lot more are mostly vacation communities for people from Pennsylvania (including Atlantic City). The 3 lane widening between exits 30-80 (including a full rehab of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, so exit 25) was needed due to your reasoning, but also for connections to New York City and Connecticut.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2015, 10:28:22 AM
Atlantic City is was sort of the economic engine of South Jersey
FTFY.

Casino gambling competition in neighboring states (especially PA) has taken a serious toll on Atlantic City's major economic engine.  Within the past year or two, as many as 5 AC casinos & adjoining hotels (including the recently-built Revel) have closed down (at least while searching for new owners).  The city's presently in a rethink mode in terms what they can do to attract more people to the city to fill in the void left by out-of-state gamblers no longer patronizing AC's casinos & hotels.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 17, 2015, 10:41:59 AM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is sort of the economic engine of South Jersey, and other shore communities such as Long Branch, Toms River, Ocean City, Cape May, and a whole lot more are mostly vacation communities for people from Pennsylvania (including Atlantic City). The 3 lane widening between exits 30-80 (including a full rehab of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, so exit 25) was needed due to your reasoning, but also for connections to New York City and Connecticut.
The mainland communities (including Long Branch and Toms River mentioned above), especially from mid-Ocean County and northward are primarily year-round communities with the vacationers mostly on the barrier islands (or beachfront in Monmouth Co.).  The vast majority of Toms River, for example, has year-round residents.  We have quite a large full time population in northern Ocean County alone - over 225,000 people in just the triangle of 3 towns - Toms River, Brick and Lakewood.  The barrier island communities can somewhat turn into ghost towns during the off-season, but we manage to clog our roads just fine during January on the mainland.  I commute daily the 80-100 widening portion of the GSP, and it can get congested year round, and very frustrating to drive on a Friday afternoon with all the vacation traffic.  As much as we like the dollars coming in from Schnooki and her gang, we hate the additional traffic. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 17, 2015, 11:33:01 AM
I would guess they were built to handle the huge amount of traffic to/from the New Jersey Turnpike and  the shore communities and Atlantic City.

Below the Express/Local setup, the GSP dwindled down to 2 lanes per direction, so you can take Atlantic City out of that reasoning.  Only today are they finally getting to widening the highway in the south, and it's really for the benefit of the entire shore region, not just Atlantic City.
Atlantic City is sort of the economic engine of South Jersey, and other shore communities such as Long Branch, Toms River, Ocean City, Cape May, and a whole lot more are mostly vacation communities for people from Pennsylvania (including Atlantic City). The 3 lane widening between exits 30-80 (including a full rehab of the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, so exit 25) was needed due to your reasoning, but also for connections to New York City and Connecticut.

Technically, the Great Egg Harbor Bridge project is a replacement of the GSP Southbound bridge (actually, there are 2 bridges being replaced), not a rehab project.  While the finished bridges will still carry two lanes southbound, the bridges will be wider than the existing structures put together.  A 7' left shoulder and 24' wide shoulder will be part of the roadway, allowing for a 3rd lane widening to be included in the future.  A walking/bike path is included as well, similar to the Rt. 52 Causeway Bridge between Somers Point & OCNJ.

The former US 9 bridge is being demolished as part of this project as well, and will not be replaced.

There is no planned widening of the GSP between Exits 25 & 30 anytime soon.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 17, 2015, 01:34:43 PM
The former US 9 bridge is being demolished as part of this project as well, and will not be replaced.
Maybe someday they'll get around to formally acknowledging the rerouting of US 9 (or has this finally been done?), and put up some proper signage.  If I recall, signage is very poor to non-existent on the south side of the bridge at CR 623 for the "temporary" rerouting while at one time soon after the closure there was a more prominent display of the detour.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on July 24, 2015, 03:12:17 PM
Active construction near exits 36-38 in Egg Harbor Twp: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/garden-state-parkway-construction-project-focuses-on-new-exits/article_7bfd4d8a-3187-11e5-9deb-3ff061500a54.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 24, 2015, 04:31:53 PM
Active construction near exits 36-38 in Egg Harbor Twp: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/garden-state-parkway-construction-project-focuses-on-new-exits/article_7bfd4d8a-3187-11e5-9deb-3ff061500a54.html
This has been going on for awhile. I really wish they'd provide updates on lane closures on Tilton Road (as well as any others related to this project) in real time on VMSs and via 511 so drivers could make an intelligent choice about which exits to take. Similarly "2 lanes closed 1/2 mile ahead" doesn't cut it on the ACE when there's no exit before said closure. It's like they don't care about Atlantic County, but at the same time, they're doing these projects, so they do care? Make up your mind.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 02:29:06 PM
The Toms River tolls finally opened a third NB express EZ Pass lane in the former shoulder.  This should help the less aggressive drivers entering at 83 who want to get over to the express lanes.  Further north, the new overhead BGS for the future NB 91 interchange was sitting on the ground and partially obscured, but it looks like this exit will be signed for Herbertsville, a section of Brick.

Was it absolutely necessary (i.e. MUTCD requirement) to sign the single ramps to C/D lanes that serve multiple exits (SB new 89 and modified 91) with the exits in reverse alphabetical order.  Yes, going southbound through the C/D lanes you will hit in order, 89C, 89B and 89A, but I think it's a little silly to sign the single ramp from the mainline as 89 C-B-A and not 89 A-B-C.  My wife asked this question, and the best I could answer was that it was probably some new silly requirement or somebody being overly technical.  I don't recall this type of thing being signed this way for other C/D lane situations in the past (NJ 55 at exit 32 A-B, for example).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on July 25, 2015, 02:59:42 PM

Was it absolutely necessary (i.e. MUTCD requirement) to sign the single ramps to C/D lanes that serve multiple exits (SB new 89 and modified 91) with the exits in reverse alphabetical order.  Yes, going southbound through the C/D lanes you will hit in order, 89C, 89B and 89A, but I think it's a little silly to sign the single ramp from the mainline as 89 C-B-A and not 89 A-B-C.  My wife asked this question, and the best I could answer was that it was probably some new silly requirement or somebody being overly technical.  I don't recall this type of thing being signed this way for other C/D lane situations in the past (NJ 55 at exit 32 A-B, for example).

It is to obtain symmetry when symmetry can be obtained.  It is helpful for those that give directions to only have to give directions to the same exit.  For example, NJ 33 westbound is 100 in the NB direction and 100B in the SB direction because someone decided to count up the suffixes in the southbound direction. Lets assume the northbound exits didnt have the integer 100 and just started with 100A, then both directions to NJ 33 westbound would be 100A.  Now i presume someone, like a business, would have to explain why they are at different exit numbers in opposite directions instead of just saying, "I'm off Exit 100A".

Why it doesnt exactly provide symmetry at 89 is because they didnt build the NB to EB 70 direct connection.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 25, 2015, 03:19:16 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 03:53:28 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
In response to this and the comment above - I think you may be missing the point of my question.  Yes, the actual exits themselves would be in the order you describe, and I do agree that this makes sense and is required.  My question was specific to a single ramp that leads to the C/D lane that serves multiple exits.  For example, the single ramp at 89 has one BGS that indicates that it leads to 89 C-B-A.  Even though once you are in the C/D lanes (after the toll in this case) you will approach the exits in this order (C-B-A), I don't see why the single ramp sign can't list them as 89 A-B-C, regardless of the order you approach them once in the C/D lane.  I believe in the past I have seen (as in my NJ Route 55 example), the single ramp sign list them in alphabetical order regardless of the direction of approach.   Obviously, when there is not a C/D lane, you will typically have separate signage for each that will list them in their correct order for direction (i.e. if no C/D lanes, then there would be separate exits for C, B and then A).

Since the single ramp leads to all three exits, it doesn't really matter what order the letters are in, and I would think (and it seems to me has been more common in the past) for them to be listed in alphabetical order.  If the single ramp lead to separate exit numbers (say if 88 remained and the ramp led to 89 and 88) then I could see a better argument for reverse order (89 and 88) than with letter suffixes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 25, 2015, 03:59:38 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
In response to this and the comment above - I think you may be missing the point of my question.  Yes, the actual exits themselves would be in the order you describe, and I do agree that this makes sense and is required.  My question was specific to a single ramp that leads to the C/D lane that serves multiple exits.  For example, the single ramp at 89 has one BGS that indicates that it leads to 89 C-B-A.  Even though once you are in the C/D lanes (after the toll in this case) you will approach the exits in this order (C-B-A), I don't see why the single ramp sign can't list them as 89 A-B-C, regardless of the order you approach them once in the C/D lane.  I believe in the past I have seen (as in my NJ Route 55 example), the single ramp sign list them in alphabetical order regardless of the direction of approach.   Obviously, when there is not a C/D lane, you will typically have separate signage for each that will list them in their correct order for direction (i.e. if no C/D lanes, then there would be separate exits for C, B and then A).

Since the single ramp leads to all three exits, it doesn't really matter what order the letters are in, and I would think (and it seems to me has been more common in the past) for them to be listed in alphabetical order.  If the single ramp lead to separate exit numbers (say if 88 remained and the ramp led to 89 and 88) then I could see a better argument for reverse order (89 and 88) than with letter suffixes.

I like what VDOT does in Petersburg at the I-95/I-85/ US 460 tangle.  They do it in order and appears so neat even with four different suffixed ramps.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6819058447/in/album-72157629188899539/
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 25, 2015, 04:03:36 PM
Exit letters and numbers will be in forward order going north, and reverse order going south. It's always been this way; nothing new.
In response to this and the comment above - I think you may be missing the point of my question.  Yes, the actual exits themselves would be in the order you describe, and I do agree that this makes sense and is required.  My question was specific to a single ramp that leads to the C/D lane that serves multiple exits.  For example, the single ramp at 89 has one BGS that indicates that it leads to 89 C-B-A.  Even though once you are in the C/D lanes (after the toll in this case) you will approach the exits in this order (C-B-A), I don't see why the single ramp sign can't list them as 89 A-B-C, regardless of the order you approach them once in the C/D lane.  I believe in the past I have seen (as in my NJ Route 55 example), the single ramp sign list them in alphabetical order regardless of the direction of approach.   Obviously, when there is not a C/D lane, you will typically have separate signage for each that will list them in their correct order for direction (i.e. if no C/D lanes, then there would be separate exits for C, B and then A).

Since the single ramp leads to all three exits, it doesn't really matter what order the letters are in, and I would think (and it seems to me has been more common in the past) for them to be listed in alphabetical order.  If the single ramp lead to separate exit numbers (say if 88 remained and the ramp led to 89 and 88) then I could see a better argument for reverse order (89 and 88) than with letter suffixes.

I like what VDOT does in Petersburg at the I-95/I-85/ US 460 tangle.  They do it in order and appears so neat even with four different suffixed ramps.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/6819058447/in/album-72157629188899539/
This sign is what I'm talking about - a single BGS for C/D lanes.  Regardless of direction of approach, it can list the suffixed letters in alphabetical order.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on July 25, 2015, 09:08:40 PM
I live in VA. Nothing VDOT does is a model for anything.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on July 26, 2015, 11:39:09 AM
Here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.256104,-74.694702,3a,75y,190.88h,96.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sae7gWYker5_DNB4mSrFrIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) another example on I-295 SB - C/D lanes, exits listed in actual order.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on July 26, 2015, 01:14:32 PM
Yet, here's a few examples the other way:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.492578,-75.070774,3a,75y,211.08h,83.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFYPiJN_uljNd7dkxVE96Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.492578,-75.070774,3a,75y,211.08h,83.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFYPiJN_uljNd7dkxVE96Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.892967,-75.226449,3a,75y,322.86h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQfQhS3Mws1dqZlddR14K3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.892967,-75.226449,3a,75y,322.86h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQfQhS3Mws1dqZlddR14K3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I just took a quick look through MUTCD and don't see anything that specifically addresses this situation (their only example is in the NB/EB direction, with the exits increasing).  I do see a few other examples in Streetview of B-A signage, along the 95 NE corridor.  In one way it does make sense, but when it gets to 3 suffixes and the C/D lane exit is well in advance of the actual exits (like the GSP's 89), it just doesn't look right to me but I'll get over it.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 26, 2015, 01:56:56 PM
I'm surprised that Exit 129 southbound didn't get lettered exits. I guess they were dead set on the NJTP maintaining the same number in both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 26, 2015, 03:10:14 PM
I'm surprised that Exit 129 southbound didn't get lettered exits. I guess they were dead set on the NJTP maintaining the same number in both directions.
Actually that would work well coming NB. If US 9 N Bound would get 127A and if NJ 440 S Bound would get 127B, and NJ 440 N Bound and the connector to Smith Street and Florida Grove Road would be 127C.

Also reverse exit numbering works perfect in Ocoee, FL for Exit 267 on the FL Tpk.  If you look at the interchange in both directions FL  50 comes first and then FL 429.  Its a neat situation where the A and B works well in both directions for the same exact exits.  Going NB it goes with the flow and SB goes against it, but it works out where A and B are in sequential order both ways.

What gets me is Exit 100 does have confusion.  Going SB Exit 100 A is for NJ 33 E Bound and going NB Exit 100A is for NJ 66.  Then going NB you have Exit 100 without a letter suffix for NJ 33 E Bound (typical GSP with a whole number plus letter suffixes like the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges) which I am surprised made out for well over 60 years.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2015, 12:47:41 PM
What gets me is Exit 100 does have confusion.  Going SB Exit 100 A is for NJ 33 E Bound and going NB Exit 100A is for NJ 66.  Then going NB you have Exit 100 without a letter suffix for NJ 33 E Bound (typical GSP with a whole number plus letter suffixes like the NJ 37 and ACE interchanges) which I am surprised made out for well over 60 years.

That was pretty typical for the NJ Highway Authority (previous owner of the Parkway before it merged with the Turnpike Authority). It's also why there is 117 and 117A. These things are being corrected as the NJTA replaces signs and updates to a more MUTCD-compliant signage plan. The days for 100-100A-100B are likely numbered.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 02:27:42 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 27, 2015, 03:08:32 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.

Another thing I'm sure will be fixed when they do a sign replacement project in those locations.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 29, 2015, 11:06:35 AM
I live in VA. Nothing VDOT does is a model for anything.

I don't live in Virginia, but I believe you sell VDOT short (and it seems to me that bashing of VDOT should be considered the official state sport of the Commonwealth).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on July 29, 2015, 01:52:41 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Yep. This problem I've seen in PA too. On I-83 SB approaching the Eisenhower Interchange in Harrisburg, US 322 is signed as exit 47, then I-283 is signed as exit 46. I-83 NB here gets 46A for I-283, and 46B for US 322.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2015, 10:58:02 AM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Yep. This problem I've seen in PA too. On I-83 SB approaching the Eisenhower Interchange in Harrisburg, US 322 is signed as exit 47, then I-283 is signed as exit 46. I-83 NB here gets 46A for I-283, and 46B for US 322.
Yes that is the challenge that engineers face.  Sometimes consistency can be so confusing because of ramp locations.  US 322 EB departs I-83 SB at a different location than the NB exit for the same road.  In fact US 322 EB does concur with the NB lanes of I-83 briefly and eventually exits again at the NB exit to continue.  So in essence US 322 EB actually uses both SB and NB exits.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadsguy on July 30, 2015, 11:42:33 PM
Irvington is another with the 143 going northbound.  And southbound is 143-143A-143B and that one with B being the last closer to the south for Lyons Avenue E Bound via Union Avenue.

Although it works out well as to say Irvington proper from both directions uses 143 even though they are at different locations.   One thing we know for sure that urban areas are always confusing with ramps so close to each other.  Look at I-4 in Orlando using two completely different exit numbers for FL 50 from each direction due to a c/d road going WB but going EB it is two separate diverging ramps.
Yep. This problem I've seen in PA too. On I-83 SB approaching the Eisenhower Interchange in Harrisburg, US 322 is signed as exit 47, then I-283 is signed as exit 46. I-83 NB here gets 46A for I-283, and 46B for US 322.
Yes that is the challenge that engineers face.  Sometimes consistency can be so confusing because of ramp locations.  US 322 EB departs I-83 SB at a different location than the NB exit for the same road.  In fact US 322 EB does concur with the NB lanes of I-83 briefly and eventually exits again at the NB exit to continue.  So in essence US 322 EB actually uses both SB and NB exits.

Actually, loop carrying 322 EB doesn't merge in until after 83 exits itself. There's a short median-separated section (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2529708,-76.8122907,434m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on August 05, 2015, 09:48:13 PM
Also, these (https://goo.gl/maps/xpRzz) signs were replaced even though they only date from the 142 construction in 2009.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 05, 2015, 09:54:14 PM
Also, these (https://goo.gl/maps/xpRzz) signs were replaced even though they only date from the 142 construction in 2009.
I hope they finally remove Morristown as that is been copied over from the pre I-78/ NJ 24 days.  They need to have it on a supplemental guide for Exit 142 and remove Springfield for Clinton and move Springfield to Exit 140A (former 140) for NJ 82 WB.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: CrystalWalrein on August 23, 2015, 03:24:01 PM
Exit 44 northbound is now open. The signs now reference both CR 561 Alternate and CR 575 (the old ones for southbound only reference the latter).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 24, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
I saw the drawings for the guide signs and it uses Port Republic and Smithville as control cities unlike the Southbound side that always used Pomona.  Also in the past no routes were used at SB Exit 44.  Just Pomona was only signed with no road names or route numbers at all.  So consider it something that only CR 575 is being used now.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Public-Info-Center-handout-41-44-August-2012.pdf
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 25, 2015, 05:02:42 PM
Expect new signs soon on the local-express section of the GSP, and along the Bergen and Passaic County sections. They also put up a fancy new "Welcome to NJ and the GSP" sign at the NY border.

In other news, the construction at Exit 163 for eliminating the left hand NJ-17 exits is quite impressive. They are constructing an entirely new mainline for the Parkway in the median.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 25, 2015, 08:07:59 PM
Good to see them eliminating left-exits where possible. Left-exits in general are bad idea and should be kept to a minimum. Notice that the New Jersey Turnpike, which is probably about the best engineered highway in the country, has only right exits, by intent.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2015, 09:26:32 PM
Good to see them eliminating left-exits where possible. Left-exits in general are bad idea and should be kept to a minimum. Notice that the New Jersey Turnpike, which is probably about the best engineered highway in the country, has only right exits, by intent.

And the Turnpike has gone out of its way, at great expense, to do that.  It would be a lot cheaper just to combine ramps so that one roadway exits/enters on the right, and the other on the left, so that they use the same ramp structure.  But the Turnpike philosophy has always been to built all entrances & exits on the right.  In today's age of GPS equipment and online directions, it would be crucial to know if a motorist was using the inner roadway or outer roadway if the ramps differed based on the roadway.  As all exits are on the right, it doesn't matter which roadway one is using.

The Parkway is a different story.  In the era it was built, it was designed as a leisurely parkway.  The driving public though started treating it like the other limited access interstate highway that started to be built around the same time - hard, fast driving for commuting to work.  Some areas received upgrades to make it more like an interstate highway...and other areas received bandaid-type modifications just to keep the highway from becoming a day-long parking lot.  The NJTA has been pumping a great deal of cash into it to fix some of the issues, whether it be capacity or operational issues.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 25, 2015, 09:48:38 PM
Very good summary jeffandnicole. I've often noted that the Parkway in many ways was not built to the same exacting standards as the Turnpike. Shoulders are not continuous in all areas. And in Middlesex/Union Counties I can't believe they expanded it to five lanes in each direction with no left shoulder. Imagine you start having car trouble in the left lane and need to cross all the way over to the right shoulder. And are those lanes even the standard 12 feet wide, or slightly narrower? They must have been desperate for capacity improvement. And  to this day between Exits 151-153 there is no median-barrier protection in the vicinity of the State Police station at Bloomfield.

What's surprising is that back in the 1960's the Parkway boasted the lowest fatality rate of any toll-road in the country, even with it's design shortcomings. Maybe not having all the large trucks, especially in the Northern section helps with that. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 26, 2015, 06:15:01 AM
Very good summary jeffandnicole. I've often noted that the Parkway in many ways was not built to the same exacting standards as the Turnpike. Shoulders are not continuous in all areas. And in Middlesex/Union Counties I can't believe they expanded it to five lanes in each direction with no left shoulder. Imagine you start having car trouble in the left lane and need to cross all the way over to the right shoulder. And are those lanes even the standard 12 feet wide, or slightly narrower? They must have been desperate for capacity improvement. And  to this day between Exits 151-153 there is no median-barrier protection in the vicinity of the State Police station at Bloomfield.

What's surprising is that back in the 1960's the Parkway boasted the lowest fatality rate of any toll-road in the country, even with it's design shortcomings. Maybe not having all the large trucks, especially in the Northern section helps with that. 

I'm sure some others up north may know more specifically when the highway was widened...back in the 50's and 60's, I would imagine that most of those shortcomings didn't exist.  Yeah, the 5 lane, no left shoulder (and I'm quite sure narrow lanes) aren't want you find on a typical highway.  Nor was the 3 lane, no-shoulder-whatsoever areas.  Back then, remember the GSP was its own authority, and the only connection it had with the Turnpike was Interchange 11 in Woodbridge...which is also where the GSP's Admin building was located.  The Turnpike took over the building after the two tollways merged.  Even today, except for the Turnpike's addition of the full-color VMS signage on the Parkway, the two toll roads have kept their own identity, as the Parkway still features short skip lines compared to the Turnpike's 25 foot long lines, and no variable speed limit signage.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 26, 2015, 11:37:43 AM
Most of the Parkway in Middlesex and Union Counties were three lanes especially on the free section between Exits 129 and 140.  In 1980 they widened the roadway adding pavement and widening the viaduct at Aldene in Union County over the three rail lines (now 2 being SIRT is abandoned), NJ 28, and South Avenue.  Then in the mid 1980's a fifth lane was added between Exits 136 and 140 by narrowing the shoulders and main travel lanes.  Then sometime in the 1990's it was restriped to add a fifth lane from Exits 129 to 136.

Most of the original Robert Moses Bridges between New Dover Road and Union County Route 615 were left wide enough to accommodate future widening projects and they did as even the former Reading Railroad overpass north of US 1, though not a stone arch structure, fits all of the current roadway comfortably even though built in the late 1940's when the Parkway was first built in that location.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on August 26, 2015, 04:28:19 PM
Actually the State built section that included the Robert Moses style overpasses was originally only 2 lanes in each direction. There are photos in the Images-of-America book about the G.S. Parkway's history. The book points out that the original road was built with future expansion in mind, as was the Driscoll Bridge. The proof of that is those wide original underpasses. Very smart thinking at the time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 26, 2015, 04:44:27 PM
Its also visible in this horrible quality telecine of a promotional film for the referendum to create the NJ Highway Authority.


Somebody should find the original film and re-transfer it with modern equipment. I'm sure its buried in Woodbridge somewhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2015, 12:06:19 AM
Actually the State built section that included the Robert Moses style overpasses was originally only 2 lanes in each direction. There are photos in the Images-of-America book about the G.S. Parkway's history. The book points out that the original road was built with future expansion in mind, as was the Driscoll Bridge. The proof of that is those wide original underpasses. Very smart thinking at the time.
The Driscoll Bridge was built with the piers for future expansion that eventually became the SB Lanes.  Some historic aerials show that as well as vintage photos of the Parkway.

As far as the road being four lanes on the state built part, I only became aware of the road in 1968 or maybe 69. I was born in 65 so its usually until our 4th year of existence that we start retaining memory fully, so I cannot say that I ever saw the four lanes of the GSP.  However, until the widening project of 1980, the roadway was concrete.  I always remembered the concrete being old and the same texture in all lanes.  So therefore I must assume that the three lanes all were constructed at the same time as usually if a lane of any kind is added with like concrete as the other existing lanes, then one lane would always have a different wear pattern on it.

Just look at US 22 in Bridgewater where the WB lanes are concrete, you will see the left lane is still newer looking compared to the right two original WB Lanes.  The third left lane was added in 1988 when the Bridgewater Commons Mall opened as that was stipulated along with the reconconfiguration of the US 22 & US 202/206 interchange to handle the new mall traffic.

Now I am not saying you are lying, but the fact is all the lanes of the Parkway did not look like US 22 WB from I-287 to Commons Way does now some 27 years later after a lane was added considering the road in 1970 was only 22 years old. However, there could be the fact the concrete used back in the 1940's might of been different than the modern methods of mixing and the wear patterns must of been different.  On US 22 it might be that the concrete used for the left lane addition was not the same mixture that was used when US 22 was originally widened several years earlier.  In fact I do not know when US 22 was dualized but its obvious that the EB lanes of US 22 through Bridgewater east of US 202 & 206 were the original travel lanes even to us road geeks now.

It makes an interesting question though that unless we have a road geek born prior to 1948 by five or more years, we cannot really know why this is so unless someone has access to construction records and photos.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on August 27, 2015, 04:57:45 PM
It makes an interesting question though that unless we have a road geek born prior to 1948 by five or more years, we cannot really know why this is so unless someone has access to construction records and photos.
Michael Summa?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 27, 2015, 05:24:27 PM
Looks like it was widened to 3 lanes between 1954 and 57. The part north of the state maintained section was originally 6 lanes, so they likely widened it to match that fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 27, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
It must of been.  That might of been why the concrete aged the same on both roadways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on September 27, 2015, 02:49:54 PM
They're making good progress on the expansion to three lanes from exits 36 to 38 (not exit 35!). Exit 37 is scheduled to be closed soon so they can incorporate the new overpass coming from the expressway. The southbound ramp from ACE to the GSP is paved already, just needs to tie into the main portion, hence why they are temporarily closing exit 37. I'll try and get pics next time.

Also some other updates for South Jersey. The bridges are open and the parkway is continuous for exits 9-11. Exit 10 (for Stone Harbor Blvd.) is temporarily closed, and the others are getting work for the northbound exit ramps. The Egg Harbor Bridge (mile 28) is making progress as well. The new bridge has the span complete about one-third the way up on the south side, but the columns are missing toward the center.

I ride these roads weekly, so I can give regular updates if any of you guys want.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 27, 2015, 03:49:31 PM
There is an Exit 35 now?   I also believe you made another typo as you said "temporarily closing Exit 36."
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 27, 2015, 05:53:42 PM
The bridges are open and the parkway is continuous for exits 9-11. Exit 10 (for Stone Harbor Blvd.) is temporarily closed, and the others are getting work for the northbound exit ramps.

Can you still get directly from Cape May C.H. (say, from Cape Regional Medical Center) to Stone Harbor via County 657?  And what exit(s) must one take from to the GSP itself to get to SH?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 27, 2015, 09:22:43 PM
Detour is to take Exit 9 along with Shell Bay Ave. and US-9.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 28, 2015, 06:57:46 AM
Detour is to take Exit 9 along with Shell Bay Ave. and US-9.

How about from points north?

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 28, 2015, 08:21:11 AM
Detour is to take Exit 9 along with Shell Bay Ave. and US-9.

How about from points north?

ixnay

Since the exits are mileage based, Exits 9 & 11 are only about 1 mile from Exit 10.  Coming from the North, simply exit the GSP at Exit 11, turn right onto 609 for about 1/4 mile, turn left onto US 9 South for a mile, then left onto 657.

If you pass it, just continue to Exit 9, turn right onto Shellbay Ave, turn right onto US 9 North for a mile, then right onto 657.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 28, 2015, 03:56:16 PM
Southbound side is open already.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on September 29, 2015, 11:55:20 AM
There is an Exit 35 now?   I also believe you made another typo as you said "temporarily closing Exit 36."
Sorry, thanks for the fixes!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on October 03, 2015, 05:07:55 PM
The 83-100 widening project is nearing completion.  Other than some top course repaving, final striping and reflectors, it's essentially down to just the new ramps at the 91 interchange and the bridge construction across the Manasquan River.  I'll have to take some photos.  From roughly 90 south to 83 the improvements are complete.  North of this, there are some spot areas with nighttime lane closures for final striping.  Final paving is basically done except for the area immediately around the bridge construction and the southbound lanes leading into it from around 98.  It feels pretty much complete regardless.  Looking forward to the new 91 ramps, but the new ramps at 89 are already a huge improvement for the area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on October 03, 2015, 05:20:42 PM
They renumbered southbound Exit 91 to Exits 91 B-A for the impending C-D road. The new northbound exit must be Exit 91 since i had seen no other new ramp being built earlier this summer.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on October 04, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
What about all the way to exit 30? I heard they may be widening to the Ocean City exit, or just to the ACE?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on October 04, 2015, 11:48:59 PM
What about all the way to exit 30? I heard they may be widening to the Ocean City exit, or just to the ACE?
Right now, the widening ends at the bottom of Interchange 36, tied in with the ACE improvements. From 30 to 36 is not currently part of construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 04, 2015, 11:58:31 PM
They did widen the Patcong Creek bridge to 3 lanes when they rebuilt it. Don't see much of a need to widen south of 36 until they decide to replace the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge. Whats interesting is that bridge is now starting to backup during the summer, although the construction isn't helping.

Are there any plans to convert the New Gretna and Great Egg plazas to express E-ZPass? I would have thought the widening project would have taken care of New Gretna, but nope.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 05, 2015, 01:29:14 PM
They did widen the Patcong Creek bridge to 3 lanes when they rebuilt it. Don't see much of a need to widen south of 36 until they decide to replace the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge. Whats interesting is that bridge is now starting to backup during the summer, although the construction isn't helping.

Are there any plans to convert the New Gretna and Great Egg plazas to express E-ZPass? I would have thought the widening project would have taken care of New Gretna, but nope.

There's a need to widen the GSP to Exit 30, for Ocean City, which was part of the original widening plans.  There is a significant amount of summertime congestion from the ACE to the OCNJ exit. 

While the new SB Great Egg Harbor Bridge will be 2 lanes wide, it is being built to accommodate a 3rd lane in the future if ever needed.  The NB Great Egg Harbor Bridge will remain 2 lanes wide.

As for the toll plazas, don't expect it anytime soon. 

The Great Egg Plaza was understandable, due to the 2 lane, 45 mph overpass just afterwards. They wouldn't want traffic going thru the plaza too quickly, so at least slowing traffic under 40 mph thru the plaza to 15 mph allows for a semi-natural buffer.

The New Gretna plaza was a mistake.  There should've been express lanes built there.  Maybe they would justify the lack of it due to the overpass about 3/4 mile ahead, but that would be a fairly weak argument, since in most cases the express/cash lanes would merge together within 1/2 mile.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have a clue what they wouldn't have implemented the express lanes here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on November 03, 2015, 10:19:23 PM
The Exit 0 project is in gear: http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/news/traffic/article_1243f3e4-826d-11e5-a9c0-f7bdc94ef812.html
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:43:44 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 07, 2015, 02:41:56 AM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.

I just drove through there and it looks like there was a new SB overpass from 36 done with new signage that mentions Woodbridge and Toms River, but other work is still in progress.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 08, 2015, 08:02:29 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.
I just drove through there and it looks like there was a new SB overpass from 36 done with new signage that mentions Woodbridge and Toms River, but other work is still in progress.
This project is now complete, or at least mostly complete with possibly a little work to go on the north side of 36 at the third new signal on Hope Road if anything (WB 36 ramp to Hope Road signal).  I've driven the NB exit from the GSP a few times through the new signal across Hope Road and it works pretty well.  Big improvement, and as usual major improvements are always made once my job moves to a new location so I can't benefit from it on a daily basis.  Hope Road south of 36 still needs a widening to 4 lanes past Wyckoff Road.  The proposed new NB GSP offramp at 105 to Wayside Road has not started - not sure where that stands.

The 83-100 project is nearly complete with just the bridge widening over the Manasquan River getting close to completion and the new ramps at 91 coming along nicely.  The majority of the stretch has final pavement and they're finishing up with the final striping and reflectors now.  It feels complete, with the exception of the short stretch at the bridge work.  The 91 NB exit to Burrsville Road is paved and waiting for final striping, guardrails and the activation of the signal at the end of the ramp.  The NB on-ramp here is also close, but probably will stay closed until the relocation of the existing NB onramp from its current location to the park and ride lot a little to the north.  The new SB onramp needs some work, but the C/D lanes along the side of the GSP are basically complete.

I'm a little surprised with the somewhat tight geometry down at the new 89 ramps.  The ramps from Route 70 are a little abrupt, and the NB exits to 70 and Cedar Bridge Ave. are going to have a rollover or two.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 09, 2015, 03:07:27 PM
Question I was curious about: I noticed (due to sitting in heavy traffic) that some of the bridge structures on the former NJ-4 section of the Parkway in the Woodbridge/Clark area still have NJDOT structure identification signs on them (with the XXXX-XXX structure ID and the milage) rather than NJTA ones (just the mileage). I know the Highway Authority took over that stretch of road some 20 years ago from the state. Does the state still have a hand in maintaining some of these structures? Just curious because some of the signs don't look that old.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on November 09, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Doing some spot checks on readable GSV signs and this 2007 document (PDF) (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/attachment1highwaycarryingbridges.pdf), the Parkway bridges in this area appear to be maintained by the Turnpike Authority.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 07:42:05 PM
I keep seeing references on this board to the GSP being NJ Route-4. How can the GSP have that number when there is already a NJ-4 that goes west from the George Washington Bridge and has been there since the 1930's, twenty years before any of the Parkway was built?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 09, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
I keep seeing references on this board to the GSP being NJ Route-4. How can the GSP have that number when there is already a NJ-4 that goes west from the George Washington Bridge and has been there since the 1930's, twenty years before any of the Parkway was built?
The parkway was NJ Parkway 4 before 1957. After NJ Parkway 4 was deleted, the state maintained (free section) section had become the Highway Authority and called the Garden State Parkway until the Highway and Turnpike Authority merged in 2000.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:06:28 PM
You're saying NJ Parkway-4 is different than NJ-4?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 09, 2015, 08:12:27 PM
You're saying NJ Parkway-4 is different than NJ-4?
Yup. It was signed as NJ Parkway 4 for a short time after the state built the 11 mile free section until the Highway Authority took over construction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:25:44 PM
So were there also 3 other numbered Parkways?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 09:20:16 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:09:00 AM
Doing some spot checks on readable GSV signs and this 2007 document (PDF) (http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/attachment1highwaycarryingbridges.pdf), the Parkway bridges in this area appear to be maintained by the Turnpike Authority.
They definitely are. These are holdovers, possibly from when the NJTA took over the NJHA. For all I know the NJHA kept the state's bridge numbering. No way to check now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 AM
So were there also 3 other numbered Parkways?
No.

NJ State Highway 4 followed what's now US 9 all the way up the state from Cape May to NJ 88. 4 followed original US 9 across 88 to 35, then up 35 all the way into 27. This original highway was intended to connect to the northern segment of NJ 4 that leaves Paterson.

NJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2015, 10:43:31 AM

NJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Somewhat true on the Paterson bank of the Passaic, too, but is there really something to this, or is this just the general style of a state highway built in that era that hasn't outgrown it?  I read decades ago that the park-like setting immediately east of Hackensack is a direct result of Teaneck prohibiting development along 4 in that town (or any road expansion) either by zoning or outright ownership of the abutting land.  It's worth noting that as soon as one enters Englewood, the road is fully lined with commercial property.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on November 10, 2015, 01:13:00 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
U.S. 9 was once aligned separately from the GSP Mullica River Bridge (48-50 overlap), on what is now known as Route 167.  Route 167 is now in two small pieces at either end of the former alignment, because the old bridges along the alignment were removed and never replaced.  At that time, U.S. 9 was moved to the Parkway.  Almost an earlier parallel to the Beesley's Point circumstance now.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 10, 2015, 06:29:04 PM

NJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Somewhat true on the Paterson bank of the Passaic, too, but is there really something to this, or is this just the general style of a state highway built in that era that hasn't outgrown it?  I read decades ago that the park-like setting immediately east of Hackensack is a direct result of Teaneck prohibiting development along 4 in that town (or any road expansion) either by zoning or outright ownership of the abutting land.  It's worth noting that as soon as one enters Englewood, the road is fully lined with commercial property.
No, NJ 4 to the bridge was built as part of regular 4, not Parkway 4, but I just find it interesting that the character of the road would have fit with the extension of the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 11, 2015, 10:28:26 AM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
U.S. 9 was once aligned separately from the GSP Mullica River Bridge (48-50 overlap), on what is now known as Route 167.  Route 167 is now in two small pieces at either end of the former alignment, because the old bridges along the alignment were removed and never replaced.  At that time, U.S. 9 was moved to the Parkway.  Almost an earlier parallel to the Beesley's Point circumstance now.
  I heard from my cousin, as my Uncle Al used to own the home at the northern terminus of NJ 167 in New Gretna and he was his son, told me a camper fire from a fisherman destroyed the original US 9 Bridge across the Mullica.  I do not know how accurate that is as he told me back when we were kids, but my dad who was around for years confirmed it.  He said NJDOT or its former agency at the time decided that having two river crossings, the Parkway and US 9, was redundant so they opted to have the Parkway bridge carry both routes rather than rebuild.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 11, 2015, 11:19:11 AM
I just thought of this, the parkway has strange exit numbers at some places. I believe there is three examples:

Exits 38-38A rather than Exits 38A-B
Exits 82-82A rather than Exits 82A-B
Exits 100-100A-100B rather than Exits 100A-100B-100C

Why haven't these been fixed yet?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 03:22:54 PM
They are working on it. Expect Exit 38-38A to be fixed within the year when construction is complete in the area. The other two will be fixed with the next sign replacement contract.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on November 11, 2015, 09:31:45 PM
They are working on it. Expect Exit 38-38A to be fixed within the year when construction is complete in the area. The other two will be fixed with the next sign replacement contract.
I was surprised that 98 didn't get suffixed when they recently replaced the signs there as part of the 83-100 work.  It's really not much different than the new 89A/B/C and the 91A/B SB conversion (when complete) with the C/D lanes at 98 (NB at least).  I would think it would've been an easier sell splitting an existing non-suffixed exit than changing suffixes on already established exits with the effect on businesses and GPS units.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 11, 2015, 09:57:10 PM
There are no suffixes at 98 because there is no entry or re-entry to the south. 98 northbound should entertain suffixes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 11, 2015, 09:59:07 PM
I just thought of this, the parkway has strange exit numbers at some places. I believe there is three examples:

Exits 38-38A rather than Exits 38A-B
Exits 82-82A rather than Exits 82A-B
Exits 100-100A-100B rather than Exits 100A-100B-100C

Why haven't these been fixed yet?

If i remember correctly, 82 isn't in any program.  I don't think it will address the suffixes anytime soon.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 11, 2015, 10:17:34 PM
They didn't bother to suffix Exit 129 S/B or 127 N/B, both of which could have used it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 12, 2015, 07:48:52 AM
They didn't bother to suffix Exit 129 S/B or 127 N/B, both of which could have used it.

Again, there is no entry or re-entry at 127 or 129 meaning that a C-D road doesn't exist--these ramps don't "collect" so there is only one exit and it departs from the mainline.  In a C-D road, the departure from the system is from the C-D road, not the mainline.  I think that's the easiest way to explain it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2015, 09:45:34 AM
They didn't bother to suffix Exit 129 S/B or 127 N/B, both of which could have used it.

Again, there is no entry or re-entry at 127 or 129 meaning that a C-D road doesn't exist--these ramps don't "collect" so there is only one exit and it departs from the mainline.  In a C-D road, the departure from the system is from the C-D road, not the mainline.  I think that's the easiest way to explain it.

Not necessarily, it depends on the DOT and the politics of the designer.  I have seem some A-B-C suffixes on split ramps, look at the new SB Exit for I-87 on the Cross Bronx for one.  Then look at the FL 417 and World Drive interchange in Celebration, FL on I-4.  It has long C/D roads and yet has only the one number for the ramp to the C/D road.  Exit 62 is for the C/D system for both World Drive and FL 417 (E Bound Only) yet the C/D road is very long.  In fact in the sequential numbering days both ramps to World Drive had Exits 24 C & D, and Exit 24 E was for the departure of FL 417 from the C/D road.

Also the C/D is not used everywhere as the NJTA for the NJ 70 and CR 528 exits is called a Service Road where most would call it a C/D roadway.  In fact in many places a service road is an off freeway road that sits next to the freeway itself graded separate from the super highway.

Its all politics!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 23, 2015, 11:48:06 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Union,+NJ/@40.6983571,-74.2533771,382m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89c3ad9f6f9daa9b:0x570322a196f054c!6m1!1e1
I was noticing that the Westbound exit ramp to Vauxhall Road in Union, NJ is very close to the Northbound GSP ramp.  As many of you already know, that is who live in North Jersey, that to access the GSP NB from US 22 WB you have to exit on Vauxhall Road and then turn right briefly on Vauxhall itself to then turn into the Parkway's northbound ramp.

To me there is nothing in between the US 22 WB off ramp to Vauxhall Road and the Parkway North Ramp from Vauxhall Road but green area.  I would figure by now that either the NJTA or NJDOT would build a ramp between the two ramps to eliminate you having to use Vauxhall Road to make the connection.

I guess no one cannot figure out that one simple little thing they could do to make US 22 Westbound have an almost direct ramp to the Parkway Northbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on November 25, 2015, 09:49:42 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NE2 on November 26, 2015, 12:01:02 AM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?
Because if we don't sign them the terrorists won't blow them up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2015, 08:31:02 AM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

Thre's one southbound at Exit 80.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 08:43:52 AM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

Thre's one southbound at Exit 80.

Image?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on November 26, 2015, 10:20:40 AM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on November 26, 2015, 11:36:28 AM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on November 26, 2015, 12:34:58 PM
Just drove past exit 38/37 (going south from ACE), and there was a sign saying "New Traffic Pattern Dec. 3" I'm guessing this is when the traffic from ACE east goes onto a new ramp to GSP south.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 12:41:20 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.
Detonations?  Are they planning to blow up Atlantic City and Cape May?

Yes, I know the typo.  Done it many of times myself.  The Parkway has started at Exit 80 already and the CR 502 exit in Bergen County.  I do not know if they progressed since then though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 26, 2015, 01:19:52 PM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.

If they just go on a normal sign replacement cycle, probably around 2035 or so.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on November 26, 2015, 01:48:46 PM
Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

Thre's one southbound at Exit 80.

Image?

There's a D2-3 sign northbound after Exit 168 and there is a D2-3 sign northbound somewhere around the John Fenwick Service Area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 26, 2015, 10:00:51 PM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.

If they just go on a normal sign replacement cycle, probably around 2035 or so.
  That is why it took so long to replace the guide signs at Exits 140 & 140 A as they only got replaced in the mid 1990's with the overhead at Exit 140 until a few years ago.

Then look how long it took Exit 82 to get all of its overheads.  Some started in the early 90's while the rest took up until the late 90's or early 00's.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on November 30, 2015, 10:41:04 AM
When will they fully go MUTCD?

Does anyone know why there are lack of signs saying how many miles left for certain detonations, such as Atlantic City and Cape May?

I'd guess because it's the New Jersey Turnpike Authority instead of NJDOT that maintains the parkway, and they have traditionally done their own thing as far as signage goes.  I don't believe that there are many of them on the turnpike either.  We might start seeing more of them as they go MUTCD.

If they just go on a normal sign replacement cycle, probably around 2035 or so.
  That is why it took so long to replace the guide signs at Exits 140 & 140 A as they only got replaced in the mid 1990's with the overhead at Exit 140 until a few years ago.

Then look how long it took Exit 82 to get all of its overheads.  Some started in the early 90's while the rest took up until the late 90's or early 00's.
They don't need to wait for replacement cycles to put up distance signs, though. Speaking of which, I don't recall seeing distance signs on NJ interstates. I've seen them on US and some state routes, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on November 30, 2015, 11:30:48 AM
Speaking of which, I don't recall seeing distance signs on NJ interstates. I've seen them on US and some state routes, though.
they are present on I-95(M), I-195, and I-295. i can't speak for north jersey.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 30, 2015, 03:16:38 PM
They sparingly post them, usually at major junctions. Occasionally you will get a single destination distance sign with the true terminus of the route on it (ex: Verona for NJ-23 south).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 05:36:15 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 05:55:05 PM

Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?

Is it cost effective to disrupt every personal and business reference to the exit to make it one mile more accurate?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 05:57:33 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 30, 2015, 06:11:01 PM
They sparingly post them, usually at major junctions. Occasionally you will get a single destination distance sign with the true terminus of the route on it (ex: Verona for NJ-23 south).
  They are on I-80, I-280, I-287, and on I-78 as part of a project statewide back in 1998 or circa.  They are at random spots usually after each city listed gets surpassed.  Hence I-78 E Bound at Delaware River uses Clinton- Bedminster- Newark and then after Clinton at Exit 18 its Bedminster- Watchung- Newark.  After Bedminster it updates to Watchung- Newark and then just east of Exit 41 at the Watchung and Berkley Heights border  a Newark only sign appears.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on November 30, 2015, 06:43:06 PM
Red Bold emphasis added in below-quoted post:

Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?

Is it cost effective to disrupt every personal and business reference to the exit to make it one mile more accurate?
The personal & business references that you speak of are already being disrupted by the recent change; especially if one makes reference to Exit 140A (old 140/new 140B).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on November 30, 2015, 07:22:48 PM

Red Bold emphasis added in below-quoted post:

Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?

Is it cost effective to disrupt every personal and business reference to the exit to make it one mile more accurate?
The personal & business references that you speak of are already being disrupted by the recent change; especially if one makes reference to Exit 140A (old 140/new 140B).

I'm talking about for the general population, not the agency.  I didn't realize the exit number was already being changed.  Still, lessened confusion should be the goal over system consistency.  These two are not always the same.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2015, 09:34:01 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on November 30, 2015, 10:02:15 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Between the ACE and NJ 440 is the section I traveled, and a bit of aerials north of I-280.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 30, 2015, 11:20:12 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Between the ACE and NJ 440 is the section I traveled, and a bit of aerials north of I-280.
Here is the Parkway.

2 lanes: 0-35*
3 lanes: 35*-90
4 lanes: 90-98
5 lanes: 98-117
6 lanes: 117-123
7/8 lanes: 123-127
4/5 lanes: 127-129
3 lanes: inside 129
5 lanes: 129-140
4 lanes: 140-145
3 lanes: 145-168
2 lanes: 168-172

*pending ongoing construction
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 04, 2015, 03:46:52 PM
Does anyone know if the SB exits for 143 are redone to eliminate the 143-143A-143B situation?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on December 04, 2015, 04:34:35 PM
Does anyone know if the SB exits for 143 are redone to eliminate the 143-143A-143B situation?
I drove by there this past Sunday; no changes were made.  The only GSP renumbering (more like a reshuffling) in that area recently done was between (but not including) I-78 and US 1.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on December 04, 2015, 04:52:02 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?
If I recall correctly all the exits are offset by a mile because mile 0 was moved south at some point
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2015, 08:13:03 PM
Finally had a chance to go by 140 yesterday to see the new signs. It's now 140B-A southbound. 140A is now 140B and 140 is now 140A. It looks like reused one of the 1980 cantilevers from the sign replacements to put up a sign for 140A. Will try to grab pictures at some point.
Having just driven by there last night en route home from Thanksgiving vacation; I'm surprised that those exits didn't get renumbered as Exits 141B-A, for the simple reason that MM 141 is located south of those exit ramps.  IMHO, if NJTPA is going to go through the trouble & expense to change some of its exit numbers anyway; why not have them correctly match or be in better synch with the mile markers?
If I recall correctly all the exits are offset by a mile because mile 0 was moved south at some point
Other than 63 being at 64 and 91 being at 93, most of the mileposts are in pretty good agreement south of 135 (now that 131 became 132). Whatever discrepancy there was, arose sometime after exits were numbered on the free section in Middlesex Co.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 05, 2015, 01:54:08 PM
I heard they are off by a mile to avoid the alphabet soup scenario.  Like Exit 138 is at mile 140 exactly to avoid having 140 A for County Road 509, 140 B for SB Chestnut Street, 140 C for NB Chestnut Street, and 140 D for Route 22.

The Exits 143 alphabet was allowed because all ramps serve Irvington unlike the current 138, 139, and 140 which serve three different roadways and are in fact three separate interchanges.  Where 143 is actually one interchange spread out over a mile.   

Edit: I searched around to find the article where I read that piece of info.  I read it someplace after the question was raised, and without looking I was reading articles on the Parkway and its exit system.  It explained the mile off and used the three Union exits together within a mile as an example of what would have had to been done to number them under traditional practices.  Whether its true or not, it does make sense, and really who other than us here, notices the inaccuracy of the mileposts verses the exit numbers.  People have used the 140 number to exit for Route 22 for years and have used 138 for Kenilworth for ages as well.  It works and nothing really is 100 percent perfect.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 05, 2015, 07:06:25 PM
I heard
No you didn't. You made it up. It's wrong. Shifting everything by -1 number wouldn't change the scenario.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on December 14, 2015, 11:17:13 AM
Just drove past exit 38/37 (going south from ACE), and there was a sign saying "New Traffic Pattern Dec. 3" I'm guessing this is when the traffic from ACE east goes onto a new ramp to GSP south.
I believe that VMS was changed to say the 9th and then 15th. Now it's off. There is no new traffic pattern as far as I can tell (except occasional lane closures). I go through that interchange 3 times a week in both directions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 14, 2015, 04:55:36 PM
Just drove past exit 38/37 (going south from ACE), and there was a sign saying "New Traffic Pattern Dec. 3" I'm guessing this is when the traffic from ACE east goes onto a new ramp to GSP south.
I believe that VMS was changed to say the 9th and then 15th. Now it's off. There is no new traffic pattern as far as I can tell (except occasional lane closures). I go through that interchange 3 times a week in both directions.
We get that too in Florida.  A sign will say NEW PATTERN DECEMBER 15, and then when the 15th comes, no change.  Then it is amended to say DECEMBER 21st, to not have any change.  Then the message is updated to say JANUARY 3rd.   

Construction workers these days keep a job going longer than it needs to be.  On John Young Parkway, through Hunters Creek area has been having over a month and a half a milling the section of roadway from Osceola County to FL 528.  They still have some turn lanes in Hunters Creek proper that need to be milled, instead the contractor is redoing pavements that have been milled already.  Yes they close off lanes and have done so since Thanksgiving to grind up new asphalt to lay down another treatment of asphalt instead of finishing the right turn lanes at Teal Point Drive and at the apartment complex just south of FL 417 as well as Substation Road just north of FL 417. 

If they worked at the whole project each day, they could have had the final coat of asphalt laid down already and all completed, but no they have to goof around doing meaningless work.  Then another part of the project they cannot do is around FL 528 due to the HOT lanes construction on FL 528 which is over some of their project area as it ends just north of the FL 528 overpass.  That of course is understandable, but then again the County of Orange could have let the contractor for FL 528 cover that when it was decided to have the work done as that would save a lot of trouble for this company to have to wait around more for them to get the FL 528/ JYP intersection done for the 528 expansion completed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2015, 10:26:21 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.624885,-74.3064495,3a,75y,48.03h,105.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AjyhEfPDQ30WZrfqga5Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Google now has the new GSP signage on Street View.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on December 31, 2015, 12:21:08 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.624885,-74.3064495,3a,75y,48.03h,105.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_AjyhEfPDQ30WZrfqga5Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Google now has the new GSP signage on Street View.
It's about damn time they updated street view images. I noticed if you go further north, they are about to install newer signage above exit 145. You can see the sign bases put in. It's a shame that the new images don't go all the way up the Parkway and stops around exit 168.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 12:13:42 PM
I wonder if they will remove that I-80 New York sign that misleads motorists to use the GWB into the city that is in Clifton at the NJ 3 exit?   I think the Lincoln Tunnel should be on a supplemental sign and NJ 3 should use New York City for its E Bound (Exit 153A) guide, and maybe finally give back NJ 3 a control city like it once had.  I cannot remember if it was Dover or something else, but Little Falls or Wayne would work well.

Also glad to see Rahway is now signed with two exits N Bound at Exit 132 with a "Rahway Next 2 Exits" as well as "Cranford Next 2 Exits" in Clark north of 135, and then now Roselle Park gets the next 3 exits north of 136 due to it being removed from the 137 and 138 guides.  A sign near the Aldene hill has that particular Next X Exit sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on January 01, 2016, 12:58:10 PM
I wonder if they will remove that I-80 New York sign that misleads motorists to use the GWB into the city that is in Clifton at the NJ 3 exit?   I think the Lincoln Tunnel should be on a supplemental sign and NJ 3 should use New York City for its E Bound (Exit 153A) guide, and maybe finally give back NJ 3 a control city like it once had.  I cannot remember if it was Dover or something else, but Little Falls or Wayne would work well.

Also glad to see Rahway is now signed with two exits N Bound at Exit 132 with a "Rahway Next 2 Exits" as well as "Cranford Next 2 Exits" in Clark north of 135, and then now Roselle Park gets the next 3 exits north of 136 due to it being removed from the 137 and 138 guides.  A sign near the Aldene hill has that particular Next X Exit sign.

It will probably change as they replace signage since the new signage follows the MUTCD rules much more closely. They should put the tunnel on a supplemental ground mount sign. They will likely use Clifton or Secaucus as the destinations.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2016, 08:36:33 PM
There used to be Passaic before 1981 or circa.  The original signs were Caltrans text shield circles and used both the Tunnel and Passaic as EB Points.  Like I said I cannot remember the WB city.  I want to say Dover, but could not be sure.  Before the diagramical signs, there were carbon copy signs with Passaic on them, but the W B exit had the control city not copied over for some reason.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:17:51 PM
I just thought about this: Why is the GSP not widened to 6 lanes total south of the Great Egg Harbor bridge? That section handles the shore traffic, and except for north of I-78, all of the Parkway is 6 lanes.
I have absolutely no idea what your last phrase is supposed to indicate. Have you ever traveled the Parkway or even looked at aerials? There is absolutely no need to widen south of Great Egg Harbor, and possibly not even south of the Atlantic City Expressway area.
Between the ACE and NJ 440 is the section I traveled, and a bit of aerials north of I-280.
Here is the Parkway.

2 lanes: 0-35*
3 lanes: 35*-90
4 lanes: 90-98
5 lanes: 98-117
6 lanes: 117-123
7/8 lanes: 123-127
4/5 lanes: 127-129
3 lanes: inside 129
5 lanes: 129-140
4 lanes: 140-145
3 lanes: 145-168
2 lanes: 168-172

*pending ongoing construction

Would be a nice of having a list of the toll plazas as well. I know there is the Bergen toll plaza which is annoying
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 07, 2016, 01:24:19 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 07, 2016, 01:58:50 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 07, 2016, 02:28:19 PM

Would be a nice of having a list of the toll plazas as well. I know there is the Bergen toll plaza which is annoying

www.state.nj.us/turnpike

There are links to the GS Parkway's toll plazas there, including all the ramp plazas.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 09, 2016, 03:07:58 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 11, 2016, 09:30:32 AM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

$1.50 toll is ridiculous as well... 25 cents should be enough
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 03:05:04 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

$1.50 toll is ridiculous as well... 25 cents should be enough

And I should be able to see a double feature movie, get a popcorn and soda for 50 cents as well.
Title: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 11, 2016, 03:38:31 PM
Cape May
Great Egg
New Gretna
Barnegate
Toms River
Asbury Park
Raritan
Union
Essex
Bergen
Pasack Valley(Formerly Hillsdale)

Should be eliminated  :ded:
Agreed as its way too close to Pasack Valley.  Also to note just south of it is Exit 157 that is the midway point to the Essex Toll plaza though not by a long shot half way.  The Parkway likes to place ramp tolls most NB for off and SB on north of Union due to the amount of commuters using the highway.  The same goes south of the Raritan River, where the ramp tolls are all SB off and NB on due to commuters and shore patrons traveling in that direction instead of going north.

$1.50 toll is ridiculous as well... 25 cents should be enough

Based on what?  It was 25˘ for 37 years, meaning that when it went up in 1989, motorists had already received an 80% discount thanks to inflation.  A 25˘ toll today would be 3˘ in 1952 dollars. 

Furthermore, to compare apples to apples, this is a $1.50 toll that used to be 50˘, since it is now a "round-trip" toll.  And with reality factored in (that pesky inflation factor), you're still paying 66 percent less than in 1952.

Why is the automatic answer to everything always "I should have to pay less"?  Society works better when we decide to be adults about public policy.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 11, 2016, 04:47:04 PM

Based on what?  It was 25˘ for 37 years, meaning that when it went up in 1989, motorists had already received an 80% discount thanks to inflation.  A 25˘ toll today would be 3˘ in 1952 dollars. 

Furthermore, to compare apples to apples, this is a $1.50 toll that used to be 50˘, since it is now a "round-trip" toll.  And with reality factored in (that pesky inflation factor), you're still paying 66 percent less than in 1952.

Why is the automatic answer to everything always "I should have to pay less"?  Society works better when we decide to be adults about public policy.

The tolls are still cheap by standard, so I'm content with $1.50 on the mainline barriers.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on January 11, 2016, 05:02:19 PM

Based on what?  It was 25˘ for 37 years, meaning that when it went up in 1989, motorists had already received an 80% discount thanks to inflation.  A 25˘ toll today would be 3˘ in 1952 dollars. 

Furthermore, to compare apples to apples, this is a $1.50 toll that used to be 50˘, since it is now a "round-trip" toll.  And with reality factored in (that pesky inflation factor), you're still paying 66 percent less than in 1952.

Why is the automatic answer to everything always "I should have to pay less"?  Society works better when we decide to be adults about public policy.

The tolls are still cheap by standard, so I'm content with $1.50 on the mainline barriers.
Not to mention that those are one-way tolls.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
The GSP is the cheapest toll road to drive when factoring in the toll cost per mile. I think the NJ Turnpike is 2nd or 3rd, even after the recent increases! At least there is visible major investment of the tolls back into the roadways unlike some other agency's roadways.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 11, 2016, 05:52:51 PM
The AC Expressway is $3.75 for the entire length (44 miles). That's 8.5 cents per mile. The turnpike is 11.8 cents per mile (northern half is a lot more expensive than southern half, though). Calculating the total for the parkway is harder, so I won't do that now. But at the very least the ACE is cheaper than the Parkway, and still, paying $6 per day (I don't drive the length, obviously) every day adds up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2016, 06:40:57 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 11, 2016, 09:04:27 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on January 11, 2016, 09:33:07 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.
Parkway costs are much lower than the other roadways due to the truck prohibitions. Even south of exit 105 where trucks are allowed, their percentages are minimal.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 10:11:56 AM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 11:01:47 AM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)

You could go from Exit 14 to 17 or 17 to 14, which would be $3.00 each way ($1/mile).

The cheapest toll per mile is Exit 44 to Exit 28, 16 miles, 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile).  Or, you could drive Eastbound from any exit west of the Farley Service Plaza, make a U-turn, then exit Westbound without paying anything.  At minimum though, that will add about 16 miles to the trip.  Gas would need to be under $1 to even consider making that worthwhile.

For truckers taking Exit 28 Eastbound (or entering Exit 28 Westbound), the savings are huge.  The ramp plazas used to be one rate for cars; one rate for trucks, and each had their own toll lane.  When the Expressway started accepting EZ Pass, they decided to do away with the truck rate, and made one lane EZ Pass Only, one lane cash.  Since it's all coins, the truck rate dropped to be the same as the car rate.  This is not true at the barrier plazas, where trucks are charged rates based on their axles.

Thus, a truck of any size going from Rt. 42 to Exit 28 pays 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile; probably by far the cheapest truck toll rate anywhere).  But, a truck continuing beyond Exit 28 goes thru the Egg Harbor tolls, and will have to pay $9, which brings it up to 33 cents a mile!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJ on January 12, 2016, 11:24:17 AM
So basically going from Bergen County (Paramus) to Atlantic City; how much will tolls cost round-trip?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 12, 2016, 11:54:28 AM

So basically going from Bergen County (Paramus) to Atlantic City; how much will tolls cost round-trip?

This much:

https://turnpikeinfo.com/toll-calculator.php?road_name=garden-state-parkway&state=new-jersey

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 12:39:03 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)

You could go from Exit 14 to 17 or 17 to 14, which would be $3.00 each way ($1/mile).

The cheapest toll per mile is Exit 44 to Exit 28, 16 miles, 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile).  Or, you could drive Eastbound from any exit west of the Farley Service Plaza, make a U-turn, then exit Westbound without paying anything.  At minimum though, that will add about 16 miles to the trip.  Gas would need to be under $1 to even consider making that worthwhile.

For truckers taking Exit 28 Eastbound (or entering Exit 28 Westbound), the savings are huge.  The ramp plazas used to be one rate for cars; one rate for trucks, and each had their own toll lane.  When the Expressway started accepting EZ Pass, they decided to do away with the truck rate, and made one lane EZ Pass Only, one lane cash.  Since it's all coins, the truck rate dropped to be the same as the car rate.  This is not true at the barrier plazas, where trucks are charged rates based on their axles.

Thus, a truck of any size going from Rt. 42 to Exit 28 pays 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile; probably by far the cheapest truck toll rate anywhere).  But, a truck continuing beyond Exit 28 goes thru the Egg Harbor tolls, and will have to pay $9, which brings it up to 33 cents a mile!
Despite what has been said on this board before, I'm 99% sure there is no way to make a (legal) U-tun at the service plaza. All stores, gas station, etc have separate entrances / parking for eastbound and westbound traffic.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 12:43:27 PM
GSP going in either direction is $8.25 in barrier tolls, about 4.8 cents per mile using 172 miles as the total length of the roadway. Excluding the "free" sections (exits 129-140, 80-83, 9-11) gives you 5.3 cents a mile. Depending on what ramp you enter/exit the roadway it could be even cheaper. The fare "zone" of ramp tolls between Exits 89 and 98 are all the same price for example.

It's really not even worth trying to factor in 'free' sections, because they vary widely.  One can go from Exits 0 - 11, 11 - 0, 4 - 11 and 11 - 4 without paying a penny.  But go from 0 - 4 or 4 - 0 and it'll cost you 50 cents (12.5 cents per mile).  Or I can get on at the ACE (Exit 38) and go north to Exit 50 (New Gretna) and never pay anything either.  But, get on at the ACE and go South to Exit 30, and I pay $1.50 (18.75 cents per mile)!

Yeah, I've always wondered what the logic with GSP's tolls was. At least with the ACE it sort of makes sense. The biggest irregularity is Exit 9 which adds 75 cents regardless of which direction you are exiting or entering. They advertise gas at that exit too, so if you take exit to get gas and get back on it's $1.50 extra. Of course you could travel 2 more miles and pay nothing to exit and re-enter (via Exit 7 on the ACE to GSP Exit 37)

You could go from Exit 14 to 17 or 17 to 14, which would be $3.00 each way ($1/mile).

The cheapest toll per mile is Exit 44 to Exit 28, 16 miles, 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile).  Or, you could drive Eastbound from any exit west of the Farley Service Plaza, make a U-turn, then exit Westbound without paying anything.  At minimum though, that will add about 16 miles to the trip.  Gas would need to be under $1 to even consider making that worthwhile.

For truckers taking Exit 28 Eastbound (or entering Exit 28 Westbound), the savings are huge.  The ramp plazas used to be one rate for cars; one rate for trucks, and each had their own toll lane.  When the Expressway started accepting EZ Pass, they decided to do away with the truck rate, and made one lane EZ Pass Only, one lane cash.  Since it's all coins, the truck rate dropped to be the same as the car rate.  This is not true at the barrier plazas, where trucks are charged rates based on their axles.

Thus, a truck of any size going from Rt. 42 to Exit 28 pays 75 cents (4.7 cents per mile; probably by far the cheapest truck toll rate anywhere).  But, a truck continuing beyond Exit 28 goes thru the Egg Harbor tolls, and will have to pay $9, which brings it up to 33 cents a mile!
Despite what has been said on this board before, I'm 99% sure there is no way to make a (legal) U-tun at the service plaza. All stores, gas station, etc have separate entrances / parking for eastbound and westbound traffic.

Sure there is:  https://goo.gl/maps/dqEq3h95n462  There's even line striping to help guide one around the gas station.  And this GSV image on the EB side of the plaza shows signage directing motorists to the WB direction.  https://goo.gl/maps/yPMqZowjyRA2
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on January 12, 2016, 12:54:29 PM
My memory must be playing tricks on me. I'm not going to verify since the GSV is from just last year.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 12, 2016, 01:13:25 PM
My memory must be playing tricks on me. I'm not going to verify since the GSV is from just last year.

There's a few service plazas on the PA Turnpike that, although used by both directions, are barriered to prevent traffic from making a U-turn.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ekt8750 on January 12, 2016, 01:54:29 PM
Drive any considerable distance on the PA Turnpike and then comeback to me with how expensive the GSP.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on January 12, 2016, 03:45:06 PM
Drive any considerable distance on the PA Turnpike and then comeback to me with how expensive the GSP.  :rolleyes:
Now do it again with today's prices!  :sombrero:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 18, 2016, 06:07:04 PM
The southern part of the GSP from Exit 30 down to the end is having sign replacements done. All ground mounted. US-9 shields on a majority of the signs as well. Very little of the "cracker jack" NJHA signs remain.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on January 19, 2016, 01:11:33 AM
The southern part of the GSP from Exit 30 down to the end is having sign replacements done. All ground mounted. US-9 shields on a majority of the signs as well. Very little of the "cracker jack" NJHA signs remain.
So are you saying US 9 is now routed in GSP? Or just TO 9 on BGS
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 10:43:02 AM
The southern part of the GSP from Exit 30 down to the end is having sign replacements done. All ground mounted. US-9 shields on a majority of the signs as well. Very little of the "cracker jack" NJHA signs remain.
So are you saying US 9 is now routed in GSP? Or just TO 9 on BGS

Per the latest Straight Line Diagrams (which may not be absolutely completely accurate), US 9 still follows the Beesleys Point Bridge, which doesn't exist.  For all effective purposes though, US 9 multiplexes with the GSP from Exit 30 to Exit 25.

If you are heading north on US 9 south of the Beesleys Point Bridge, there isn't any signage directing motorists to/from former US 9's route.  The best you get (as of the latest GSV) is a sign stating the bridge is closed; use the Parkway instead: https://goo.gl/maps/Kf7yuDkHaLn

The rest of the way, US 9 and the Parkway are close enough that I could see some 'To US 9' signage being used on the BGSs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on January 19, 2016, 11:53:56 AM
I do not know why they just do not build another new interchange south of the bridge.  The roads are close enough and they could use the old ROW from the previous days before the Great Egg Bridge was built to avoid the EPA studies as the area is been graded for several decades. 

However, look how long it took SCDOT to sign US 15/301 over I-95 in Santee, SC when they closed its bridge over Lake Marion.  The same situation exists, except the old bridge is still in use for fishing and recreation.  There is, although, no US 15 shield at the SB Exit 97 where US 15 leaves I-95 with US 301.  So even there is still not accurate for following US 15 southbound anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hubcity on January 19, 2016, 12:10:16 PM
It's almost tempting to suggest that US 9 be routed to close the gap by having it serve Ocean City, via NJ 52, County 656 and Roosevelt Boulevard.

Almost.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on January 19, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
I do not know why they just do not build another new interchange south of the bridge.  The roads are close enough and they could use the old ROW from the previous days before the Great Egg Bridge was built to avoid the EPA studies as the area is been graded for several decades. 

However, look how long it took SCDOT to sign US 15/301 over I-95 in Santee, SC when they closed its bridge over Lake Marion.  The same situation exists, except the old bridge is still in use for fishing and recreation.  There is, although, no US 15 shield at the SB Exit 97 where US 15 leaves I-95 with US 301.  So even there is still not accurate for following US 15 southbound anyway.

New studies would be required anyway, regardless of what's taken place in the past.  There's really no significant room to build an interchange, and it would be expensive due to the bay's location.   Since everything on former Rt. 9 can be accessed at Exit 25, there's no need to build such an interchange anyway, as there's not a significant demand where people *must* follow Rt. 9's former routing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 19, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on January 19, 2016, 07:28:09 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.

I'll need to find an excuse to get down there again some time, since my pictures from back in October still have the old signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on January 19, 2016, 11:01:27 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.

Interstate Black 9 is gone? Boo.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 24, 2016, 12:40:04 PM
Exit 25 southbound is now signed "US-9 South/Ocean City", there are reassurance markers on the GSP showing the multiplex as well. Exit 29 northbound was always signed for US-9 North, although that sign with the silly shield is gone.

There was at least one "reassurance marker" that had a Temporary banner.  Is that gone now as well?  (I think it was southbound just north of the bridge.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 24, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Anything that said "temporary" is gone.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on January 24, 2016, 02:30:11 PM
Anything that said "temporary" is gone.
The 2 mile advance for the Beesley's Point Bridge on US 9 in Somers Point is still there. Then again, that's of late June 2015.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 23, 2016, 10:55:44 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2016, 05:36:06 PM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.
  I take Philadelphia solely will be the control now under new signs.

Is 38A still that or did they adjust it to be 38A and 38B like they did 140 and 140A in Union?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 09:01:49 AM
Is 38A still that or did they adjust it to be 38A and 38B like they did 140 and 140A in Union?
Given that the effort that was made to renumber those interchanges (along with a few others) in Union County and the more stricter adherence to MUTCD being displayed; my guess would be yes.

I take Philadelphia solely will be the control now under new signs.
As far as the exit signs for the westbound ACE is concerned; IMHO, NJTA could still cheat and keep both the Camden & Philadelphia listings on the main panels (per the existing BGS'); but they're more likely to use Philadelphia for the main signage and have supplemental signage for Camden.  Again, such is only personal speculation.  Someone else on this site may have more accurate information regarding the final signage for this interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:44:55 AM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.

1.5 lanes?  It's always been a full 2 lane cloverleaf.

The NJ Turnpike Authority map of the project doesn't show any lane reduction on the ramp. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf

When I was down there recently I took some pictures.  I'll try to look them up to see if I happened to get a current pic of the signage.  That said, as the project has a lot going on, anything current may not be permanent.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 02:37:35 PM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.
  I take Philadelphia solely will be the control now under new signs.

Is 38A still that or did they adjust it to be 38A and 38B like they did 140 and 140A in Union?

Actually, Camden is the sole WB control city!

And while the signs currently still show Exit 38 then 38A, it seems this is clearly just temporary, as a blacked out sign above Exit 38, along with the extra room next to Exit 38, indicates that this will be changed to 38A & 38B.  What's interesting is if it will be the wrong way though (38B before 38A, whereas going northbound it should be 38A then 38B), as there isn't any current indication 38A will be changed.


(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0214161603_resized.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0214161603_resized.jpg.html)

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd144/roadnut/0214161603b_resized.jpg) (http://s225.photobucket.com/user/roadnut/media/0214161603b_resized.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on February 24, 2016, 02:56:47 PM
I'm surprised that the AC Expressway logo shield isn't used on the BGS'.  The full-text A C Expressway listing makes for some wide sign boards.

I guess that using Camden instead of Philly allows for a narrower BGS in that first pic (layout style looks similar to what one sees at Maryland cloverleafs).

I'm assuming that there will be a supplemental Philadelphia sign for Exit 38A (Future Exit 38B) erected in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 03:40:09 PM
I think there's already a supplemental Philly sign prior to the 322 & AC Expressway exits.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 24, 2016, 04:52:39 PM
Looks like they installed new overhead signs for exits 38 and 38A northbound (at least. I don't see the signs southbound since that's where I enter). Don't have pictures unfortunately, but it looks like 38A will be a single lane exit instead of 1.5 lanes like it was before construction started.

1.5 lanes?  It's always been a full 2 lane cloverleaf.

The NJ Turnpike Authority map of the project doesn't show any lane reduction on the ramp. http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf

When I was down there recently I took some pictures.  I'll try to look them up to see if I happened to get a current pic of the signage.  That said, as the project has a lot going on, anything current may not be permanent.
What I meant by 1.5 lanes was that the right lane was "Exit Only" while the lane to the left of it split into a second exit lane and a thru lane (which ended almost immediately, though). As you see in the now posted photo, the new sign just has an "Exit Only" lane with no mention of another lane.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on February 24, 2016, 09:22:26 PM
I'm surprised that the AC Expressway logo shield isn't used on the BGS'.  The full-text A C Expressway listing makes for some wide sign boards.

I guess that using Camden instead of Philly allows for a narrower BGS in that first pic (layout style looks similar to what one sees at Maryland cloverleafs).

I'm assuming that there will be a supplemental Philadelphia sign for Exit 38A (Future Exit 38B) erected in the foreseeable future.
The ACE is a separate agency. Why would the NJTA want to promote them? In seriousness, I imagine they would have had to spell out the name in addition to providing the logo, because it's not as recognizable as the GSP and NJTP (and even then the name is usually spelled out as well). As for destinations, I'd have to think the ACE NB gets signed for Philly.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 24, 2016, 09:41:40 PM
The ramp is still two lanes.  The configuration at takeoff is a bit different now due to the construction.  In the future, that .5 lane you refer to will remain a true lane. 

At the top of the cloverleaf when on the AC Expressway, the inner lane becomes the ramp to the GSP South.  The outer lane ends and tapers off just after that GSP South Ramp.

A small thing to note:  While these GSP signs show "A C Expressway", over on the NJ Turnpike for Exit 3, they use "Atlantic City Exp" (Personally, they should've just used "Atlantic City"). 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 24, 2016, 09:47:02 PM
(Personally, they should've just used "Atlantic City"). 

Personally, this Breezewood should be removed in favor of a Turnpike Exit 2A.  ;-)

Atlantic City could use the improved highway access from the south and west, and if anyone has the chops to design and build an Exit 2A, it's NJTA.

;-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2016, 10:50:16 PM
Wonder if they are just going to change Exit 38 to 38B and leave 38A as-is. Not very MUTCD, but they already have a similar setup at Exit 4. At least the new signs have cardinal directions, the old signs used just control cities. They look bare without the trailblazer though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 08:51:14 AM
Wonder if they are just going to change Exit 38 to 38B and leave 38A as-is. Not very MUTCD, but they already have a similar setup at Exit 4. At least the new signs have cardinal directions, the old signs used just control cities. They look bare without the trailblazer though.

That's what it appears to be, at least judging on what they've done so far.

(Personally, they should've just used "Atlantic City"). 

Personally, this Breezewood should be removed in favor of a Turnpike Exit 2A.  ;-)

Atlantic City could use the improved highway access from the south and west, and if anyone has the chops to design and build an Exit 2A, it's NJTA.

;-)

Yeah!

Access will be improved soon (within 5 years) once the 295 to 42 connections are built, although that won't help those that insist on taking the Turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  But really, and more importantly, the general circulation of traffic for the general region would be greatly better if the NJ Turnpike and 42 connection (along with tying in 55) existed.  It would resolve a lot of issues, and will be much better at dispersing traffic between 295 & the Turnpike.  Widening the Turnpike, at least between Exits 4 & 3 (or Exit 4 down to Rt. 42, if such a connection was built), would assist as well.

But, that's another issue that's been beated down over the years, and even though we have a powerful state senator in the area (Sweeney), he doesn't seem to be all that interested in forcing this to get done.  Maybe a letter to him is in order! :-)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 01:52:01 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 02:19:05 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.

While you're mostly correct (295 N to 42 S connections will occur in 2021...hopefully), there's an amazing number of people that do take the turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  Never mind that the Turnpike actually has exits signed both north and southbound to highly suggest other routes (NB: US 40 is signed for Atlantic City; Southbound, a few exits are signed for Shore Points), many people do travel to Exit 3.

Rt. 73 from the Turnpike to the ACX can be quite congested at times.  Mileage wise there's some savings.  Time wise, it's just as fast or faster quite often to take 295 to 42 to the ACX, even though the mileage is much longer. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 25, 2016, 03:31:00 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.

While you're mostly correct (295 N to 42 S connections will occur in 2021...hopefully), there's an amazing number of people that do take the turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  Never mind that the Turnpike actually has exits signed both north and southbound to highly suggest other routes (NB: US 40 is signed for Atlantic City; Southbound, a few exits are signed for Shore Points), many people do travel to Exit 3.

Rt. 73 from the Turnpike to the ACX can be quite congested at times.  Mileage wise there's some savings.  Time wise, it's just as fast or faster quite often to take 295 to 42 to the ACX, even though the mileage is much longer. 
I make this trip daily (not from the Turnpike, I live in that area). I decide on which way to go based on whether there is heavy traffic reported on 295 and/or 42. If there is, I take 73 (traffic on 73 seems to be pretty constant, so no need to check). It takes at most 5 minutes more and sometimes less time to take 73 vs non-congested 295. Granted I do this during rush hour, but I've done it a few times during beach season and the same ratio seems to apply
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on February 25, 2016, 06:26:04 PM
Wonder if they are just going to change Exit 38 to 38B and leave 38A as-is. Not very MUTCD, but they already have a similar setup at Exit 4. At least the new signs have cardinal directions, the old signs used just control cities. They look bare without the trailblazer though.
Exit 143 is the same way.  Exit 143A (after 143) comes first and then Exit 143B where the B suffix is south of the A suffix.

However, the cardinal directions is now a great feature instead of the cities.   

Also I take that the three control points for Exit 40 (all three for US 30 EB) will be narrowed to one soon.  I would say that both Brigantine and AC will get the ax as Brigantine is not along US 30, and AC is already listed on a guide sign previously giving out the three exit numbers of the Casino City.  That leaves Absecon which is not only on US 30, but the first town one encounters along the route.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 25, 2016, 07:52:46 PM
US 40 is a better way to the NJ 55 corridor (and even Atlantic City depending on traffic) from points south. If you're dreaming up new freeways, making US 40 a freeway to NJ 55 and then connecting it to the ACE would be faster anyway. Connecting the Turnpike to 76/42 won't accomplish much for Northbound traffic when 295 already has (or will have) the same connections. For Southbound traffic to Atlantic City, if you must use the Turnpike, take exit 4 and NJ 73. It will be as fast as 295 to 42 anyway.

While you're mostly correct (295 N to 42 S connections will occur in 2021...hopefully), there's an amazing number of people that do take the turnpike to Exit 3 for Atlantic City.  Never mind that the Turnpike actually has exits signed both north and southbound to highly suggest other routes (NB: US 40 is signed for Atlantic City; Southbound, a few exits are signed for Shore Points), many people do travel to Exit 3.

Rt. 73 from the Turnpike to the ACX can be quite congested at times.  Mileage wise there's some savings.  Time wise, it's just as fast or faster quite often to take 295 to 42 to the ACX, even though the mileage is much longer. 
I make this trip daily (not from the Turnpike, I live in that area). I decide on which way to go based on whether there is heavy traffic reported on 295 and/or 42. If there is, I take 73 (traffic on 73 seems to be pretty constant, so no need to check). It takes at most 5 minutes more and sometimes less time to take 73 vs non-congested 295. Granted I do this during rush hour, but I've done it a few times during beach season and the same ratio seems to apply

They did a great job straightening out the 70/73 mess, but it can be a bitch from there down to the ol' Berlin Circle area. South of that I'm not in that area too often.

Back towards the Turnpike, they are looking at the 73/Church Rd intersection again, although it's going to be years before they can do anything significant with it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on February 29, 2016, 10:50:11 AM
They did a great job straightening out the 70/73 mess, but it can be a bitch from there down to the ol' Berlin Circle area. South of that I'm not in that area too often.
It's not so bad considering that on a good day I-295 is moving at 45 MPH on average between NJ 73 and NJ 42 (with stop and go traffic common), while NJ 73 is moving at 40 MPH on a typical day (plus traffic lights, of course) between NJ 70 and US 30 and full speed south of that.
Quote
Back towards the Turnpike, they are looking at the 73/Church Rd intersection again, although it's going to be years before they can do anything significant with it.
73 South is pretty good south of Church (at least not worse than south of 70). That's where I get on, so not sure about the segment between the Turnpike and Church. Northbound, though, it's jammed from Lincoln Drive, so I get off at 70 instead. I'm not sure if doing anything at Church itself will alleviate that. Lately, though, Church Road itself has become a bottleneck for me going East, often starting just east of Kings Highwayall the way to Springdale. I don't really have a good alternative to get onto 73, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 01, 2016, 10:15:14 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on March 01, 2016, 10:41:25 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.


That would be great, though I wonder if I'll even be living and/or working in the same area if/when this is complete, not to mention even more delays during construction
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on March 02, 2016, 01:22:55 AM
bzakharin...this is really more related to the 'New Jersey' general thread, but since we've brought it up here...

March 23...here's a meeting worth checking out from NJDOT regarding what we were discussing with Church Road: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/meetings/documents/handout032316kn.pdf

Some of the highlights include widening 73 from 295 to Church (a recently widened overpass over the Turnpike allows for such a widening project), grade separating Church Road over 73(!), and other related work.  Alps has brought up in the past regarding the Fellowship Road jughandle from 73, which is 2 lanes and traffic needs to fight with traffic already on Fellowship Rd.  That jughandle is supposed to be realigned as part of this project as well.

One thing I had been wanting for this area for a while are overhead BGSs to replace the ground mounted small signage, which is easily missed and hard to describe the proper lane.  Hopefully these will be part of the project also.


That would be great, though I wonder if I'll even be living and/or working in the same area if/when this is complete, not to mention even more delays during construction
We may not even be alive when that happens..I sure hope to be around to see such a project. Something definitely needs to be done in that area. The Route 73 bridge over I-295 is also in poor shape needing to be replaced.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 02, 2016, 09:36:18 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2016, 01:13:06 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
I can tell you that NJDOT definitely does not turn a deaf ear to the public. They usually err on the side of overcompensating for public statements. Each statement on record needs a response.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 06:32:02 AM
As just about every overpass over 295 is at least 40 years old, NJDOT has slowly been replacing the decks; generally in conjunction with other roadwork and projects.  Overpasses like Rt. 73 are tough because there's simply no excess space to shift traffic to, unless they widen the overpass.  While the 73 overpass would benefit from a widening as the right lanes approaching 295 are Exit Only lanes, I kinda see it as being unlikely.  The meeting on the 23rd though will provide those details, and give people the opportunity to provide input as well (not that NJDOT will turn a deaf ear on it, but it gives us the rare opportunity to find the right guy to get that input in.

Fortunately, when the NJ Turnpike widened and replaced the Rt. 73 overpass over their road, they did widen it enough to allow for a 3rd lane, so that's one less issue to deal with.
I can tell you that NJDOT definitely does not turn a deaf ear to the public. They usually err on the side of overcompensating for public statements. Each statement on record needs a response.

I wish I was recording the last meeting I went to.  One of the guys at the meeting (and I have no idea who it was) was having a conversation with someone.  When he saw me looking at the displays, he came over and started talking to me.  He asked where I resided on the map.  When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

My official TIP questions this past goaround were also a bit lackluster in their responses as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Rothman on March 03, 2016, 08:53:02 AM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on March 03, 2016, 03:49:07 PM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.

Oh, he wasn't talking to other members of the public.  He was talking to guys he works with.  It was a small meeting about an overpass project, and I was the only one from the public in the room at the time.

Again, I'll try to record this stuff for you, to eliminate all the theories everyone wants to come up with.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on March 03, 2016, 07:47:08 PM
When I mentioned I was in a neighboring town, he immediately went back to his other conversation, since I wasn't one of those affected by the construction!

Makes sense to me.  There's only so much time at those meetings and DOT and MPO reps will focus on those directly affected by the construction, since politically, those are the people that really matter to the public process.

Oh, he wasn't talking to other members of the public.  He was talking to guys he works with.  It was a small meeting about an overpass project, and I was the only one from the public in the room at the time.

Again, I'll try to record this stuff for you, to eliminate all the theories everyone wants to come up with.
Very possible he was with a consultant and not DOT. But who knows.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 28, 2016, 10:27:32 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(http://i.imgur.com/CQevDo6.jpg)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 29, 2016, 07:14:15 AM
Typical to have them do this.  But, hey if it works then that is the main thing.  The NJTA has done it in Elizabeth where they were doing bridge deck work north of Exit 13 with one car lane shifted over to the truck lanes and then back.

 Also the long Exit 127 ramp has its left lane as an extra Parkway NB lane crossing the Driscoll Bridge that is sort of the same concept as what they are planning here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 08:51:57 AM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(http://i.imgur.com/CQevDo6.jpg)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on April 29, 2016, 09:26:19 AM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(http://i.imgur.com/CQevDo6.jpg)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
The only reasons why Camden is listed as a southbound control city are (and such was probably mentioned several pages back):

1.  The listing of bridges as a control destination on major signs is now either discouraged or no longer allowed per MUTCD & FHWA.

2.  When the new southbound Parkway interchange BGS' (north of where this pic was taken) were erected; Camden was chosen over Trenton because the preceding US 1 interchange already uses Trenton for a southbound US 1 destination.  Personally, I would have used New Brunswick for the major US 1 south signage & Trenton for the I-95/Turnpike signage but whatever.

The temporary change on that BGS in the pic must've been very recent.  I drove by there 4 weeks ago and the previous diagrammatic BGS was still present the new separate BGS' were present.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 29, 2016, 04:02:42 PM
It really should be Philadelphia after the interchange is complete *ducks*.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on April 29, 2016, 07:04:02 PM
It really should be Philadelphia after the interchange is complete *ducks*.

Amen.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on April 29, 2016, 08:48:46 PM
Saw this at the 129 offramp today.

(http://i.imgur.com/CQevDo6.jpg)

I know they're working on the Parkway overpass over the Turnpike, one bit at a time (I believe it's a deck replacement?) and it looks like they're shifting to the SB side and will put one lane like a cattle chute on the 129 offramp and then slip ramp the traffic back onto the GSP mainline.

They're posting Camden as a control city all the way up there now?  Why not just make it Delaware Memorial Bridge?
The only reasons why Camden is listed as a southbound control city are (and such was probably mentioned several pages back):

1.  The listing of bridges as a control destination on major signs is now either discouraged or no longer allowed per MUTCD & FHWA.

2.  When the new southbound Parkway interchange BGS' (north of where this pic was taken) were erected; Camden was chosen over Trenton because the preceding US 1 interchange already uses Trenton for a southbound US 1 destination.  Personally, I would have used New Brunswick for the major US 1 south signage & Trenton for the I-95/Turnpike signage but whatever.

The temporary change on that BGS in the pic must've been very recent.  I drove by there 4 weeks ago and the previous diagrammatic BGS was still present.

They actually took down the signs that were put up last year for this one, and removed the illumination.
(http://i.imgur.com/EAeG9yh.jpg)

As for Camden being the destination, the MUTCD project standardized the control cities for both the Parkway and the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on April 30, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on April 30, 2016, 01:03:29 PM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.

I think it was a matter of historical context.  With no control cities originally for the Turnpike, I would speculate that the next most major roadway (U.S. 1) got the major control cities (Trenton, Newark).  If the initial signing for Turnpike interchange had control cities, then perhaps the control cities would have been done differently originally, perhaps as we are speculating here.

I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 02, 2016, 03:05:29 AM
Phlbos is right.  New Brunswick should be used for US 1 and not Trenton.  Just like Newark should not be used there either as you just came from there as the Parkway does pass through Newark between Exits 144 and 145.  Woodbridge should be used for US 1 north and on Exit 129 that city should be replaced with Staten Island to be consistent with NB Exit 127.

However, it is what it is just like nearby I-287 where also Trenton is used for US 1 south and no control cities for the NJT on it.  Also Newark is the US 1 North control point on I-287 as well.  Even there it should be Woodbridge and New Brunswick, but NJDOT and NJTA both have a Borg mind and think as one being.

The control cities thing was set by the Turnpike Authority. NJDOT does its own thing and doesn't use control cities for the Parkway or Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
I think it was a matter of historical context.  With no control cities originally for the Turnpike, I would speculate that the next most major roadway (U.S. 1) got the major control cities (Trenton, Newark).  If the initial signing for Turnpike interchange had control cities, then perhaps the control cities would have been done differently originally, perhaps as we are speculating here.
It should be noted, that the only Turnpike signage that listed cities were ones located beyond the toll plazas, where one needed to decide which direction on the Turnpike to go.  Prior to the current 95 NORTH/TURNPIKE NORTH, 95 SOUTH/TURNPIKE SOUTH BGS' beyond the Exit 11 toll plaza; the previous (70s(?) vintage) BGS' read Trenton SOUTH, New YORK NORTH.

I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 10:40:15 AM
I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 10:58:46 AM
I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: PHLBOS on May 02, 2016, 11:35:26 AM
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 02, 2016, 12:11:24 PM
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?

According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 02, 2016, 01:37:48 PM
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?

According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...
I don't think there is any widely known name for US 1 in NJ, at least south of the Pulasky Skyway. North of that you get signed local street names along US 1/9.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 02, 2016, 01:55:43 PM
I would imagine it's wherever all that traffic is going. I know the Hilton (the one on Wood Ave) shuttle uses that exit for local destinations (in Woodbridge and Edison) to avoid the perpetually jammed Metropark area, but signing "Woodbridge" would be confusing because you are already in Woodbridge, and just had two Woodbridge exits behind you and one ahead of you. If most of the traffic is that local, I would use street names, local community names (Fords?), or landmarks (Woodbridge Center Mall). Certainly not Newark, though.
Blame the recent MUTCD/FHWA crackdown (excuse me, discouragement) on the use of regions, landmarks and so forth for primary guide sign control destinations (for the record, I do not agree with such *ahem* logic but nonetheless).  They either want actual cities or street names.  Granted, the construction of this ramp, along with the original signage predated, the latest MUTCD standards but nonetheless, such was the reason why the city listings weren't changed on the new signage. 

According to Google Maps, the street name for this stretch of US 1 is just called that... US 1.  If such is indeed correct & accurate, and since both NJTA & NJDOT typically don't just sign a ramp as just XX NORTH (on BGS'), an exit BGS reading 1 NORTH - US 1 would look pretty stupid let alone redundant.
Does it have to be the name of US 1 on the sign or can streets indirectly served by the exit be included as well? For example Woodbridge Center Drive is probably where a lot of the US 1 North traffic is going here. Can that be the destination?

According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

I've never heard it called anything other than Rt 1 or 1&9 south of the Skyway in my 35 years on this planet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2016, 05:50:24 PM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 10:56:51 AM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
I wonder how widely this policy is applied. For a long time NJ 38 and NJ 70 had just numbers posted, and only printed maps would give them names, but when they started deploying large street blades on traffic lights, Caign Ave and Marlton Pike made an appearance everywhere.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 03, 2016, 11:13:28 AM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
I wonder how widely this policy is applied. For a long time NJ 38 and NJ 70 had just numbers posted, and only printed maps would give them names, but when they started deploying large street blades on traffic lights, Caign Ave and Marlton Pike made an appearance everywhere.

Then there's John D Rockefeller for NJ 70, as seen on the NJ Turnpike.  https://goo.gl/maps/gXz48bGVH5J2

(I've yet to get a good picture driving under it due to its small size!)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 03, 2016, 01:04:40 PM
Google Maps has US 1 listed as Brunswick Pike around Trenton/Princeton.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 01:18:37 PM
According to the Straight Line Diagrams, US 1's street name is Herbert Highway between Lawrence Twp and Newark.

Let's see a show of hands if you knew this from memory...

Even that isn't correct. Its Spring St. in Elizabeth and Edgar Rd. in Linden and maybe even Rahway. Both names are still used by the towns for various functions (property records, police dispatch, etc.). Old maps tend to have the original street name for divided highways on them, but NJDOT would rather it be referred to as the number.
Only north of the Elizabeth River Viaduct and up to the Newark City Line is it Spring Street.  Its Carlton Street south of the viaduct into where Edgar Road merges in south of the Bayway Circle.

Another note is some maps show US 22 as Albert Street in Hilliside but local businesses use Route 22 as their mailing address.  Some older RN maps show US 1 & 9 south of US 22 into Elizabeth as Caranagie Avenue and even show US 46 in Totawa as Pellington Blvd.

Also to note that even though NJ 23 is the Hamburg Turnpike between the Hamburg Turnpike split in Kinnelon to Hamburg itself, my cousin who owned the now defunct Outdoorsman Sports Shop on Route 23 in Oak Ridge used Route 23 as his street names on his documents as West Milford did not recognize the road as that.  The same in Wayne as the part of NJ 23 that is Newark- Pompton Turnpike is not recognized by Wayne Township as such and used the route number as street name as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 01:32:36 PM
I would also note that not all motorists on the Parkway SB approaching the Turnpike or U.S. 1 got on in Newark.  There are other intervening interchanges between Exit 144 and Exit 130 or 129.
That US 1 North exit ramp (signed for Newark) from the southbound Parkway is a relatively recent addition (compared to the surrounding Parkway ramps); that interchange, originally only allowed Parkway Southbound to US 1 Southbound (BGS originally had both New Brunswick & Trenton listed) and US 1 Northbound to Parkway Northbound movements.
Regardless, if you are on the Parkway South approaching US 1, you're not going to Newark via US 1. If you got on north of I-78, you'd take that. Otherwise, you probably want to take 78 anyway, so would want Parkway North. You might be going to Newark via the Turnpike if you got on between 132 and 130. If you're already on US 1 trying to get onto the Turnpike via the Parkway, you must have gotten on in the immediate vicinity because otherwise, you'd have use NJ 18, I-287, or I-278
The point I was trying to make was that there was enough traffic demand to justify adding the northbound US 1 exit ramp from the southbound Parkway and, hence, that ramp's a Johnny-Come-Lately.  The reasoning for using Newark for a northbound US 1 destination, despite other exits parkway southbound users have available for such, was likely due to Newark is the nearest major city along US 1 northbound from Parkway interchange.  What would you suggest for a nearby northbound US 1 destination at this location instead: Woodbridge, Linden?
I already suggested Woodbridge as its already on Exit 129 for US 9.  Have that moved back and BTW people do not consider Iselin to be Woodbridge despite it being part of it.  Its like Staten Island being part of NYC, but people tend to use the borough names for the outer boroughs and consider Manhattan to be NYC proper. 

All of Woodbridge's areas are generally thought of as independent towns for reference.  Its Colonia, Iselin, Fords, Keasbey, Woodlawn, Sewaren, and Port Reading.  When people think of Woodbridge they think of Downtown and its immediate areas which is all around the mall.

For the record, before 1980, Exit 130 had no control cities for US 1 there.  It was signed US 1 despite it being only SB at the time, as there was a sign on the ramp suggesting that US 1 NB use Ford Avenue to compensate for lack of ramp.  It was removed in 1980 when the Parkway got widened and all new overhead signs installed. 

However, Exit 140 is still listed for both directions of US 22 despite it being for US 22 E Bound only and Exit 157 is listed for US 46 with no cardinal directions as the SB ramp there is exclusively for US 46 Westbound.  Both cases do not have follow up signs either to tell you to use U turn ramps as you would need to reverse yourself to the other direction.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 03, 2016, 03:30:40 PM
The signs at Exit 156 and 157 are close to being replaced. Hopefully they acknowledge NJ-21 15 years after it was completed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 03, 2016, 03:44:12 PM
I already suggested Woodbridge as its already on Exit 129 for US 9.  Have that moved back and BTW people do not consider Iselin to be Woodbridge despite it being part of it.  Its like Staten Island being part of NYC, but people tend to use the borough names for the outer boroughs and consider Manhattan to be NYC proper. 
I'm not sure I understand. Are you advocating for changing the destination for Exit 129? Have both Exit 130 and 129 be signed for Woodbridge? Combining the two exits somehow? Combining the signage for the two exits somehow?
Quote
All of Woodbridge's areas are generally thought of as independent towns for reference.  Its Colonia, Iselin, Fords, Keasbey, Woodlawn, Sewaren, and Port Reading.  When people think of Woodbridge they think of Downtown and its immediate areas which is all around the mall.
I don't know how much of this is "thought" and how much the post office telling you where you live. And you forgot Avenel and Metuchen (Part of Woodbridge is under Metuchen's USPS jurisdiction). Also, I assume you mean Hopelawn, not Woodlawn.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
Yes Hopelawn.  Its been 26 years since I left Fords.  As far as Avenel, yes shoot me because I forgot that one.  And only the post office considers one part of Woodbridge as Metuchen.  My cousin lives there two blocks from US 1 so I know that one.

If you read my first post, you would see I suggested replacing Woodbridge on the Exit 129 guide with Staten Island and just using Exit 130 for that part of Woodbridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 03, 2016, 11:02:23 PM
The signs at Exit 156 and 157 are close to being replaced. Hopefully they acknowledge NJ-21 15 years after it was completed.
I doubt they would post anything northbound (156), since 21 only heads south and there's no convenient connection. Southbound at 157 there's a chance of posting 46 to 21 (or to 20/21), but now you're talking about a free alternative to the Parkway so they still might not.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2016, 04:38:16 AM
I like the new signs at Exit 105 along NJ 36.  It now features Toms River and Woodbridge.  In addition the new Parkway signs along NJ 70 now feature both of those at the new ramps for both directions of travel.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: J Route Z on May 05, 2016, 01:53:43 AM
I like the new signs at Exit 105 along NJ 36.  It now features Toms River and Woodbridge.  In addition the new Parkway signs along NJ 70 now feature both of those at the new ramps for both directions of travel.
Those signs are awesome.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2871151,-74.0787173,3a,16.7y,241.78h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ4emzNEbG9GV0z25rh_jig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2016, 08:49:34 AM
I like the new signs at Exit 105 along NJ 36.  It now features Toms River and Woodbridge.  In addition the new Parkway signs along NJ 70 now feature both of those at the new ramps for both directions of travel.
Those signs are awesome.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.2871151,-74.0787173,3a,16.7y,241.78h,91.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZ4emzNEbG9GV0z25rh_jig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Should've used a black on white 'No Trucks' banner, but otherwise not bad.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 12:32:25 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 05, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: akotchi on May 05, 2016, 01:09:30 PM
At either end of the Pulaski Skyway there are examples.  I do not know if this is a New Jersey practice or nationwide.

This location also happens to be the dividing line for trucks -- all trucks south, no trucks north -- so the extra treatment might be reasonable here.  It was at one time.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7082032,-74.1716113,3a,75y,81.43h,90.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3leOzeV__t3PEBj2N6RUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7082032,-74.1716113,3a,75y,81.43h,90.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG3leOzeV__t3PEBj2N6RUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393407,-74.0641125,3a,60y,276.51h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szLs-_OrH3OvINFLoTEn3MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7393407,-74.0641125,3a,60y,276.51h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szLs-_OrH3OvINFLoTEn3MA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

(Please let me know if these come in properly . . . I am not the most adept at inserting images or url's on this board.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 05, 2016, 01:10:14 PM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Here's coming off the NJ Turnpike Interchange 11, approaching the GSP North & Rt. 1, 9 & 440 ramps: https://goo.gl/maps/j3AeXpyZRez

Quote
Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?

Here's the old view approaching that split:  https://goo.gl/maps/wm4QbjawQDs  (You can see the old sign had 'All Trucks', so maybe it's something they're doing away with).

Previously, the GSP South ramp was more like an exit than a lane split.  I'm thinking that ground-mounted sign remains there today only because it's historically been there. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 06, 2016, 05:26:08 AM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?
Actually at the split in Woodbridge on the US 9 to NJT and Parkway North Connector the old dark button copy overheads had both a NO TRUCKS and ALL TRUCKS there for both respected toll roads.

The yellow TOLL banner is nice, however the question is how effective is that going to be to drivers as people here in Florida ignore the hell out of them and of course show up at the toll booth claiming they have no money and being the GPS is guiding them they had no idea it was a toll road.

I will bet that the ramp toll at 105 gets people who ignore that large PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign just after Hope Road, and claim they have no money because they were unaware of where they were at.  If we get the crackpots here I am sure some will end up there especially being NJ 36 starts out a free arterial and defaults into the Parkway interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 06, 2016, 09:07:20 AM
I am surprised that the ALL TRUCKS banner was not carried on the sign to southbound.
That would be redundant. Are there "All Trucks" signs at every place where "No Trucks" is posted (I don't mean just on the GSP, I mean nationwide)?

Also, why is there a "Parkway Entrance" sign in the background for the Southbound direction only?
Actually at the split in Woodbridge on the US 9 to NJT and Parkway North Connector the old dark button copy overheads had both a NO TRUCKS and ALL TRUCKS there for both respected toll roads.

The yellow TOLL banner is nice, however the question is how effective is that going to be to drivers as people here in Florida ignore the hell out of them and of course show up at the toll booth claiming they have no money and being the GPS is guiding them they had no idea it was a toll road.

I will bet that the ramp toll at 105 gets people who ignore that large PARKWAY ENTRANCE sign just after Hope Road, and claim they have no money because they were unaware of where they were at.  If we get the crackpots here I am sure some will end up there especially being NJ 36 starts out a free arterial and defaults into the Parkway interchange.

The conditions you describe have been in existence for 60 years. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 07, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
If you are referring to people being unaware of a toll situation yes.  If you are talking about the yellow TOLL, yes NJ had them for as long as I can remember, and I always liked it as other states would just write TOLL ROAD in white on the green sign which is not that effective.

Those dark signs were there when Exit 11 became the connection to the Parkway as Exit 11 was originally an interchange with US 9.  It was circa 1971 when the change took place so those dark button copy signs came into place there and were NJT signs and not GSP or NJDOT.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 07, 2016, 10:28:16 PM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 08, 2016, 01:19:04 AM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

I'm a little surprised the NJTA didn't upgrade the GSP to Variable Speed Limit Signs, as they have added and replaced all (or nearly all) of their variable message signs.  Even though the two toll roads have been under one authority for well over a decade now, they have curiously kept the historic features of each roadway, with minor exceptions such as the speed limit signs you mentioned.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 08, 2016, 10:36:58 AM
Is the mileage signs at both Exits 80 (SB) and 168 (NB) the only signs on the Parkway of that nature?  Or have they added any more to the roadway?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 09, 2016, 12:18:12 AM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.

I'm a little surprised the NJTA didn't upgrade the GSP to Variable Speed Limit Signs, as they have added and replaced all (or nearly all) of their variable message signs.  Even though the two toll roads have been under one authority for well over a decade now, they have curiously kept the historic features of each roadway, with minor exceptions such as the speed limit signs you mentioned.

I'm actually curious about that myself. VSLS is actually MUTCD friendly these days. Don't know if it's a legislation thing, or one of those unique historical things as you've said (although the biggest one -- the signage on both roadways -- is slowly going away). I have noticed that for a lot of things, even though one authority runs it, they keep a lot of things between both highways separate.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 09, 2016, 11:28:12 AM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.
Isn't there some sort of state law that treats signs that say "conditions permitting" differently from one that don't, maybe as far as enforcement? I vaguely recall hearing that somewhere. The ACE has them too, but it looks like they're slowly going away there too.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 09, 2016, 11:45:02 AM
interesting observation i've seen. as the mutcd sign replacements have been going on, some gsp-unique secondary signs are being replaced. the most obvious ones are the speed limit signs with the thick numbers and the "conditions permitting" banner (you know, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5654025,-74.3241214,3a,15y,14.78h,85.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCsBXZiMHdtzS17vMth7Xzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) with more standard speed limit signs with normal width number font and no banner. also, the classic "keep right | pass left" signs are being replaced with standard "keep right except to pass" signs.
Isn't there some sort of state law that treats signs that say "conditions permitting" differently from one that don't, maybe as far as enforcement? I vaguely recall hearing that somewhere. The ACE has them too, but it looks like they're slowly going away there too.

No.  By law, the speed limit itself is based on conditions, in as much as if the Speed Limit is 65 mph, and you're going 65 during a snowstorm with several inches of snow covering the road, you can be cited for driving too fast, unsafe for conditions, etc.  The fact that you weren't exceeding the speed limit is irrelevant.  The "Conditions Permitting" sign didn't add or take anything away from the posted speed limit.

VSLS is actually MUTCD friendly these days. Don't know if it's a legislation thing, or one of those unique historical things as you've said (although the biggest one -- the signage on both roadways -- is slowly going away). I have noticed that for a lot of things, even though one authority runs it, they keep a lot of things between both highways separate.

It's not legislation.  There are some state laws that are specific to toll roads, but variable speed limits aren't one of them (some of them are similar to other state laws, such as no u-turns).




Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2016, 11:34:44 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 09, 2016, 11:56:46 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
I don't drive a truck, and I'm happy using the GSP frequently between Toms River and the Driscoll truck-free, but the alternative for trucks along the coastal north-south corridor is a bit crummy between the end of the truck portion at 105 and the 287/440/Turnpike interchanges.  Route 18 covers part of the more direct alternate route rather well, but US 9 from Old Bridge to the Raritan crossing is a bit lousy with the traffic and the lights - and probably especially bad for truck traffic.  The 9 / 35 interchange in South Amboy can be a particularly bad bottleneck with NB traffic filing into a loop ramp  / merge-or-die combo.  Has there been any studies of the corridor for truck traffic, or planned improvements at 9/35?  The truck ban results in a pretty big gap for what I would think would be an important trucking corridor.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 10, 2016, 07:09:37 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
I don't drive a truck, and I'm happy using the GSP frequently between Toms River and the Driscoll truck-free, but the alternative for trucks along the coastal north-south corridor is a bit crummy between the end of the truck portion at 105 and the 287/440/Turnpike interchanges.  Route 18 covers part of the more direct alternate route rather well, but US 9 from Old Bridge to the Raritan crossing is a bit lousy with the traffic and the lights - and probably especially bad for truck traffic.  The 9 / 35 interchange in South Amboy can be a particularly bad bottleneck with NB traffic filing into a loop ramp  / merge-or-die combo.  Has there been any studies of the corridor for truck traffic, or planned improvements at 9/35?  The truck ban results in a pretty big gap for what I would think would be an important trucking corridor.
From time to time they've considered allowing trucks north of 105, but nothing has come to fruition. I don't know any details.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 11, 2016, 07:16:46 AM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

Yes, the GSP had its foundational anti-truck "policies" because it was a Parkway and that's what parkways did back then. But I think Express-Local opened in the early 70s. The Driscoll Expressway--the truck solution to the Jersey Shore--wasn't killed until 1973 or so. So the Express-Local project specifically didn't need to accommodate for trucks, but as you see and guesstimate blew up in our  collective face.

Another piece of history is that the truck ban originally went north to Exit 98 when I-195 was finally finished.  In about 1982/1984, Johnson and Johnson demanded that it be moved to 105 when route 18 was finished. Governor Kean when faced with losing them as a major economic power to another state, ordered the NJHA to relocate the northern terminus.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 11, 2016, 08:05:29 AM
Now I also wanted to say that I remember when Exit 98 was the truck terminus, but I had no idea that it was even further south before that.  I imagine it was at US 9 in Pleasant Plains as I know for sure that the US 9 overlap had to originally allow trucks even though motorcycles were banned there as well as the rest of the Parkway.

That is also something that the GSP did not allow motorcycles at one time either.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on May 11, 2016, 09:03:22 AM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?
The truck ban has to do with a number of low-clearance bridges, mainly through Union, but then consider this - structures and pavement are all designed based on anticipated loads. If you don't anticipate trucks, you can design a much lighter and cheaper structure. The Driscoll Bridge may look nice, but it might very well fall apart under truck loading. Trucks can easily use US 9 instead.
So when it was completely reconstructed in 2009, truck loading wasn't anticipated, and so a cheaper structure was used, cutting down the costs. Makes sense, I'll have to admit.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 11, 2016, 12:23:46 PM
I can't imagine that they'd use a cheaper / weaker structure just because of the existing truck ban there. I doubt the Turnpike Authority would want to take the risk of a premature replacement or failure and built it to lower specifications. The bridge was completely reconstructed a few years ago and the consideration of trucks through there was proposed circa 2011; based on this quote, the new bridge was built with heavier vehicles in mind:

"One major roadblock has been removed, with the reconstruction of the existing Driscoll Bridge and construction of a new third span in 2009. 'The old bridge . . . wasn't physically capable of handling (the weight of) commercial trucks,' said John O'Hern, New Jersey Turnpike Authority deputy executive director." (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/04/nj_to_consider_allowing_truck.html)

I know that nowadays when the little county-owned bridges around here are rebuilt, they are built to handle the heavier traffic, though weight restrictions established prior to reconstruction are often left in place so big rigs aren't driving around neighborhood roads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2016, 04:54:10 PM
The other concern with the Driscoll Bridge is lane width. It isn't the standard 12ft, more like 10-11ft.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 11, 2016, 05:03:03 PM
The other concern with the Driscoll Bridge is lane width. It isn't the standard 12ft, more like 10-11ft.

That was before they rebuilt the bridge 7 years ago. Today it's 12' lanes with full shoulders.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Don'tKnowYet on May 11, 2016, 05:14:02 PM
Sorry to stray off topic here for a second, but does anyone know when the Express/Local setup and Driscoll Bridge was built? Because they don't seem very old and it baffles me why trucks can't use this section north of exit 105. Was the truck ban not updated and they predate the setup and Driscoll Bridge, or is this a dangerous section, because of the Cheesequake Plaza not far from here?

Yes, the GSP had its foundational anti-truck "policies" because it was a Parkway and that's what parkways did back then. But I think Express-Local opened in the early 70s. The Driscoll Expressway--the truck solution to the Jersey Shore--wasn't killed until 1973 or so. So the Express-Local project specifically didn't need to accommodate for trucks, but as you see and guesstimate blew up in our  collective face.

Another piece of history is that the truck ban originally went north to Exit 98 when I-195 was finally finished.  In about 1982/1984, Johnson and Johnson demanded that it be moved to 105 when route 18 was finished. Governor Kean when faced with losing them as a major economic power to another state, ordered the NJHA to relocate the northern terminus.

Express-Local opened to traffic on November 27, 1974.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 11, 2016, 05:28:49 PM
That was before they rebuilt the bridge 7 years ago. Today it's 12' lanes with full shoulders.

Source: http://tollroadsnews.com/news/washington-dc-metro-area-has-americas-widest-bridge---a-tale-of-two-bridges-toll-and-tax
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on May 11, 2016, 08:04:50 PM
Re: the truck ban locations and dates. As per an old official Parkway brochure from 1966, trucks were at that time banned north of Exit-97A, which was Route 38. Now Exit-98? 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 06:23:58 AM
Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: hurricanehink on May 12, 2016, 10:40:20 AM
Yesterday, I drove across the Great Egg Harbor parkway bridge (between Atlantic and Cape May County). Traffic has shifted onto a portion of the new roadway. From the toll plaza at mile marker 29, it goes down to one lane, and about a mile south, the traffic shifts back onto the older portion. There are still two spans that haven't been bridged yet, but it appears to be making quick progress. I also got a close look of what'll be part of a future bike path on the western side. I'll try to get pics next time.

Also, I've been on the construction in Atlantic County from exits 35-37, and that's making progress as well. Over Tilton Road, the new wider bridge is almost done, which will allow for deceleration lanes on Tilton, and three lanes for the parkway portion. Lots of construction, but the part that looks closest to being open is the span going from Expressway east to Parkway south at Exit 38 (Exit 7S on ACE).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 12, 2016, 10:59:31 AM
Glad to see that part near the ACE is being addressed.  I wonder though if the SB on ramp from the EB ACE and the SB off ramp to Washington Avenue are going to be completely braided like we do here in Florida.  I am hoping not as we do as the ACE travelers would then have to pay an extra toll at Exit 9 as the SJTA for some reason has a ramp toll there when its not going into a mainline plaza EB.  In fact the Parkway is free to exit at, but the previous exit is tolled.

Yeah, I know they are suckering the airport customers, an old story, but still have a heart though.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 12, 2016, 11:04:02 AM
Glad to see that part near the ACE is being addressed.  I wonder though if the SB on ramp from the EB ACE and the SB off ramp to Washington Avenue are going to be completely braided like we do here in Florida.  I am hoping not as we do as the ACE travelers would then have to pay an extra toll at Exit 9 as the SJTA for some reason has a ramp toll there when its not going into a mainline plaza EB.  In fact the Parkway is free to exit at, but the previous exit is tolled.

Yeah, I know they are suckering the airport customers, an old story, but still have a heart though.

You will still be able to access Washington Ave from the Atlantic City Expressway.  The ramp to the GSP South will have a separate exit for Washington Ave.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/4_2014_map_improve_36_37_38.pdf
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: swbrotha100 on May 12, 2016, 05:24:12 PM
I was wondering what kind of progress was going on around Exit 163 (NJ 17). According to the NJTA, there may be changes as soon as this weekend:

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_northbound_exit_163_GSP.pdf
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on May 13, 2016, 01:17:54 AM
Just a note, I noticed tonight that there is now a Pull Through Sign just before 145 that features the control city "Paramus". This is different than the one before the Union Tolls that uses "Paterson"
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on May 13, 2016, 11:15:03 AM
Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.

I wish we had pictures of this.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on May 13, 2016, 12:43:25 PM
Just a note, I noticed tonight that there is now a Pull Through Sign just before 145 that features the control city "Paramus". This is different than the one before the Union Tolls that uses "Paterson"
I'm pretty sure that should all be Paterson. Someone grabbed the wrong P town.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 13, 2016, 01:08:10 PM
Does anyone remember the pre 1980 days of signing on the NJDOT maintained section between the NJT and US 22?  Its hard to believe, but there were no one mile advance guides except for Exit 140 going NB that was attached to the CR 509 overpass in Kenilworth.

The NJDOT used LGSes and not BGSes either, and they had one at one quarter mile saying Exit xxx NEXT RIGHT followed by one again at one eight of a mile listing the route number or street name.

At Exit 139B there was the only overhead assembly there only because both Chestnut Street and US 22 were within 200 feet of each other.  Another thing of note the at exit sign for US 22 going NB had the control cities of Airport and Tunnel as space limitations prevent the full names of both the Newark Airport and Holland Tunnel from being displayed fully on the one LGS there.

Its interesting how that worked on freeway, which now with the MUTCD stating larger and overhead signs how people now are still having trouble seeing them.  In fact left over copies of the old gore guides were kept at Toms River for NJ 37 for a long time, which is how the 129 to 140 section was all signed back then.

I wish we had pictures of this.
Back in 1980 or before I was only a kid then.  Did not have my own camera then and was too young to drive just for road sign observing.  Its a shame the internet was not up then for the GP, as a lot of good signs were up then and the fact we did not have the fast paced replacements we have now.

Hopefully someone documented it and put them up some place.  Sometimes crazy things happen, and some road agency has a photo or two in the archives like NJDOT had some old Route 1 & 9 photos around Newark Airport of the old wrought iron gantries that used to be there back before they were removed.  Photos with the original panels on them were shared here in the NJ forum not too long ago.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 15, 2016, 11:58:12 AM
Another thing from memory lane is that before the great 1980 widening, there was a dirt mound in the middle of the Parkway from just north of the Union County Line to US Route 22.  Some old postcard photos show it as even back in the fourth grade, Mrs. Katchen, told us that when the GSP was first built engineers had in mind the glare of headlights at night.  So they put up the mound, to block oncoming headlight glare as well as the wide medians elsewhere.

Of course that was only part of the design feature of the Parkway as it was made also to be with hardly any horizontal sight issues thus making it one of the safest roads around for its time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 16, 2016, 11:56:32 AM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
They are not saying what percentage of the regular toll plaza traffic goes to the express lanes, or what percentage of total traffic uses the non-EZ Pass lanes, but it sounds like they are punishing the exact sort of people who would not have EZ Pass, the long distance travelers who would presumably want access to the express lanes
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 16, 2016, 12:10:49 PM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
They are not saying what percentage of the regular toll plaza traffic goes to the express lanes, or what percentage of total traffic uses the non-EZ Pass lanes, but it sounds like they are punishing the exact sort of people who would not have EZ Pass, the long distance travelers who would presumably want access to the express lanes

This report ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/EZPass_Usage_GSP_March_2016.pdf ) doesn't break it down by plaza, but it shows a consistent 78-79% of traffic has been using EZ Pass on the GSP in general, with the exception of July where it dips slightly.  Over 90% of commercial vehicles for the past 5 months of the report has paid their tolls via EZ Pass.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on May 16, 2016, 01:36:10 PM
lane stripping
is that what happens when the clubs in AC shut down and the dancers move onto the parkway? :p
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 16, 2016, 02:47:03 PM
Per a NJTA Press Release ( http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Asbury_tolls_traffic.pdf ), the lane stripping between this toll plaza and Express/Local lane split ( https://goo.gl/maps/jtHWjwE4W9C2 ) has been revised and repainted.

Previously, the 3 EZ Pass lanes split so that the left 2 lanes went into the express lanes, and the right lane directed motorists to the local lanes.  Additionally, the stripping was as such so motorists using the traditional lanes could merge left into the express lanes.

Now, the left EZ Pass lane will take motorists into the express lane.  The center EZ Pass lane splits to both the express & local lanes, and the right EZ Pass lane goes to the local lanes.  In addition, the stripping will be as such where motorists using the traditional booths will not be permitted to cross into the Express lanes.  (Without a barrier, I can't see how this is going to stop some motorists from merging left anyway.)
It's about time they did this.  But I'm surprised for the reason stated, and not the fact that the previous condition created a terrible weave situation, with cash toll users just accelerating from the booths weaving two lanes across high speed traffic into the express lanes in a short distance.  I've been cut off many times here when staying in the right Express EZ-Pass lane to stay on the local side.  Someone even complained to the Asbury Park Press's old "Joe on the Go" feature about this a few years ago.  "Joe" spoke with the NJTA, which replied that their engineers found the weave area sufficient (ridiculous).

If there is an issue with access to the express lanes, they can always add a cross-over where there is sufficient room further down the road, similar to the crossovers further north by the PNC Arts Center.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2016, 03:16:51 PM
I've had a few close calls with weaving motorists at that split. Ideally they would put up some sort of barrier involving those pylons to discourage weaving as we all know solid white lines don't stop idiots. Of course the best solution long term would be to phase in AET.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: njunderground on May 17, 2016, 07:57:40 PM
Saw this on NJ101.5's app today! :D
http://nj1015.com/what-the-garden-state-parkway-looked-like-when-it-opened-video/?trackback=fbshare_mobile_top

What the Parkway looked like in 1952.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2016, 12:04:40 AM
The Asbury Park Plaza should have its AET lanes (the ones NJ calls express lanes) dedicated to only Express Lanes while the cash lanes have the option.  Of course those wishing to use the local lanes will have to stop, but do many people from south of Asbury Park go to places like Eatontown, Red Bank, and Holmdel that much?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on May 19, 2016, 01:17:34 AM
The Asbury Park Plaza should have its AET lanes (the ones NJ calls express lanes) dedicated to only Express Lanes while the cash lanes have the option.  Of course those wishing to use the local lanes will have to stop, but do many people from south of Asbury Park go to places like Eatontown, Red Bank, and Holmdel that much?
Yes - Absolutely.  There is a lot of commuter traffic from south of Asbury Park that exits at those locations - myself included for many years.  The press release posted above even supports this with the percentage split from the Express EZ-Pass heading for the local lanes (although 80% as referenced seems high) and the reasoning for now allowing the center lane to exit to local lanes as well.  The reconstruction at 105 to fix the merge/weave and provide a separate signal and ramp for the NB exiting traffic at Hope Road (which was a complete mess when I used to commute through it) is a result of the significant amount of traffic that uses this route.  The occasional toll road drivers and those too paranoid or lazy to get EZ Pass can pay the price of staying in the local lanes. 

Even now, when I'm taking the GSP north or south between the Asbury Tolls and the Driscoll, I always use the local lanes anyway to have the ability to exit (escape a jam) and get 3 lanes to the express lane's 2.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 19, 2016, 10:16:45 AM
I assume there is a correlation between people wanting to use express lanes and those not having EZ Pass. Both are likely to be out of state travelers bringing much needed cash to the Jersey shore   
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on May 19, 2016, 10:26:01 AM
The Asbury Park Plaza should have its AET lanes (the ones NJ calls express lanes) dedicated to only Express Lanes while the cash lanes have the option.  Of course those wishing to use the local lanes will have to stop, but do many people from south of Asbury Park go to places like Eatontown, Red Bank, and Holmdel that much?
Yes - Absolutely.  There is a lot of commuter traffic from south of Asbury Park that exits at those locations - myself included for many years.  The press release posted above even supports this with the percentage split from the Express EZ-Pass heading for the local lanes (although 80% as referenced seems high) and the reasoning for now allowing the center lane to exit to local lanes as well.  The reconstruction at 105 to fix the merge/weave and provide a separate signal and ramp for the NB exiting traffic at Hope Road (which was a complete mess when I used to commute through it) is a result of the significant amount of traffic that uses this route.  The occasional toll road drivers and those too paranoid or lazy to get EZ Pass can pay the price of staying in the local lanes. 

Even now, when I'm taking the GSP north or south between the Asbury Tolls and the Driscoll, I always use the local lanes anyway to have the ability to exit (escape a jam) and get 3 lanes to the express lane's 2.
A lot of people do that.  My friend Frank used to do it coming back from Seaside.  He never took the express lanes at all, as he liked more lanes to weave as he was one that loved to show off! At the time NJ had the National 55 limit, and even with traffic at 65, it was still too slow for him.

 Plus the local lanes does not really add more time either as its really the same as its express counterparts.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 19, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
I assume there is a correlation between people wanting to use express lanes and those not having EZ Pass. Both are likely to be out of state travelers bringing much needed cash to the Jersey shore   

The toll lanes are on the Northbound side.  The Jersey Shore already got their money!  :-D

What's the speed differential between the Express & Local lanes?  In general, there probably isn't much of a difference.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Mr. Matté on May 19, 2016, 12:50:08 PM
What's the speed differential between the Express & Local lanes?  In general, there probably isn't much of a difference.

Per this guy on Reddit, (https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/4jeufi/have_any_of_you_gotten_pulled_over_for_speeding/) you're not expected to go the speed limit in the express lanes so there has to be a huge difference.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on May 20, 2016, 10:10:16 AM
There is a new traffic pattern Northbound between exits 36 and 38A as of last night. Everything is shifted to the right, to the newly paved roadway. The entrance from Fire Road finally has a decent acceleration lane again. Otherwise the layout is unchanged, just shifted, 2 through lanes, no shoulders, single exit lanes for 38 and 38A.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2016, 01:50:48 PM
"Ask Commuting Larry" article today on NJ.com about why a full interchange was never built between the Parkway and NJ 18:

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home)

To me, it seems pretty obvious that one major factor was that the Parkway didn't want to encourage shunpiking on the free, parallel portion of 18 south of the interchange.  A direct SB GSP to SB 18 ramp would send a lot more evening commuter and shore traffic onto 18, who would use that road to at least avoid the tolls at exit 98.  Same goes for the NB commute.  The DOT might not have wanted to add that much GSP traffic onto that portion of 18 either. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 02, 2016, 02:59:36 PM
"Ask Commuting Larry" article today on NJ.com about why a full interchange was never built between the Parkway and NJ 18:

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/06/why_was_a_full_parkway_interchange_to_route_18_never_built.html#incart_river_home)

To me, it seems pretty obvious that one major factor was that the Parkway didn't want to encourage shunpiking on the free, parallel portion of 18 south of the interchange.  A direct SB GSP to SB 18 ramp would send a lot more evening commuter and shore traffic onto 18, who would use that road to at least avoid the tolls at exit 98.  Same goes for the NB commute.  The DOT might not have wanted to add that much GSP traffic onto that portion of 18 either. 

There's probably a long, complicated history behind it.  NJ 18 didn't exist when the GSP was built, as mentioned in the article.  There was already an interchange right where 18 does cross over the GSP.  18 was never completed south of 195...and 195 wasn't there when the GSP was built either. 

It looks like they did try doing something which only involved a single intersection with a traffic light light at the time - Entering/Exiting at Interchange 105, going thru the tolls, turning onto/off of Hope Rd., and then using 18.  Today, that movement is completely free going south, but encounters a ramp plaza going north.

Remember, in the 1990's and prior the barrier tolls as the southern end of the local/express lanes were for both directions  In the early 00's, they were converted to 1 way tolls Northbound only.  Today, Southbound GSP motorists can exit at Exit 102 & 100B free of the tolls one encounters exiting at Exits 105 & 98, giving them access to 18, but it doesn't exactly give them easy, direct access to 18.

I took a look at Historic Aerials.  In 1979 you can see they were building Rt. 18 to the west of the GSP, but nothing to the east in that immediate area.  There's never anything available in the 80's on that website.  In 1995, you can see the area completely built up, with the road network all there. 

My guess is there's more to it than just shunpiking, because they could've just added some more ramp tolls.  There seems to be a relatively easy connection as mentioned above, involving tolls. There's probably some answers in the planning materials if someone took the time to dig, but to answer a general question for Larry's column no one's going to take the time and the money to look that up.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on June 02, 2016, 07:45:22 PM
I think it had to do with... :drumroll: environmental issues. They wanted a smaller interchange footprint and so only put in some ramps. They are in the process of modifying the interchange and adding another ramp (SB to Wayside Road) that will help ease access to 18 South. (NB is still SOL.) I don't think NJTA is opposed to studying a couple of additional flyover ramps, but they would have to see a net benefit to justify them. At least the NB flyover would be tolled.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadrunner75 on June 02, 2016, 11:53:12 PM
I remember the gap in 18 east of the GSP, when they were building the interchange with 36 in the early 90s.  I certainly have no doubt environmental issues were a major factor - dealing with DEP is definitely not fun - as well as cost.  I would think though there would have been some lack of enthusiasm on the NJHA and DOT's part for providing those direct movements to not dump that traffic on 18 as well.  Hope Road could be a very poor connector at times.  I used to commute on Hope between 105 and Wyckoff Road and this stretch was typically a backed-up mess and desperately needed 4 lanes and some signal timing adjustments at Wyckoff.  As usual, the ramp improvements at 105 to fix the merge at Hope came just after I could have benefitted from them.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 12, 2016, 10:13:54 PM
Signage update: they're making a lot of progress (and quickly) north of 142. SB, it looks like 143 will be renumbered to 143C and they are going to reverse 143B and 143A so they're in the correct order.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 13, 2016, 12:39:13 AM
Signage update: they're making a lot of progress (and quickly) north of 142. SB, it looks like 143 will be renumbered to 143C and they are going to reverse 143B and 143A so they're in the correct order.
  Its about time!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 08:24:03 PM
Also, fot 156 NB, it doesn't mention 46 anymore, just NJ-20 NB and Elmwood Park for a control city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on June 13, 2016, 08:59:53 PM
Pictures I saw on Facebook note that 155 (Hazel Street) is being switched. My bet is to 155B while 155P becomes A, permanently putting the Paterson Peripheral system to bed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on June 13, 2016, 10:58:40 PM
Pictures I saw on Facebook note that 155 (Hazel Street) is being switched. My bet is to 155B while 155P becomes A, permanently putting the Paterson Peripheral system to bed.

Not sure, they had the exit tabs covered, I could tell there were "Formerly exit XXX" tabs as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 14, 2016, 09:57:50 AM
Looks like they're finally getting ready to open the new on-ramp from the AC Expressway East onto Parkway South (Exit 7S) and the new separate Exit 37 ramps from that on-ramp and the Parkway mainline in time for the July 4 weekend. Last I heard, it was planned for "a week or so after Memorial Day", but now VMSs went up warning of exit closures at all of the above exit ramps starting June 26.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2016, 01:00:08 PM
Also, fot 156 NB, it doesn't mention 46 anymore, just NJ-20 NB and Elmwood Park for a control city.
Well considering that Exit 157 less than one mile ahead also connects to the same route, it makes sense to do that.    Just keep 156 for NJ 20 traffic as well as those for CR 507. 

Maryland did something similar years back on the Harbor Tunnel Thruway with MD2.  The two exits that accessed the SB MD 2 had only one signed for it, as the one signed accessed the state route further down the line while the first one served the city of Brooklyn, MD.  So for traffic to MD 2 South, just the Glen Burnie Bypass was signed to allow the MD 2 exit proper be used for local traffic only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2016, 01:03:25 PM
Also, fot 156 NB, it doesn't mention 46 anymore, just NJ-20 NB and Elmwood Park for a control city.
Well considering that Exit 157 less than one mile ahead also connects to the same route, it makes sense to do that.    Just keep 156 for NJ 20 traffic as well as those for CR 507. 

Maryland did something similar years back on the Harbor Tunnel Thruway with MD2.  The two exits that accessed the SB MD 2 had only one signed for it, as the one signed accessed the state route further down the line while the first one served the city of Brooklyn, MD.  So for traffic to MD 2 South, just the Glen Burnie Bypass was signed to allow the MD 2 exit proper be used for local traffic only.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on June 27, 2016, 09:31:44 AM
Looks like they're finally getting ready to open the new on-ramp from the AC Expressway East onto Parkway South (Exit 7S) and the new separate Exit 37 ramps from that on-ramp and the Parkway mainline in time for the July 4 weekend. Last I heard, it was planned for "a week or so after Memorial Day", but now VMSs went up warning of exit closures at all of the above exit ramps starting June 26.
The new ramp is now open. After you leave the Expressway, you are routed onto a new three-lane ramp. The new BGS tells you that the right lane leads to Exit 37 (although that designation is tacked on with a temporary orange sign; presumably it will not be called that since you never enter the Parkway proper anymore) while the left two lanes enter the GS Parkway just ahead of the old Exit 37 ramp (which is still there, but is blocked off with an "exit closed" sign). Presumably the new main line Exit 37 which leaves the GSP and passes under the new ramp is now open as well. I will probably know for sure this afternoon.

Edit: yes, it's open
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 27, 2016, 04:30:27 PM
Exit 156 is pretty dangerous to actually use for NJ-20 these days. The ramp has a stop sign at the end and traffic on US-46 East and coming off of NJ-21 make darting across 3 lanes to NJ-20 a "fun and exciting" experience. I never take it, preferring to take Exit 154 instead. Honestly, that ramp should be closed. There is no way to add an acceleration lane due to the bridge that is right there.

https://goo.gl/maps/ZhTqdJRpMT12
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 02, 2016, 08:49:05 PM
Despite the NJTA documents saying otherwise, a pullthru using the control city of "Cape May" has appeared at the Atlantic City Expressway on the GSP southbound. All sign replacements in Cape May County have been finished. Exit 4A-B has been switched to comply with MUTCD requirements. Further north, Exit 100 will be next to get corrections judging by covered up signs. Nothing at Exit 82 yet.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 02, 2016, 10:07:13 PM
Despite the NJTA documents saying otherwise, a pullthru using the control city of "Cape May" has appeared at the Atlantic City Expressway on the GSP southbound. All sign replacements in Cape May County have been finished. Exit 4A-B has been switched to comply with MUTCD requirements. Further north, Exit 100 will be next to get corrections judging by covered up signs. Nothing at Exit 82 yet.
NJTA documents do not say otherwise. They say to consult in case of destinations being needed. Cape May is what you will ever see, but the reason is that there are no pull-through signs beyond that point.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 03, 2016, 07:48:58 AM
In a way its good to see pull throughs on the GSP wherever they are as the GSP for years was not that into having them and if so it was always "PARKWAY NORTH" or "PARKWAY SOUTH" or the Shore Points and Cape May Ferry sign in Woodbridge.  There even were yellow "THRU TRAFFIC" signs in a few places.

That Exit 4A and 4B thing always got me as A was the NB Exit and B was for Wildwood (or Wildwoods) totally opposite of what it should be.  Then again FL did it on FL 528 at Exit 11 Westbound before the Airport flyover was added and on I-275 at Dale Mabry during the sequential number days with A closer to the north and B closer to the south.

Glad its changed as well as the much needed overheads at SB Exit 140 instead of those gore guides that were so out of date and substandard for a freeway of its width.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 04, 2016, 02:34:18 AM
Signage update: they're making a lot of progress (and quickly) north of 142. SB, it looks like 143 will be renumbered to 143C and they are going to reverse 143B and 143A so they're in the correct order.

This is indeed what has happened. Also, 143C (former 143) is now signed as "To NJ-124/Irvington" instead of Springfield Ave/Irvington. They have removed street names from every sign on the Irvington/Newark/E Orange section (between Union and Essex tolls) except for 144, which is S. Orange Ave, not for Newark or Vailsburg or South Orange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 04, 2016, 07:47:46 AM
How is Lyons Avenue signed now?  Just Maplewood and Hillside I presume?  Being they no longer like using 600 series routes anymore, hence the removal of them in Ocean County during the 63 to 80 project and later the extensions southward, they probably won't include them here either.

BTW Exit 144 has omitted Vailsburg and South Orange for some time.  Some leftovers and carbon copies remained, however NB never used them and in fact the 18th Avenue overpass was lacking an at exit guide for some time now since they started signing the separate neighborhoods of Newark and used that particular overpass to post some directory board signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 05, 2016, 02:59:03 PM
How is Lyons Avenue signed now?  Just Maplewood and Hillside I presume?  Being they no longer like using 600 series routes anymore, hence the removal of them in Ocean County during the 63 to 80 project and later the extensions southward, they probably won't include them here either.

BTW Exit 144 has omitted Vailsburg and South Orange for some time.  Some leftovers and carbon copies remained, however NB never used them and in fact the 18th Avenue overpass was lacking an at exit guide for some time now since they started signing the separate neighborhoods of Newark and used that particular overpass to post some directory board signs.

New signs not up yet. They just changed the letters on each side. I imaginge it will just be Hillside and Maplewood in the end.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 05, 2016, 05:29:42 PM
What is the verdict on the exit numbers for the Atlantic City Expressway? The new advance signs northbound clearly show Exit 38-38A and no "Formerly Exit" tabs, yet there appears to be one at the interchange itself.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 05, 2016, 09:22:03 PM
As per the MUTCD they can't have Exits 38 & 38A. It has to be 38A and 38B.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 05, 2016, 09:47:23 PM
Also, Exit 116 might be vanishing soon. All the new BROWN PNC Bank Arts Center signs lack exit tabs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 06, 2016, 12:28:10 AM
I would like to know how they are going to sign Bloomfield Avenue.  Are they going to just use the township name or just the street name?  That should be interesting along with Hoover Avenue and Springdale Avenue.

I will bet, though Watchung Avenue will be just for Nutley and Montclair and most likely NJ 3 East will finally get "New York City" instead of the Lincoln Tunnel.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2016, 02:34:49 AM
As per the MUTCD they can't have Exits 38 & 38A. It has to be 38A and 38B.

That's been well established.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 06, 2016, 02:57:08 PM
I would like to know how they are going to sign Bloomfield Avenue.  Are they going to just use the township name or just the street name?  That should be interesting along with Hoover Avenue and Springdale Avenue.

I will bet, though Watchung Avenue will be just for Nutley and Montclair and most likely NJ 3 East will finally get "New York City" instead of the Lincoln Tunnel.

Bloomfield Ave now signed as CR 506/Bloomfield.
Belleville Ave now signed as CR 509/SPUR CR 506/Belleville.
Watchung Ave no longer referenced at 151, just Nutley and Montclair.
Springdale Ave will just be East Orange.
Rt 3 EB signed for Secaucus now, I'm betting there will be some ground mounted aux signs for the Lincoln Tunnel and the Sports Complex, similar to what they did on the western spur of the Turnpike.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 06, 2016, 03:08:29 PM
Also of interest, the BGS on this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7525987,-74.2111493,3a,48.1y,25.02h,91.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQR3C1xB4OMiT4chwOui2dA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was replaced, but the structure was not. So you have a new sign (no longer mentions Harrison) next to that 3 lanes ahead sign which dates to the early 80s at least. I vaguely remember the older signs on there but I was a little kid in the early 80s. You can see how the illuminations do not match the current sign positions.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 06, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
Secaucus is not a good place considering its practically inches from the largest city in the US.  Also being the Lincoln Tunnel is a primary route crossing across the Hudson.

Let me guess also, NYC will be the new EB I-80 control city instead of the GWB though. 

NJ 3 is actually the better choice to get to Midtown NY, from the GSP over I-80 as the GWB puts you uptown and far away from most of the main parts of the city and Brooklyn.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 06, 2016, 08:29:11 PM
Re: Storm2k's post pointing out the elimination of street names on signs, ya' wonder why they couldn't sign the exit using the street name, and then have a supplemental sign naming the towns. For example Exit-151 could be signed for Watchung Ave. (like it was for about 60 years) and then a supplemental sign reading:  Montclair, Nutley, Exit 151. That would be MUTCD compliant.

But I guess what's happening here is the inevitable result of stirring up a hornets nest, forcing the NJTA to convert to MUTCD signing, and now they're doing it to the letter, and the hell with whether it's good guidance or not. Now when they get deluged with complaints about inadequate sign info, they can say: "We told you so; our old Turnpike sign system was so much better, but this is what the Feds forced us to do."
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on July 06, 2016, 08:47:56 PM
At a minimum put a CR 655 shield up there, but really no one knows the designation. I feel like this one will confuse drivers a tad.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 06, 2016, 10:07:21 PM
At a minimum put a CR 655 shield up there, but really no one knows the designation. I feel like this one will confuse drivers a tad.

Even the Turnpike Authority more or less followed the "No 6XX county routes on BGS's" rule. Not always 100%, but most of the time.

As for the elimination of the street names from the signs, I have mixed feelings about it. I never saw a problem with it, especially when a road is more known by it's name (and I think both Bloomfield and Belleville Aves qualify) than its destinations, but what can you do. Yet, they kept street names at 2 places I know of: South Orange Ave and Wood Ave South at 131/A (even though I think there are more useful things for that exit).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 06, 2016, 10:41:13 PM
At a minimum put a CR 655 shield up there, but really no one knows the designation. I feel like this one will confuse drivers a tad.

Even the Turnpike Authority more or less followed the "No 6XX county routes on BGS's" rule. Not always 100%, but most of the time.

As for the elimination of the street names from the signs, I have mixed feelings about it. I never saw a problem with it, especially when a road is more known by it's name (and I think both Bloomfield and Belleville Aves qualify) than its destinations, but what can you do. Yet, they kept street names at 2 places I know of: South Orange Ave and Wood Ave South at 131/A (even though I think there are more useful things for that exit).
6xx are signed sparingly on the southern Parkway. Also South Orange Avenue could easily be signed as 510.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 07, 2016, 12:31:57 AM
At a minimum put a CR 655 shield up there, but really no one knows the designation. I feel like this one will confuse drivers a tad.

Even the Turnpike Authority more or less followed the "No 6XX county routes on BGS's" rule. Not always 100%, but most of the time.

As for the elimination of the street names from the signs, I have mixed feelings about it. I never saw a problem with it, especially when a road is more known by it's name (and I think both Bloomfield and Belleville Aves qualify) than its destinations, but what can you do. Yet, they kept street names at 2 places I know of: South Orange Ave and Wood Ave South at 131/A (even though I think there are more useful things for that exit).
6xx are signed sparingly on the southern Parkway. Also South Orange Avenue could easily be signed as 510.

In this case, it's signed as both 510 and South Orange Ave. Still quite surprised they didn't use South Orange as a control city.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 07, 2016, 07:50:56 AM
Re: Storm2k's post pointing out the elimination of street names on signs, ya' wonder why they couldn't sign the exit using the street name, and then have a supplemental sign naming the towns. For example Exit-151 could be signed for Watchung Ave. (like it was for about 60 years) and then a supplemental sign reading:  Montclair, Nutley, Exit 151. That would be MUTCD compliant.

But I guess what's happening here is the inevitable result of stirring up a hornets nest, forcing the NJTA to convert to MUTCD signing, and now they're doing it to the letter, and the hell with whether it's good guidance or not. Now when they get deluged with complaints about inadequate sign info, they can say: "We told you so; our old Turnpike sign system was so much better, but this is what the Feds forced us to do."
  New Jersey always had its own way of signing.  I grew up there and I always thought this way the Parkway did it using urban cities on the main guide was normal until I moved here to Florida.

If this was Florida, Springfield Avenue would be signed as such and "Irvington" would be on a supplemental and most likely being signed as "Next 3 Exits" as both Lyons Avenue ramps do serve the township as well.

Also, at one time SB on the Parkway did not feature Bloomfield on the Exit 148 signs but only Bloomfield Avenue.  Actually at Exit 151 there was a Bloomfield Next 3 Exits assembly there as Watchung Avenue, Bellville Avenue, and Bloomfield Avenue are all within the borders of the Newark Suburb.

You are right though, maybe its time that the NJTA uses just street names and supplemental signs for the towns around the interchange.  Also for I-280, I would think that "TO I-80 WEST" shields should be there just as much as the NJT shields are and change the WB I-280 control city of "The Oranges" to either "Parsipany" or even "Delaware Water Gap" to reflect that I-80 goes there afterward.  IMO, for the latter NJDOT should make I-80's westbound control city "Stroudsburg" over the Gap as its more of a proper city than a cut in a mountain.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 07, 2016, 07:09:02 PM
Thanks Roadman. Yes, I almost always prefer a street name over town names by themselves which are too general for me. A street name is very specific so better in my opinion. And as you noted also, supplemental signs are effective for the town names. Best of all worlds that way.

As I've said in other threads, I don't really know why the Manual makes an issue over not wanting street names and town names on the same sign. New York State DOT's Region-10 on Long Island has always used them together and it's not a problem. Just like the original GSP signs in the old days.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2016, 07:14:03 PM
At a minimum put a CR 655 shield up there, but really no one knows the designation. I feel like this one will confuse drivers a tad.

Even the Turnpike Authority more or less followed the "No 6XX county routes on BGS's" rule. Not always 100%, but most of the time.

As for the elimination of the street names from the signs, I have mixed feelings about it. I never saw a problem with it, especially when a road is more known by it's name (and I think both Bloomfield and Belleville Aves qualify) than its destinations, but what can you do. Yet, they kept street names at 2 places I know of: South Orange Ave and Wood Ave South at 131/A (even though I think there are more useful things for that exit).
6xx are signed sparingly on the southern Parkway. Also South Orange Avenue could easily be signed as 510.

In this case, it's signed as both 510 and South Orange Ave. Still quite surprised they didn't use South Orange as a control city.
The name is probably good enough.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: OldJerseyGuy on July 07, 2016, 08:39:36 PM
155P (now 155A) and 155 (now 155B) have been replaced. The exit tab on the new advance sign has been uncovered and the existing tabs on other signs have had A and B affixed. The Hazel Street advance sign is still in place, but I suspect that will be replaced by Passaic, as I believe it already has been at the exit itself. The advance sign for 155A-B is still signed NJ 19/To I-80 West/Paterson, but has Passaic added.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 07, 2016, 10:39:29 PM
Thanks Roadman. Yes, I almost always prefer a street name over town names by themselves which are too general for me. A street name is very specific so better in my opinion. And as you noted also, supplemental signs are effective for the town names. Best of all worlds that way.

As I've said in other threads, I don't really know why the Manual makes an issue over not wanting street names and town names on the same sign. New York State DOT's Region-10 on Long Island has always used them together and it's not a problem. Just like the original GSP signs in the old days.
I used to like the street names and town names together and NJ and NY both kept them for ages even though places like FL( who was starting to do that signing practice).  I grew up here and I was used to the crossings names and regional names.

I am not a fan either of the "New York City" thing that NJDOT has recently been doing. "New York" is just fine IMO, but the state wants that "City" added to it because some people can not decyper the city name from the state name, in which for years the signs never were that ambiguous to motorists.

The NJDOT did the opposite on the 129-140 section when they had it before 1986, before the 1980 widening.  It had the city names on the main guides and the street names on supplemental guides.  For NJ 27 and NJ 28 the route names were on stand alone shields and on supplemental signs as well.  For example NJ 27 was signed Rahway- Metuchen- The Plainfields on the Exit 131 (now 132) main guides and NJ 27 & Iselin were on a supplemental sign going each way.  Then long side the gore exit guide (yes the signs that were at 140 and 140A that were in place instead of the standard exit sign) were shields for NJ 27 with an arrow.

Remnants of the old pre 1980 sign practice still existed in Toms River at 82-82A where NJ 37 was on stand alone shields and the guide signs had only the destinations on them only up to the mid maybe late 90's.

Also I miss the old Parkway exitgore signs on the NJHA sections with the circle around the arrow until the late 80's when the MUTCD said "No" to that unique signing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on July 19, 2016, 01:03:36 PM
Rode the Parkway both ways between 129 and 98 yesterday. Sign replacement is in full swing on this stretch.

-Everything is overhead, as for the rest of the replacement projects thusfar.
-Exit 98 signs now only for Belmar and Trenton. Brielle is on small ground-mount aux signs. No more mention of Pt Pleasant at all.
-100/A/B getting renumbered in both directions. will be 100A, 100B, 100C going NB, 100B and 100A SB (flipped the A and B to be proper)
-102 now has advanced signs in both the express and local lanes. Sign in the local lanes has an exit only placard on the bottom.
-Monmouth service area now has left tabs on the advanced signs. Signs also look standardized more like the signs the Turnpike uses.
-PNC Bank Arts Center is now numberless. Blue signs replaced with brown since it's a cultural venue. RIP Exit 116.
-Could not tell if they were renumbering 117 and 117A SB, but I would imagine that will eventually become 117B and 117A.
-Cheesequake State Park now has a proper brown aux sign. I imagine that the replacement signs for 120 will not show the brown tab on the bottom for it anymore.
-No new signs for 124 or 123 SB, but they're not that old. May still be replaced, like signs at 142 were, despite being MUTCD-ish and also new.
-Did not see new signs for 125 either, but those may come as part of the upcoming Interchange 125 project work.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 22, 2016, 10:09:39 PM
Point Pleasant was also removed from NB Exit 90.  Its now for Brick only and even is signed for SB CR 549, being no left turns are allowed on that specific ramp to NB CR 549, despite the jughandle being there nearby.

In addition I believe that Spring Lake, Wall, and Manasquan are no longer signed at Exit 98 as well. 

That is surprising that Exit 116 is no longer an exit, despite it is an interchange.  Though not connected to the local road network, it still is an exit and a point of reference.

I would imagine that Aberdeen is not going to be used NB on 117, being only two destinations can now be used.  Keyport and Hazlet are the two main places and being that NJDOT eliminated the u turn ramp that allowed access to NB NJ 35 from the 117 interchange via the SB NJ 35 roadway, that, too. would play into not using Aberdeen anymore either.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: mrsman on July 26, 2016, 10:45:11 AM
Re: Storm2k's post pointing out the elimination of street names on signs, ya' wonder why they couldn't sign the exit using the street name, and then have a supplemental sign naming the towns. For example Exit-151 could be signed for Watchung Ave. (like it was for about 60 years) and then a supplemental sign reading:  Montclair, Nutley, Exit 151. That would be MUTCD compliant.

But I guess what's happening here is the inevitable result of stirring up a hornets nest, forcing the NJTA to convert to MUTCD signing, and now they're doing it to the letter, and the hell with whether it's good guidance or not. Now when they get deluged with complaints about inadequate sign info, they can say: "We told you so; our old Turnpike sign system was so much better, but this is what the Feds forced us to do."

I completely agree.  A lot of this is due to MUTCD concerns about message loading, but IMO, the important factor is to give the driving public useful information.

And this is happening all over the country, especially California.

In my view, if an E-W freeway interchanges with one off-ramp (diamond, parclo a4, DDI, SPUI, etc.) to a N-S street that carries a state highway number, the BGS should read as follows:

<#> STREET NAME                 ex.  <97> Georgia Ave
         NORTH CITY                          Wheaton
         SOUTH CITY                           Silver Spring

If there are two off-ramps (cloverleaf, parclo b4), then two separate signs:

NORTH                                       NORTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           NORTH CITY                       Wheaton

SOUTH                                        SOUTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           SOUTH CITY                      Silver Spring


[This is in fact how the signs read on the Capital Beltway @ Georgia Ave in Silver Spring, MD]

This is not too much for drivers to handle.  And it is so much better for wayfinding.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 26, 2016, 11:39:14 AM
155P (now 155A) and 155 (now 155B) have been replaced. The exit tab on the new advance sign has been uncovered and the existing tabs on other signs have had A and B affixed. The Hazel Street advance sign is still in place, but I suspect that will be replaced by Passaic, as I believe it already has been at the exit itself. The advance sign for 155A-B is still signed NJ 19/To I-80 West/Paterson, but has Passaic added.


Just noticed this yesterday.  The era of local character continues to fade in favor of standardization, for better or for worse.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on July 26, 2016, 01:48:51 PM
Re: Storm2k's post pointing out the elimination of street names on signs, ya' wonder why they couldn't sign the exit using the street name, and then have a supplemental sign naming the towns. For example Exit-151 could be signed for Watchung Ave. (like it was for about 60 years) and then a supplemental sign reading:  Montclair, Nutley, Exit 151. That would be MUTCD compliant.

But I guess what's happening here is the inevitable result of stirring up a hornets nest, forcing the NJTA to convert to MUTCD signing, and now they're doing it to the letter, and the hell with whether it's good guidance or not. Now when they get deluged with complaints about inadequate sign info, they can say: "We told you so; our old Turnpike sign system was so much better, but this is what the Feds forced us to do."

I completely agree.  A lot of this is due to MUTCD concerns about message loading, but IMO, the important factor is to give the driving public useful information.

And this is happening all over the country, especially California.

In my view, if an E-W freeway interchanges with one off-ramp (diamond, parclo a4, DDI, SPUI, etc.) to a N-S street that carries a state highway number, the BGS should read as follows:

<#> STREET NAME                 ex.  <97> Georgia Ave
         NORTH CITY                          Wheaton
         SOUTH CITY                           Silver Spring

If there are two off-ramps (cloverleaf, parclo b4), then two separate signs:

NORTH                                       NORTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           NORTH CITY                       Wheaton

SOUTH                                        SOUTH
<#>    STREET NAME                   <97>  Georgia Ave
           SOUTH CITY                      Silver Spring


[This is in fact how the signs read on the Capital Beltway @ Georgia Ave in Silver Spring, MD]

This is not too much for drivers to handle.  And it is so much better for wayfinding.
I like how Maryland has both street name and number as well as destination. I see the shield and street name as one piece of info
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 27, 2016, 10:31:59 PM
The shield and the street name side by side always worked in NYC.  I do not know why that can't be used here as well.

The signs are being controlled way too much by the feds.  They even dislike the white on green NJ Turnpike Entrance ramp signs as well. To me I personally thought it was cool along with that curved arrow they used.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on July 28, 2016, 09:05:53 AM
The shield and the street name side by side always worked in NYC.  I do not know why that can't be used here as well.

The signs are being controlled way too much by the feds.  They even dislike the white on green NJ Turnpike Entrance ramp signs as well. To me I personally thought it was cool along with that curved arrow they used.
What's the alternative for entrances from roads where overhead signs are impractical? If you just have a small Turnpike shield with an arrow a la Interstate signage, many out of state drivers will not be familiar with it, while the large "TURNPIKE" (and also "PARKWAY" and "EXPRESSWAY") entrance signs are harder to miss.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 28, 2016, 04:12:48 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 28, 2016, 05:43:57 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem may be that the standard is flawed.  There are cultural approaches to referencing place that vary between jurisdictions, and countermanding those to create a uniform national culture may be as impossible as it is misguided.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: dgolub on July 28, 2016, 07:08:38 PM
BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem with not doing this is that most roads in New York City and its nearby suburbs are known primarily by street names.  Many locals don't even know what the corresponding numbers are.  I grew up in Port Washington, NY, and I can guarantee you that a large percentage of people who have lived there their entire lives don't know that Port Washington Boulevard is NY 101.  I've seen people miss parkway exits for Sunrise Highway because it's only signed as NY 27 without the name.  The practice of including both the name and the number should be expanded to other areas where it would be helpful, such as Nassau County, not banned by the MUTCD.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: odditude on July 28, 2016, 07:13:24 PM
The practice of including both the name and the number should be expanded to other areas where it would be helpful, [...] not banned by the MUTCD.
agreed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on July 28, 2016, 07:13:57 PM
The practice of including both the name and the number should be expanded to other areas where it would be helpful, [...] not banned by the MUTCD.
agreed.
I know agencies that simply ignore that rule because of the necessity to sign street names and, say, destinations.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 28, 2016, 07:34:20 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.
Its already getting there where street names are not even known by locals.  It surprises me that many who lived before the GPS forgot how to navigate a simple road trip.

Its scary, but yesterday Alex and I drove around South Florida and we discussed how the GPS is creating an evolution in our minds where we now rely on it to do simple thinking that our quest for knowing our surroundings are being replaced by the conclusion a small hand held device automatically comes up with.

No one reads signs even for EXIT ONLY and other stuff, as seen everyday and heard at the toll plaza I work at.  The GPS, as discussed before, it making us careless to even absorb the information.  The way the GPS is taking route numbers and street names will be for mail delivery only as those names and numbers are no longer needed with the device telling you which way to go.

Heck we get the GPS sending people to Orlando International Airport via FL 417 and back via FL 528 where the toll rates are totally different.  We get people saying "how come its one fifty one way and two twenty five the other?"  Of course one road looks like another as far as the modern man (and women) is concerned.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2016, 10:16:02 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem may be that the standard is flawed.  There are cultural approaches to referencing place that vary between jurisdictions, and countermanding those to create a uniform national culture may be as impossible as it is misguided.


Again, cultural differences are why we should have one standard. Someone from some other area of the country...or world...shouldn't have to figure out each state's or region's method of signing someone.

The biggest issue with the NJ Turnpike (especially South of Int 6) and GSP: They don't have route numbers that are signed...which is something motorists expect.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 29, 2016, 12:30:33 PM
Yes, the NJ Turnpike should have at least a state number if not I-895 or even I-695 as it does connect I-95 at both ends.

NJ has not applied to expand their interstate mileage in well over 35 years.  Heck I heard rumors that the only reason why I-195 got built was not because the never built NJ 37 or Driscoll Expressway were canned, but because they used the unused I-278 mileage.  So really you cannot say there even that.

NJ should ask for interstate status for NJ 24 as it does connect two interstates at both ends.  Of course there is the NJ 42 and ACE thing, but its old and we know NJDOT never thinks about that one, but should as well.

If North Carolina is allowed to make all their freeways an interstate, than NJ should be allowed to expand as well.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Pete from Boston on July 29, 2016, 04:56:13 PM
Re: "the signs being too controlled by the Feds", the purpose of the MUTCD and its standard sign practices is to reduce drivers' confusion by having a uniform sign system from one end of America to the other. That is a commendable goal and in general I agree with the concept. But it is unfortunate that some individual states and agencies' alternative methods that may work just as well are lost in the zeal for standardization.

BTW, New York City's DOT region having the route shield and road name displayed side-by-side is not consistent with MUTCD principles and may/does result in message overload, despite its good intention to serve local needs. An interesting example of the conflict we're discussing.

The problem may be that the standard is flawed.  There are cultural approaches to referencing place that vary between jurisdictions, and countermanding those to create a uniform national culture may be as impossible as it is misguided.


Again, cultural differences are why we should have one standard. Someone from some other area of the country...or world...shouldn't have to figure out each state's or region's method of signing someone.

The biggest issue with the NJ Turnpike (especially South of Int 6) and GSP: They don't have route numbers that are signed...which is something motorists expect.

We could spend all day on where the happy medium lies. 

The aim should be to best accommodate the most users of a given road, with provisions for the minority.  My point is that the arbitrary assumption that one unadaptable standard can suffice (and do so well) over 4 million square miles may be flawed.

We're not talking about using different languages or even colors here.  These are relatively minor semantic differences.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2016, 10:00:27 AM
My point is no matter how standard you make the signs and how idiot proof you make the system, a whole bunch of people will find a flaw in it.

The elephant tracks at exit ramps, are standard and do stand out, but how many people are surprised to find the right lane default onto an exit ramp?  Plus at Exit 254 on the FL Turnpike how many see the elephant tracks block the entrance to the SunPass only lanes and still go there in confusion?  Plenty on both accounts.

The former I see with my own eyes each day.  The latter I hear about from worried customers in my booth as they often drive over the elephant tracks and claim the set up is confusing despite it being well signed and drive through the SunPass without one.

Lets face it we can put up standard signs everywhere and you will have people who will never see any of them, or if they do its nothing.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on July 30, 2016, 08:58:07 PM
Roadman, everything you're saying is true, but we should still strive to make the system as reasonably consistent as possible.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on July 30, 2016, 10:26:54 PM
Yes, I believe in the signs completely.  Even though most cannot read the simple 50 state green guide that is on all the roads, I think that is their problem still.  If you are totally unfamiliar with an area, as most are here visiting Orlando, that should be something you would want to do is read every sign along the way, but many do not as they are surprised that they are encountering a toll booth.  Florida 528 is clearly marked as TOLL FL 528 on shields and unless you are very familiar with the area where the signs become the woodwork, then you should be looking at them from humility and the fact that they are important because you do not know where you are going.

We should not give up signing the roads despite the new wave of technology letting us be ignorant.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 01, 2016, 09:22:57 AM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

So if nothing else, the BGSs should be good enough for the GPS to scrape enough information of them to be useful. And by the way, NJ is the same way when it comes to route numbers. There are pretty much no county route numbers that are in the public consciousness. Even some (segments of) state routes and US routes are not really known by their numbers. For example, I bet not many people know that Brace Road is NJ 154 (though it doesn't cross any freeways, so I suppose it's not such a good example)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on August 01, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

So if nothing else, the BGSs should be good enough for the GPS to scrape enough information of them to be useful. And by the way, NJ is the same way when it comes to route numbers. There are pretty much no county route numbers that are in the public consciousness. Even some (segments of) state routes and US routes are not really known by their numbers. For example, I bet not many people know that Brace Road is NJ 154 (though it doesn't cross any freeways, so I suppose it's not such a good example)
County routes are better known in South Jersey, outside of urban areas. In urban areas it's all street names, as you note even for highways (161/Clifton Ave. is one I'm more familiar with, or 159, or so many others). But OB:GSP, that's why you get them signed farther south but not up north, and for that matter, you may even see some 600s down south.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 01, 2016, 11:20:33 PM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

So if nothing else, the BGSs should be good enough for the GPS to scrape enough information of them to be useful. And by the way, NJ is the same way when it comes to route numbers. There are pretty much no county route numbers that are in the public consciousness. Even some (segments of) state routes and US routes are not really known by their numbers. For example, I bet not many people know that Brace Road is NJ 154 (though it doesn't cross any freeways, so I suppose it's not such a good example)
What are you talking about, some people do not even know that Tonnelle Avenue is US 1 & 9.  My uncle used to work in Secaucus and lived in Linden.  He said he used US 1 & 9 (Route 1 & 9 as NJ people always say route no matter what the designation is ) to Tonnelle Avenue and then to County Road.

For years some people thought that I-78 ended at I-287 because NJDOT would sign I-78 East as "Local Traffic" and direct motorists to both the Parkway and Turnpike to Newark and New York to use I-287 South from Exit 29. Then the same for I-78 leading into NJ 24, as most were calling Route 78 from Springfield to Newark as Route 24, because no I-78 West shields were up at all entrance ramps due to the road defaulting into the NJ 24 freeway. 

Even after I-78 was finally opened to traffic through the Watchung Reservation, some were still calling the I-78 local lanes as Route 24 and thinking the express lanes were only the interstate.

Also St. George Avenue in Rahway and Linden are not known to locals as Route 27 either.  Many think it terminates at NJ 35 at the Rahway & Colonia Border where the alignment changes.  Some, like my friend Frank, thinks Route 35 goes all the way to Elizabeth on St. George Avenue too.

Wonder, also, how many think that Rahway Avenue in Elizabeth is part of St. George Avenue?  Because Elizabeth wants to be different than the rest, the name changes from St. George to Rahway at the city line, but the majority considers Rahway Avenue to be St. George Avenue.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 01:06:35 AM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

What brand GPS are you using?  That's much too late for reasonable driving.  Heck, for it to even read back all of that will practically take the 10 seconds or so before you reach the decal lane.  With GPSs I'm familiar with, they usually start at least 1 mile prior to the interchange.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: bzakharin on August 02, 2016, 10:13:07 AM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

What brand GPS are you using?  That's much too late for reasonable driving.  Heck, for it to even read back all of that will practically take the 10 seconds or so before you reach the decal lane.  With GPSs I'm familiar with, they usually start at least 1 mile prior to the interchange.

The HERE app on my phone. The typical sequence is:
"Follow the course of the road for X Miles" (right after entering the highway)
"After 2 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.7 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.25 miles, keep right, take exit X, Route X (usually no direction given), [first destination on BGS]"
"[Now] Keep right and take the exit"

Sometimes there is no 2 miles warning. Sometimes there is a 1 mile instead of 0.7. Sometimes 0.25 is replaced by 0.5 or 0.2, but usually it's as above.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 02, 2016, 10:21:12 AM
I don't know about your GPS, but mines gives me the exit number, route numbers if any, and first destination on the BGS about 1/4 mile before the turn off, so there is every chance for the driver to look at the BGS and verify that it says what the GPS just said. I would prefer it did it a bit earlier, maybe 1 mile in advance. What it doesn't do is say "warning, toll road" or "pay toll ahead". There's no reason it couldn't. But I only use my GPS if I'm going to an unfamiliar area and even then only if there is some significant mileage or number of turns from the freeway exit (or the start of the trip if a freeway is not involved or it doesn't sign exits very well).

What brand GPS are you using?  That's much too late for reasonable driving.  Heck, for it to even read back all of that will practically take the 10 seconds or so before you reach the decal lane.  With GPSs I'm familiar with, they usually start at least 1 mile prior to the interchange.

The HERE app on my phone. The typical sequence is:
"Follow the course of the road for X Miles" (right after entering the highway)
"After 2 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.7 miles, keep right and take the exit"
"After 0.25 miles, keep right, take exit X, Route X (usually no direction given), [first destination on BGS]"
"[Now] Keep right and take the exit"

Sometimes there is no 2 miles warning. Sometimes there is a 1 mile instead of 0.7. Sometimes 0.25 is replaced by 0.5 or 0.2, but usually it's as above.


Looked it up. Noticed in the description it says 'Effortless city navigation'.  So if it's mainly to help get around cities where blocks are measured in 1/8th mile (or less) intervals and someone's driving 25 mph or so, I can see where info will only be important close to where one would turn.  No need to tell someone to prepare to turn 10 blocks away, when the info is only pertinent a block or two away.  But I guess they use that same setup on high-speed highways, where a quarter-mile flies by at 70 mph without any other intersecting roads.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on August 18, 2016, 08:17:24 PM
I was just on street view and noticed so much that the new signs at Exit 89 is shown. NJ 70 is signed for Brick and Lakehurst and CR 528 is signed for Lakewood.  The GSP southbound overall has the combined interchange as both directions signed for Brick (naturally) and NB Lakewood and SB Lakehurst.  Due to MUTCD only two destinations are not only allowed so sacrifices must be made of course.

However, I moved up to Exit 91 to see if the interchange got completed and only saw the widened shoulder NB where the future NB deceleration lane will be eventually striped for exit, but no signs or any indication the ramp (or ramps) will be opened. So I did some research and it appears to be set for February 2017 to be all open with a completely reconfigured interchange allowing full movement.  I take that the Exit 90 sign that now specifies SB CR 549 is signed that way not only cause that ramp now forbids left turns on to NB CR 548, but as the new Exit 91 will have the NB route signed after upcoming Winter.

I was wondering how accurate that really is as most links provided by google to the topic seemed to have bias by angry Brick residents who seem to have been waiting for decades just to see the missing ramps a reality?  It do not seem like most residents believe it like they seem to think it may take longer.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: sercamaro on August 20, 2016, 03:53:38 PM
I usually take exit 90 on a daily basis.  Exit 90 is marked as 549 South - Brick

Exit 91 signs are up but covered going north.  They have 549 North - Herbertsville (which is also part of Brick).
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: noelbotevera on August 20, 2016, 04:01:01 PM
Here's a relic from 1952, when the Parkway opened.

Also exit 117 for some reason, dated 1956.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 08, 2016, 06:27:05 PM
Word is the new southbound Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is completely open to traffic. Now they have all winter to remove the old bridge and the charred remains of the Beesley's Point Bridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek2500 on September 08, 2016, 09:26:55 PM
Word is the new southbound Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is completely open to traffic. Now they have all winter to remove the old bridge and the charred remains of the Beesley's Point Bridge.

Can confirm, it looks really good.

(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f301/Kherm2208/0902161315e_HDR_zps0thvyee2.jpg)

(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f301/Kherm2208/0902161314_HDR_zpszjwsjtkt.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 14, 2016, 11:14:19 AM
I like it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: DeaconG on September 14, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
Very nice improvement over the old bridge!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 15, 2016, 07:14:17 PM
Higher too and the vertical climb is more gradual. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 15, 2016, 08:54:07 PM
Wonder how long until they start replacing the northbound bridge? Its pretty obvious the new bridge is designed to handle 3 lanes+shoulder or any detour traffic.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 16, 2016, 01:41:46 PM
Wonder how long until they start replacing the northbound bridge? Its pretty obvious the new bridge is designed to handle 3 lanes+shoulder or any detour traffic.

No time soon.  The new southbound bridge can actually handle 4 lanes (without shoulders) on its own.  In its final configuration, it'll have 2 travel lanes, a 7' left shoulder, and an ultra-wide 24' right shoulder.  And a barrier separated walking/biking path.

The Northbound bridge will basically remain the same.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Handout-for-Sept-2012-public-hearing.pdf

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 16, 2016, 03:37:24 PM
I'm surprised that they're not replacing the NB bridge. I would have figured it was suffering from most of the same ailments as its SB counterpart. Thought they'd do the whole move all traffic onto the new one while they knock down and build the other side and then have two again.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on September 16, 2016, 09:26:39 PM
I'm surprised that they're not replacing the NB bridge. I would have figured it was suffering from most of the same ailments as its SB counterpart. Thought they'd do the whole move all traffic onto the new one while they knock down and build the other side and then have two again.
Two different ages. The Parkway was built one carriageway at a time down here.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: ixnay on September 16, 2016, 09:30:50 PM
The Northbound bridge will basically remain the same.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Handout-for-Sept-2012-public-hearing.pdf

As a result, the GSP at Beesley's Point will basically resemble http://tinyurl.com/hcot8mr ...

ixnay
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jwolfer on September 17, 2016, 12:25:08 PM
The Northbound bridge will basically remain the same.

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Handout-for-Sept-2012-public-hearing.pdf

As a result, the GSP at Beesley's Point will basically resemble http://tinyurl.com/hcot8mr ...

ixnay
Route 37 Mathis and Tunney bridges
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 17, 2016, 11:40:20 PM
So This set of signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. On its own bridge now, as the NJTA seems to have moved away from mounting signs directly on bridge structures. The sign on the left (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has also been replaced, and I saw the pier for the right hand structure to be replaced as well. The 9 NB signs now have proper left tabs attached to the signs instead of that weird "left lane" panels they had before.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on September 18, 2016, 10:20:20 AM
So This set of signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. On its own bridge now, as the NJTA seems to have moved away from mounting signs directly on bridge structures. The sign on the left (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has also been replaced, and I saw the pier for the right hand structure to be replaced as well. The 9 NB signs now have proper left tabs attached to the signs instead of that weird "left lane" panels they had before.
What about the panels on the split?  They ammended the one on the right to just include info on EB 440 only and therefore the 440 WB is left without a panel there.  Hope they put a full sign bridge there to have all three.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on September 18, 2016, 09:18:45 PM
So This set of signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has been replaced. On its own bridge now, as the NJTA seems to have moved away from mounting signs directly on bridge structures. The sign on the left (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5189276,-74.3005535,3a,81.4y,9.87h,94.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbwTQhO6IJNWJme9SNes-tw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) has also been replaced, and I saw the pier for the right hand structure to be replaced as well. The 9 NB signs now have proper left tabs attached to the signs instead of that weird "left lane" panels they had before.
What about the panels on the split?  They ammended the one on the right to just include info on EB 440 only and therefore the 440 WB is left without a panel there.  Hope they put a full sign bridge there to have all three.

I just realized that I put the same GSV link for both of them. this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5198206,-74.3003347,3a,75y,33.79h,82.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPh8nY6HOWD76_IFx_Qi-7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the second sign i referred to. the one on the left was replaced. the concrete pier for the one on the right is done, but there isn't a new sign yet. we will see if it references both sides of 440.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 10, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
Looks like the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is going to see northbound detour traffic already. The bridge is setup with a jersey wall and coned off crossovers on each end.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on October 17, 2016, 03:56:14 PM
So they've been doing deck repairs or something to the GSP overpass over the Turnpike. To maintain 3 lanes of traffic, they're been doing some interesting cattle chute configurations to route traffic around the work. This has led to this sign, just past 131 going SB.

(http://i.imgur.com/30iSXaZ.jpg)
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on October 23, 2016, 01:00:09 PM
I used to cross that overpass everyday between August 1987 to August 1990 on the way to work when I worked at nearby Prudential in the Food Service area.  I lived in Kessington Appartments on US 1 and commuted the Parkway every weekday between 130 and 131A to go to work.

Hopefully I will get to see the sign changes on the Parkway that now are more MUTCD that rid the old gantries that many were erected by NJDOT in 1980 and some in the 90's when 130 was added the SB to NB ramps.

Also NJ was my home for 25 years and would love to get back to see the old homestead anyway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 24, 2016, 07:53:16 PM
Northbound traffic has been diverted to the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge. They are either rehabbing the northbound bridge, or using it for equipment to remove the old southbound bridge.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 08, 2016, 08:35:44 PM
NJDOT does APLs: https://goo.gl/maps/PfAL6YReTQs

Note the back plate shields and lack of a control city on the GSP (should be Atlantic City). Also, local/express median exit signs have appears on the GSP northbound for Exit 125. A bit of the Turnpike on the Parkway.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2016, 09:10:49 PM
NJDOT does APLs: https://goo.gl/maps/PfAL6YReTQs

Note the back plate shields and lack of a control city on the GSP (should be Atlantic City). Also, local/express median exit signs have appears on the GSP northbound for Exit 125. A bit of the Turnpike on the Parkway.

Actually, it's not a NJDOT APL, it's a NJTA APL!

NJDOT has used APLs since at least early 2014, as they installed 2 as part of the 295/42/76 interchange project (https://goo.gl/maps/ou654173Esx).

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 08, 2016, 09:33:31 PM
On the topic of control cities, someone took my advice.... the pull thru at Exit 145 uses Paramus: https://goo.gl/maps/YLT17wW2axy

Odd considering Paterson is used northbound at Exit 140. NJ-3/Exit 153 also gained control cities, Wayne and Secaucus.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2016, 09:43:48 PM
That APL sign at the 295/42 interchange is horrible. Maybe if they moved the dividing line a little to the right so the format looked more balanced it would work better. But I don't like APL to begin with.

I'm surprised they added CR-508 to that Exit-145 sign. That's new I think. And I agree with Paramus as a good destination for GSP North once you pass Newark.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 08, 2016, 09:55:30 PM
That APL sign at the 295/42 interchange is horrible. Maybe if they moved the dividing line a little to the right so the format looked more balanced it would work better. But I don't like APL to begin with.

I'm surprised they added CR-508 to that Exit-145 sign. That's new I think. And I agree with Paramus as a good destination for GSP North once you pass Newark.

They can't move the dividing line to the right. By doing so, the left option arrows would appear that you can get to 76 both by going straight and to the right. And you see how tight the space is that they have to work with, preventing them from giving more room to the Camden/Philly portion of the sign.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 08, 2016, 10:28:33 PM
J&N, how would you improve that sign then? Do you agree it looks horrible the way it is? Totally unbalanced. Maybe reduce the amount of legend on the left by taking out the "to 130, 676" and the "500 ft", so it would just read "676, Camden, Phila". Then enlarge the legend on the right, that looks ridiculously small. 
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 09, 2016, 08:56:18 AM
J&N, how would you improve that sign then? Do you agree it looks horrible the way it is? Totally unbalanced. Maybe reduce the amount of legend on the left by taking out the "to 130, 676" and the "500 ft", so it would just read "676, Camden, Phila". Then enlarge the legend on the right, that looks ridiculously small. 

Well, first, that would indicate I think the sign needs improving.  It doesn't.  If you were to force me to make a change, it would be to remove US 130.  But there's more to it than that.  There's a continuity issue as well.

Also, it can't just read 676/Camden/Phila, because the highway is 76.  So you would have meant for it to be 76/Camden/Phila.  But all the signs from all directions approaching this area (295 North, 295 South, 42 North) place an important on 676, so they all say 76 to 676.  So you need both highway shields at minimum.

Prior to this sign, on 295 North near Exit 26, there's a "Exit 27, 76 to 676/130, 1/2 Mile" sign.  So for continuity reasons, you need to sign 130 on the APL as well.

The 500 Ft label is applied a little sloppy, but kinda needed to show the short distance.

As far as balance goes, it's just the nature of the interchange.  A lot goes on for that single exit.

If there's anything that'll make you more comfortable, the sign is only temporary.  Once the interchange is fully reworked, this exact configuration won't exist anymore, and the APLs that'll be on 295 North and South will be much larger, with much more room for full destination and control cities.

As far as I can tell driving thru here though, motorists understand the signs.  The worst of it used to be is traffic on 295 North never had a good indication that to merge onto 76 West, they needed to be in the left lane.  That has now been fixed with the advanced signage and this APL.  And that's the most important thing...if the motorists understand the signage...then it's good.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 09, 2016, 07:54:58 PM
Thanks J&N. You're right, I did mix up I-76 and 676. And I agree with you re: the continuity issue. The legend should be consistent thru the series of signs for an exit; no additions or deletions as per the Manual. But if like you say the lane configuration will be changed soon, then I guess it's moot, if a new sign will be needed.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 12, 2016, 08:46:56 AM
On the topic of control cities, someone took my advice.... the pull thru at Exit 145 uses Paramus: https://goo.gl/maps/YLT17wW2axy

Odd considering Paterson is used northbound at Exit 140. NJ-3/Exit 153 also gained control cities, Wayne and Secaucus.
This is much better than the old Black on Yellow THRU TRAFFIC sign that was there previously.

And yes, why not Paterson?  Its used at 140 and  has not been reached.  Plus the only significance that Paramus has is that it is the retail capital of state. Otherwise its useless. 

It should be Paterson, and then Albany afterwards. 

BTW, there is a thread for the NJ 42/ I-76/ I-295 project.  It is not anywhere near nor connected to The Parkway. :bigass:
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 12, 2016, 01:28:19 PM
The old THRU TRAFFIC sign is still up at the actual exit. They have only done spot replacements on that stretch.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 02:13:03 PM
It appears the New Gretna toll plaza will be reconstructed to allow for Express EZ Pass lanes.

See pages 10/11 of the pdf (it will show as page 8 & 9 on the paper itself): http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/BM_Minutes_10-25-2016.pdf

This should've been done in the first place many years ago, as they did with nearly every other toll plaza.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 15, 2016, 04:38:08 PM
Finally.....

Perhaps the biggest news in those minutes is Murray Bodin saying that he is going to retire!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2016, 05:01:41 PM
Finally.....

Perhaps the biggest news in those minutes is Murray Bodin saying that he is going to retire!

Lol. Go to the previous month's meeting minutes. He said that he was never going to return because the Turnpike won't listen to his suggestions. He didnt even miss a meeting!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 24, 2016, 10:47:50 PM
Some new signing changes on the GSP

-Southbound at the Cheesequake Service Area, a new distance sign went in. Mileage points are I-195 West (with shield), Toms River, and Atlantic City
-Exit 117A has been officially changed to Exit 118
-Northbound pull-thrus at the Driscoll Bridge have been altered to include "TO I-95/NJTP". The big arrow diagram depicting the split before the bridge is gone.
-Eventually Exit 100 will have new exit numbers. Southbound is going from Exit 100A/100 to 100B/A. Northbound is going from Exit 100/100A/100B to 100A/B/C.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 25, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
That will create confusion at NJ 33 with WB being B for SB and C for NB.

The mileage signs at the Service Area are a surprise, but Exit 118 for Lloyd Road is odd.  Its part of the same interchange and should get 117B while the NJ 35 & 36 ramp gets the A suffix.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 25, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
They wanted to avoid changing Exit 117's number. Its a major interchange and would have resulted in different numbers north and south since there is only one exit going north. Also one has to keep in mind the express lanes going south since they only have access to 117 and not the new 118.

Note, the mileage sign is on the parkway itself in the median between the local and express lanes, it just happens to be near the on/off ramps for the service area.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 27, 2016, 01:25:10 PM
I wonder why I-195 alone is used and not all the routes that Exit 98 services?  Or why cannot Belmar be used or even Asbury Park.  Toms River and Atlantic City, I can see.

Also I wonder what the placement intervals will be, or is this another stand alone like the LBI and AC south of Exit 80.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on November 28, 2016, 03:59:27 PM
They wanted to avoid changing Exit 117's number. Its a major interchange and would have resulted in different numbers north and south since there is only one exit going north. Also one has to keep in mind the express lanes going south since they only have access to 117 and not the new 118.

Note, the mileage sign is on the parkway itself in the median between the local and express lanes, it just happens to be near the on/off ramps for the service area.

It's not unheard of, though. They did that at 131A (it's now 131A NB and just 131 SB), but I guess that's not considered a "major" interchange. I think it's more about the inner and outer roadways and having the outer be 117A while the inner was 117 would be even more confusing? Or having 117A on the inner with no corresponding B?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 28, 2016, 04:33:49 PM
Exit 132 was kind of a hard one to avoid. It didn't help they added 131 south of the NJ-27 interchange and they couldn't use Exit 130 without confusing more people. Either way, its a done deal :P
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: 02 Park Ave on November 28, 2016, 08:29:08 PM
When one is motoring north of the Bergen toll plaza, there is a toll collected at Exit 165A&B.  However, if one continues further to Exit 168, 171, 172, or onto the New York State Thruway, there is no further toll collected.  What is the reason/justification for this illogical toll at Exit 165A&B?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: SignBridge on November 28, 2016, 08:47:17 PM
02 Park Ave, I'll take a guess that the Pascack Valley Toll Plaza used to collect both south and north-bound and that these ramp tolls were to collect that same toll even if you exited or entered just south of the toll plaza. A lot of the GSP tolls are/were set up that way.  But maybe someone from that area would know more about it.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Roadgeek Adam on November 28, 2016, 09:58:21 PM
02 Park Ave, I'l take a guess that the Pascack Valley Toll Plaza used to collect both south and north-bound and that these ramp tolls were to collect that same toll even if you exited or entered just south of the toll plaza. A lot of the GSP tolls are/were set up that way.  But maybe someone from that area would know more about it.

Until about 2012 there was a northbound toll as it was the end of the line. However, the decision was made that the paying the toll at a barrier twice in the span of 9 miles was not worth it and demolished the northbound.

That said, there's no tolls north of 165 at this point. The 165 toll was to prevent shunpiking.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 28, 2016, 11:05:34 PM
They wanted to avoid changing Exit 117's number. Its a major interchange and would have resulted in different numbers north and south since there is only one exit going north. Also one has to keep in mind the express lanes going south since they only have access to 117 and not the new 118.

Note, the mileage sign is on the parkway itself in the median between the local and express lanes, it just happens to be near the on/off ramps for the service area.

It's not unheard of, though. They did that at 131A (it's now 131A NB and just 131 SB), but I guess that's not considered a "major" interchange. I think it's more about the inner and outer roadways and having the outer be 117A while the inner was 117 would be even more confusing? Or having 117A on the inner with no corresponding B?
What are you talking about FDOT has EB I-4 signed Exit 74A without a 74B.  As 74B is a WB only ramp for Universal Studios.  To keep the same numbers in both directions for Sand Lake Road they used the lone suffix in the other way.

Also talk about confusion, the Universal Studios exit EB is Exit 75A, only because the same exit for the theme park is that of FL 435 S Bound that is also Exit 75A going W Bound.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: OracleUsr on November 29, 2016, 07:09:22 AM
I-40 in Asheville has that, too.  I-26 East from i-40 West is numbered Exit 46A, but there is no 46B westbound.  Eastbound has both 46A and 46B for I-26/240
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 29, 2016, 08:26:27 AM
When one is motoring north of the Bergen toll plaza, there is a toll collected at Exit 165A&B.  However, if one continues further to Exit 168, 171, 172, or onto the New York State Thruway, there is no further toll collected.  What is the reason/justification for this illogical toll at Exit 165A&B?

Because Parkway.

There are numerous places where you can enter and exit without paying a toll, and other numerous places where you could be on the road for a mile or two and get stuck with a toll.  On the Southern end, one can enter the Turnpike at Interchange 0, exit at Interchange 4 and pay a toll, or continue on to 9, 10, 11, 13 or make the U-turn at the service plaza to exit at 17, and never pay a toll.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 04:30:54 PM
I-40 in Asheville has that, too.  I-26 East from i-40 West is numbered Exit 46A, but there is no 46B westbound.  Eastbound has both 46A and 46B for I-26/240
US 322 in Swedesboro, NJ always had one too, the SB exit for US 322 E Bound on I-295 was Exit 11A, yet no ramp for 11B is present there due to the fact previous Exit 13 fills in the missing movement via US 130.  Nonetheless, in this scenario it is a lone A suffix.

Then with I-4 I had forgotten about Exit 50A that was between Exits 49 and 50 and not 50 and 51 back when FL used sequential exit numbers.

Then FDOT would skip A and B on I-95 in Palm Coast for Exit 91.  Then who knows why the A and B on I-275 were once backwards at the Dale Mabry exit during the sequential number days.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 29, 2016, 05:54:09 PM
The US-322 exit is signed as just Exit 11, no letters. As for GSP Exits. The previously mentioned Exit 165 is now 165A-B (since you can re-enter the roadway). Exit 155P is finally dead, its now Exit 155A with Exit 155 becoming 155B, now signed as "Passaic" instead of Hazel St. NJ-20/Elmwood Park is now the only route signed at Exit 156 even though its really an exit for US-46 East (which Exit 157 is signed for). Haven't had a chance to see what Exit 157 south is signed for. Hopefully they added NJ-21, its only been 16 years since it opened.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2016, 08:53:24 PM
The US-322 exit is signed as just Exit 11, no letters. As for GSP Exits. The previously mentioned Exit 165 is now 165A-B (since you can re-enter the roadway). Exit 155P is finally dead, its now Exit 155A with Exit 155 becoming 155B, now signed as "Passaic" instead of Hazel St. NJ-20/Elmwood Park is now the only route signed at Exit 156 even though its really an exit for US-46 East (which Exit 157 is signed for). Haven't had a chance to see what Exit 157 south is signed for. Hopefully they added NJ-21, its only been 16 years since it opened.
I am excited for the replacement of the old 156 signs.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: roadman65 on November 29, 2016, 09:14:40 PM
11A was on it at one time.  My bad, as NJ (or any other road agencies) do manage to make corrections.

And omitting US 46 on 156 sounds good as its redundant being 157 again connects to it.

155B now, seems funny to use only Passaic.  I would imagine though that at 160 the local road name is no longer used either.  I am guessing either Fair Lawn or Hackensack- Fair Lawn still keeping NJ 208 as that is important route in the area.  That is if they got up that far yet.

Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 11, 2016, 06:23:57 PM
Another new mileage sign northbound at Exit 44. This one with Toms River, Woodbridge, and Newark..... the last is shown as being 105 miles away. I guess they are using connecting mileage on I-78 or something for that as the GSP enters Newark proper around MP144.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 12, 2016, 12:53:50 AM
11A was on it at one time.  My bad, as NJ (or any other road agencies) do manage to make corrections.

And omitting US 46 on 156 sounds good as its redundant being 157 again connects to it.

155B now, seems funny to use only Passaic.  I would imagine though that at 160 the local road name is no longer used either.  I am guessing either Fair Lawn or Hackensack- Fair Lawn still keeping NJ 208 as that is important route in the area.  That is if they got up that far yet.



Signage at 160 hasn't used the local road name in a long time. It's been To 208/Hackensack/Fair Lawn for quite a while.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: storm2k on December 22, 2016, 10:59:09 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2016, 11:07:40 AM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?

Really, they are simply appeasing the unions at this point.  They will eventually, but are giving it some time.
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: vdeane on December 22, 2016, 01:16:36 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 22, 2016, 01:42:41 PM
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?

http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/Int_125_Public_Hearing_FINAL.pdf

I guess there's a bit of demand for a full interchange in that area per the NJTA.  Motorists could continue to connect with US 9 from the Parkway at Exit 129, which is their only current toll-free option now, if they don't want to pay the new toll.

The PA Turnpike has been using EZ Pass Only Slip Ramps for several years now, with a full admin penalty of $25 or $50 if they don't have EZ Pass.  As these ramps are newer in nature, those without EZ Pass can always go the other way that has been available for probably the history of the Turnpike!
Title: Re: Garden State Parkway
Post by: Alps on December 22, 2016, 07:04:31 PM
Article on nj.com today about Exit 125's SB ramp being EZ-Pass only: New Parkway exit will force drivers to pay with E-ZPass or face fine (http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2016/12/using_the_new_exit_125_from_the_parkway_dont_bring.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured)

Comments section is pure gold, as always, with all the people complaining what a cash grab this is (which is funny since you're already driving on a toll road).

At some point, the real question needs to be: why not go to a completely cashless collection system? They half do it with Express EZ-Pass at various Parkway plazas. PATP and the MTA are moving this way. Why isn't the NJTA?
If they never built the ramp, everyone would pay the toll, exit at 124, and use Main Street Extension to U-turn back to the new development. This is just to divert 3/4 of that traffic away from such a circuitous route, keeping 124 clear and thus preserving a local through street without congestion. Same toll, less distance. But if you don't have E-ZPass, you would follow the exact same route as if no ramp were built at all.
If they're not going to build booths they should at least offer bill by mail.  IMO building exits that not everyone is allowed to use is unethical.

I may be missing something, but is there a reason why this is needed?  Why not just take US 9, which looks like a freeway there, and has full connectivity to/from the parkway to the north of the interchange?
I think it has to do with traffic volumes generated by the site. They would quickly overwhelm the US 9/NJ 35/Main St. circlesection into lockdown conditions. Anyone who wants to shunpike - and this shoots down any arguments about ethics or social justice - can easily use US 9 across