New Jersey Turnpike

[D-Dey65]

Many people do call it The Turnpike just as the GSP is The Parkway. 

You can not get rid of ignorance as it happens for every type of thinker.  Some people in NJ think that I-95 is the entire turnpike...

Sadly, I was one of those people until the late-1970's or early 1980's when I realized NJT wanted to relocate I-95 onto the Trenton Freeway. Since then, I've always been careful not to call the Turnpike I-95 and have struggled to get other people to do the same. More often than not, it's a futile effort.

[1995hoo]

Some of the people who think the entire Turnpike is I-95 can be surprisingly adamant about it, too. It kind of amuses me whenever someone argues with me about it because most people I know, or who ask me for directions, know I know the roads far better than they do. Either way, though, I feel that if you ask me for directions and then you decide to argue with me about the directions I give you, why did you ask me for directions in the first place?

[bzakharin]

And yet, overhead signage of I-95 is nonexistent south of the northernmost toll plaza. The reassurance shields aren't all that frequent either. Even if you follow the "To 95" signage on I-295 South and I-195 East, there is no follow-through once you actually enter the Turnpike. Not only that, but there is no signage about which *direction*  you're going either (well, there wasn't. I think they added "North [NJ Turnpike Shield]" to the pull-thrus in the construction area) until the eastern-western spur split (where I-95 is also signed on the overhead) or, if you ended up going in the wrong direction somehow, Exit 6.

[storm2k]

And yet, overhead signage of I-95 is nonexistent south of the northernmost toll plaza. The reassurance shields aren't all that frequent either. Even if you follow the "To 95" signage on I-295 South and I-195 East, there is no follow-through once you actually enter the Turnpike. Not only that, but there is no signage about which *direction*  you're going either (well, there wasn't. I think they added "North [NJ Turnpike Shield]" to the pull-thrus in the construction area) until the eastern-western spur split (where I-95 is also signed on the overhead) or, if you ended up going in the wrong direction somehow, Exit 6.

This is true, but it's something they're starting to fix. You'll notice that all the pullthrough signs at the interchanges in the new dual-dual construction area, there is space for a 95 shield, which I imagine will be installed once the PATP/95 interchange is done. I'm sure they're making provisions to put it on pullthroughs and other signs north of 8A as they start to replace the NJTA signs with MUTCD signs. They already do post 95 shields on many of the interchange onramps, where they split for the southbound and northbound roadways.

[vdeane]

They also have I-95 signs NB where the road splits into the eastern and western spur.

[PHLBOS]

At the Joyce Kilmer Plaza (north of 8A), there are one or two recently-erected ground-mounted BGS that read:
NORTH
95 NJTP (shields)
<-----

One has to wonder what's the reasoning behind not already signing Northbound NJTP north of Exit 6, or at least north of Exit 7A (I-195), as I-95?

Southbound & south of Exit 7A, I can see the reasoning for not posting such; but IMHO, there's no excuse not to have I-95 shields along pull-through and all entrance ramp BGS' north of 7A.  It's not like the Somerset Freeway's being revived anytime soon.

[Zeffy]

It looks like at the interchange for the Turnpike on I-195, I-95 is indeed signed with the Turnpike. As is here on NJ 33 approaching the interchange with NJ 133. Here though, I-95 is NOT signed (and I'm perfectly fine with leaving that wonderful Turnpike sign up). I'm fairly certain once the interchange in Bristol is built, we should start to see I-95 trailblazer assemblies pop up at this interchange.

[roadman65]

The NJ 133 sing on NJ 33 EB is definitely NJDOT's doing. NJTA did not erect this one for sure, the one on US 206 is NJTA, and you are right no hurry to replace it as its fine as it is.

[jeffandnicole]

Why wouldn't it be? The whole 33/133 reconfiguration was the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 8 reconfiguration project, including signage. 

[jeffandnicole]

Turning back the clock a little to this report, which is really part of the Environmental Impact Statement, prior to the Turnpike's widening project.  It reminds us of what could've been at this point in time:

http://www.njturnpikewidening.com/documents/02_Chapter2.pdf

Section 2.3.3.3:

The current stretch of I-95 north of the new interchange will be redesignated as I-295. All of the components of the project except the new bridge are expected to be complete in 2014; the construction period for the bridge is expected to be 2014-2018.

I also noticed this interesting paragraph:

When the original Turnpike widening between Interchanges 10 and 14 occurred in the late 1960s, the outer roadways were not designed as three lanes to be restricted to commercial traffic, but were created with a three-lane cross section, similar to the inner roadways, to afford the flexibility to route traffic around points of congestion. This dual-dual design also permitted the balancing of traffic during accidents or the complete closure of one roadway for maintenance activities or incidents while maintaining traffic flow on the parallel roadway, thus enhancing safety for workers.

Does anyone remember if the outer lanes weren't designated for trucks/buses?

The report goes on to say how current and predicted future traffic levels don't actually warrant 6 lanes between Interchange 6 and 7A, but learning from the experiences of the 2/3/3/2 dual-dual section of the Turnpike between 8A & 9, the Turnpike would (thankfully) have reasons to widen the 'pike to 3/3/3/3 for the entire length between 6 & 9.

[roadman65]

Why wouldn't it be? The whole 33/133 reconfiguration was the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 8 reconfiguration project, including signage. 

I am not saying that its not possible, but I have seen one project by one and signs on the adjacent road put up by the other road's agency.  In Florida the original US 17, 92, & 441 and FL 417 interchange built with FL 417 had the signs on the US routes for the ramp installed by FDOT who maintains the triplex.  Only the shields were put up by the OOCEA at the time, but FDOT took it one step further and added their own in addition.

NJDOT maybe thought it would wise to do so as I have seen many GSP and NJT entrance ramp signs substandard because the NJTA and the now defunct NJHA that originally ran the Parkway would only install the gore ramp signs at the entrances to their roads.  The NJTA, other than statewide shields, does not really like to install signs on off turnpike roadways.

Anything is possible.  However, those sign bridges are the plain metal and not the rust kind, so I would have to assume NJDOT put them up.

[akotchi]

Why wouldn't it be? The whole 33/133 reconfiguration was the NJ Turnpike's Interchange 8 reconfiguration project, including signage. 

I am not saying that its not possible, but I have seen one project by one and signs on the adjacent road put up by the other road's agency.  In Florida the original US 17, 92, & 441 and FL 417 interchange built with FL 417 had the signs on the US routes for the ramp installed by FDOT who maintains the triplex.  Only the shields were put up by the OOCEA at the time, but FDOT took it one step further and added their own in addition.

NJDOT maybe thought it would wise to do so as I have seen many GSP and NJT entrance ramp signs substandard because the NJTA and the now defunct NJHA that originally ran the Parkway would only install the gore ramp signs at the entrances to their roads.  The NJTA, other than statewide shields, does not really like to install signs on off turnpike roadways.

Anything is possible.  However, those sign bridges are the plain metal and not the rust kind, so I would have to assume NJDOT put them up.

To my knowledge, the structures and panels on the State roadways were designed to DOT standards, but installed by the Turnpike's contractor for the entire interchange reconfiguration project.

[PHLBOS]

It looks like at the interchange for the Turnpike on I-195, I-95 is indeed signed with the Turnpike. As is here on NJ 33 approaching the interchange with NJ 133. Here though, I-95 is NOT signed (and I'm perfectly fine with leaving that wonderful Turnpike sign up). I'm fairly certain once the interchange in Bristol is built, we should start to see I-95 trailblazer assemblies pop up at this interchange.

Based on the above-information, I've since modified my previous post.  However, it's worth noting that the I-95/NJTP BGS along NJ 33 approaching NJ 133 are a fairly recent installation.

With regards to the Exit 6 BGS' off I-195; that particular BGS was changed between 5 to 10 years ago.  The original BGS simply stated NEW JERSEY TURNPIKE and the now-gone original ramp BGS' after the toll plaza never had either an I-95 shield nor trailblazer assembly added for the the northbound entrance ramp (again, excluding ones for the southbound entrance ramps were for obvious reasons).

My general point being was that the NJTA should've added I-95 shields along the Turnpike (and all ramp signage) between Exits 10 & 7A once the connection between I-195 & I-295 Northbound was made in the late 80s/early 90s or after the full I-195/295/NJ 29 interchange was completed by the mid 90s.

[bzakharin]

I think *not* signing I-95 on the turnpike benefits the NJTA in that signing it would implicitly admit that the rest of the Turnpike is *not* I-95, which could cost it drivers especially once the PA Turnpike interchange is complete. This way the drivers will just think the Turnpike is all I-95, just not signed very well. On the other hand, on I-195 East at Exit 6, it benefits NJTA to sign I-95 because people who came up I-95 from PA are actively looking for it.

[jeffandnicole]

The Turnpike will definitely be signing Interchange 6 as I-95.

One thing about the Turnpike is that they've never appeared to be concerned about losing money.  OK, yes, they don't sign I-295 along the Turnpike, but outside of that, if there's an issue on the Turnpike, they do seem to try to keep people off of it.  Or back when Interchange 1 would congest with traffic, they would close the Turnpike at Exit 4, rather than continue to add onto the traffic congestion.

There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension.  A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.

[cpzilliacus]

There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension.  A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.

Might that be because traffic going that way has to cross the (expensive) Delaware River—Turnpike Toll Bridge?

[PHLBOS]

There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension.  A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.

Might that be because traffic going that way has to cross the (expensive) Delaware River—Turnpike Toll Bridge?

While such is true for those heading to NJ; do keep in mind that for one heading into PA is more likely than not going to whacked with DRPA's $5 bridge toll (EZ-Pass discounts only apply for those who use those bridges at least 20(?) times per month).

At present, one using NJTP from Exit 11 to 7A and then crossing into PA via any of the DRPA bridges (Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin, Walt Whitman, Commodore Barry) is still paying a higher overall toll than one taking Exit 6 and getting off at the Delaware Valley Exit (#358/US 13).  One then picks up I-95 at the PA 413 interchange in Bristol.

[jeffandnicole]

There's also a premium to pay when using the PA Turnpike Extension.  A motorist travelling to/from the North will pay more from/to Interchange 6 than they would if they continued down to Interchange 4, so the net loss, overall, isn't all that much.

Might that be because traffic going that way has to cross the (expensive) Delaware River—Turnpike Toll Bridge?

There's no separate toll for that bridge.  After you pay to leave the one states's turnpike, you cross the bridge and enter the next state's turnpike.

If you tried to calculate the cost of the bridge crossing by removing it from the cost you pay on the turnpike, it would be about a $2 toll.

[PHLBOS]

There's no separate toll for that bridge.  After you pay to leave the one states's turnpike, you cross the bridge and enter the next state's turnpike.

If you tried to calculate the cost of the bridge crossing by removing it from the cost you pay on the turnpike, it would be about a $2 toll.

Although this is directed towards the PA side of the Delaware; IMHO, whoever decided to not integrate the eastern toll plaza of the PA Turnpike mainline w/the Delaware Valley toll plaza (Exit 358) should've been put to the wall and shot.  It's absolutely ludicrous that one entering PA and exiting off at US 13 has to go through two plazas in just 0.27 miles.

Back to the topic at hand, real-world example (I've done this on my trips to/from New England):

NJTP Toll from Exit 11 to 7A: $2.45 (for most)
DRPA Bridge toll: $5

Total: $7.45

NJTP Toll From Exit 11 to 6: $4.60 (for most)
PATP Toll From Bridge Plaza (#359) to Exit 358: $1. 39 (EZ-Pass), $2.05 (cash)

Total: $5.99 (EZ-Pass), $6.65 (cash)

[vdeane]

Might this be because the Turnpike Authority has set up its tolls such that trips are more expensive the further north you get?  They do that because of traffic counts.

Even if a toll isn't charged separately, often a toll authority will increase the toll rate for any trip that includes a major bridge.  NYSTA adds 65 cents to all tolls for traffic that crosses the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge, for example.

[Brandon]

There's no separate toll for that bridge.  After you pay to leave the one states's turnpike, you cross the bridge and enter the next state's turnpike.

If you tried to calculate the cost of the bridge crossing by removing it from the cost you pay on the turnpike, it would be about a $2 toll.

Although this is directed towards the PA side of the Delaware; IMHO, whoever decided to not integrate the eastern toll plaza of the PA Turnpike mainline w/the Delaware Valley toll plaza (Exit 358) should've been put to the wall and shot.  It's absolutely ludicrous that one entering PA and exiting off at US 13 has to go through two plazas in just 0.27 miles.

Remember, this is the same state DOT and the same toll authority that brought you such wonderful things as Breezewood, I-70 between New Stanton and Washington, the Schuylkill Expressway, I-676 between the Vine Street Expressway and the Ben Franklin Bridge, and I-80 control cities in the middle of nowhere.

Why, in the name of all that is holy and unholy, would they ever consider combining two toll plazas a quarter mile apart?

[Roadrunner75]

Is the Turnpike extension bridge toll collected WB at the PA plaza (in that it is added to the PA Turnpike toll and collected when you exit)?  If you are coming from the NJ Turnpike, you can exit to US 130 before the bridge but after the toll plaza, so I would think the bridge would not be lumped into the exit 6 toll.  However, there is a toll collected if you enter from US 130 to cross the bridge, so if my first sentence is true, those entering at 130 would be then be charged twice, unless they are first paying just a toll to use the NJ extension to get to the bridge.

[NJRoadfan]

Westbound traffic exiting (and entering eastbound) at 6A pay the full toll rate for Exit 6. Traffic entering 6A going to PA pays a toll, but returning they pay nothing.

[roadman65]

The NJ Turnpike was always higher per mile north of Exit 9 because land values were higher, therefore cost more money to build.  Also the Newark Bay Extension is higher than anything because of the urban destruction that was needed to build it.  It has nothing to do with amount of motorists.

However, I do not know why Exit 13A cost the same as Exit 14 going Northbound and Exit 13 Southbound.  I believe that the NJTA did not want to lose revenue when that particular interchange was opened.  Remember Exit 13A traffic NB used to have to use Exit 14 to get to Newark and the Newark International Airport before it was opened.  Southbound motorists used to have to use Exit 13 exclusively to reach Elizabeth and its industrial areas.

In both cases higher tolls were carried, so I assume they did not want to charge less as they would have to for a lesser distance, so they implemented the original toll that people previously paid.

[Roadrunner75]

Westbound traffic exiting (and entering eastbound) at 6A pay the full toll rate for Exit 6. Traffic entering 6A going to PA pays a toll, but returning they pay nothing.

Yes but why is there a toll on the ramp from US 130 to WB Turnpike extension (toward bridge) here?
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.101247,-74.788265&spn=0.000008,0.006539&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.101403,-74.789592&panoid=SZuRSYCLQnt8EEIjAscdRA&cbp=12,69.29,,0,4.02

I assume the bridge toll is collected via the PA Turnpike, since this captures only bridge traffic, and this would include drivers coming from NJ Turnpike exit 6 as well as the 130 ramp in the Street View above.  The NJ side mainline toll barrier on the extension serves both the bridge and those exiting to 130 before it, so I wouldn't think it would charge the bridge toll.

I'm thinking these booths just charge a toll to use the extension from the ramp to the bridge a short distance to the west.