Does anyone see anything wrong with this sign

[thenetwork]

I applaud New Jersey's way of applying Clearview -- limiting it to certain stretches of roads/highways.  It makes it easier to replace it in bulk than to having to chase after the random placements that other states do when replacing/upgrading older signs.

[storm2k]

Par. 02, Section 2E.17 of the '09 MUTCD (a guidance statement) frowns on the use of punctuation marks (in this case, a period) unless they are necessary to avoid confusion.  Then again, New Jersey may have a state supplement that allows them.

New Jersey uses the national MUTCD. The only difference is we don't omit the black background on our US and State highway shields on our guide signs.

Also, as has been noted in this thread, this signage was erected by the New Jersey Highway Authority (which ran the Parkway until it was merged into the Turnpike Authority), which quasi-followed MUTCD standards, but only to a certain point. This sign will likely be replaced at some point with MUTCD compliant signage, including no black backing on the shields, as the NJTA does not use it and NJDOT is moving away from it as well.

NJDOT is sorta moving away from it. Hard to tell at this point, as any given contract might go one way or the other.

Hard to tell what NJDOT is doing with a lot of things, unless there are just some things that were in the pipe that are coming out differently, e.g., Clearview on signs, some shields have backings and others don't. They're usually a lot more consistent.

Well the Clearview is apparently an experiment that they're moving on from, so no further concern on that front.

I'm actually amazed it was an experiment at all. It really looked like NJDOT wasn't going to move away from classic Highway Gothic at all for a long time.

[jeffandnicole]

I applaud New Jersey's way of applying Clearview -- limiting it to certain stretches of roads/highways.  It makes it easier to replace it in bulk than to having to chase after the random placements that other states do when replacing/upgrading older signs.

Not really.  I spotted one Clearview replacement sign 40 miles away (Rt. 55, Exit 53) from the next-known Clearview sign (I-295, Exit 56). 

And so far, it's been haphazardly done.  Here's the 295 signage:

The 2 ground mounted 'Scenic View' signs were replaced.  The signs used different fonts and different sized fonts, but the overhead signs that were created at the same time haven't been replaced. 

A ground-mounted exit sign for 130 was replaced; the overhead signs haven't. 

All signs for Exit 56 were replaced, including a new overhead sign that was just replaced a few years prior due to a construction accident.  While the new signs now include Rt. 68 & the Joint Base MDL, none of the smaller signage on the exit ramp has been updated.  Looking for Rt. 68?  You're on your own!

[odditude]

Not really.  I spotted one Clearview replacement sign 40 miles away (Rt. 55, Exit 53) from the next-known Clearview sign (I-295, Exit 56).

the closest is actually on I-676 SB (Exit 3), about 12 miles away.

[jeffandnicole]

True, although that one was the experimental sign, and I'm not sure how they conducted any experiments with it.

[NJRoadfan]

By making them look as ghastly as possible it seems.