I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[jeffandnicole]

I believe all filming and photography by anyone in any form is forbidden by the Turnpike Authority's regulations. There might be a copy to view on their website if you want to take a look. Not sure about dashcams though, since they are a relatively new development.

A little history here: The NJTA has always acted like they were running a secure military installation. That was their mindset well before the post-911 era. Their supposed reason for the photo ban is safety concern, but I think that's only partly true. They seem to feel threatened by anyone's photos that might be detrimental to their image, which I find puzzling. Their roads and facilities are the best maintained, safest highways to found anywhere.

And if I remember right from when I researched this matter years ago, similar bans do not exist on the Penn. Turnpike or New York Thruway.

That's weird.  I feel like documenting the old Turnpike arrow is very important! http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/s5.jpg

As long as you get permission from the NJTA you can photograph it.

[famartin]

I believe all filming and photography by anyone in any form is forbidden by the Turnpike Authority's regulations. There might be a copy to view on their website if you want to take a look. Not sure about dashcams though, since they are a relatively new development.

A little history here: The NJTA has always acted like they were running a secure military installation. That was their mindset well before the post-911 era. Their supposed reason for the photo ban is safety concern, but I think that's only partly true. They seem to feel threatened by anyone's photos that might be detrimental to their image, which I find puzzling. Their roads and facilities are the best maintained, safest highways to found anywhere.

And if I remember right from when I researched this matter years ago, similar bans do not exist on the Penn. Turnpike or New York Thruway.

That's weird.  I feel like documenting the old Turnpike arrow is very important! http://alpsroads.net/roads/nj/i-95/s5.jpg

That arrow was still there in May when I photographed that exit, but they are certainly becoming rarer and rarer. The old pull through there is gone, though.

[ixnay]

None of the new NJTP pull throughs say the distance to the next exit, do they?

ixnay

[jeffandnicole]

None of the new NJTP pull throughs say the distance to the next exit, do they?

ixnay

I believe the NJ Turnpike now only signs mileage distances when they're greater than 10 miles.  The only areas that qualify are around Interchanges 1, 2 & 3.  There's signage approaching Exit 2 Northbound, and approaching Exit 3 and 2 Southbound.  It's about 9 miles between Exits 8A and 9, which isn't signed for mileage to the next exit.

[PHLBOS]

If one looks very closely (or via a slightly older GSV) that Camden mask is covering what originally was Wilmington.

[roadman65]

GSV may have permission as if the NJTA really wanted them not to publish the views, they could have been anal like the MTA in NY with not allowing the Verezzano or the Brooklyn- Battery to be shown.

[cpzilliacus]

One time I started a presentation to the NJTA with my own photos. They asked where I got those, then said that I wasn't allowed to have gotten them. *shrug*

Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike described the case of someone who was ticketed for taking pictures on the Turnpike (had to have been before 1992, when the book was published). The authors described how he lost in a trial court, but on appeal, the New Jersey Turnpike's rule against photography was vacated.

[SignBridge]

The incident described above IIRC involved taking photos at an accident scene in 1986. In a second incident in the same book, a woman was ordered by state troopers to stop taking photos OF the Turnpike from on top of the S.R. 18 overpass which is not on Turnpike property. After later becoming a lawyer, she discovered that the NJTA had no authority over photography of the Turnpike from locations off Turnpike property. Only that you can't take pictures ON the Turnpike.

I still find it surprising and puzzling that such an otherwise responsible, conscientious agency such as the NJTA would act so arrogant and heavy-handed about this. Yes it's a private road of sorts, but as I mentioned in earlier post, the Authority has or had the mentality of guarding a secret military installation.

Maybe jeffandnicole could shed some light on this? I'd be curious to know if that same mentality exists nowadays at the NJTA.

[jeffandnicole]

I wouldn't have any idea what their mentality is now. But I think if anyone was ticketed for taking pictures, the issue is uncommon and stupid enough that it would be newsworthy.

Picture taking is so persuasive now that in a lot of buildings and areas where it used to be prohibited it's now tolerated to an extent. Casinos are one example - you're not supposed to take any pics on the casino floor, but people commonly will take and post pictures of winning bets.

So if you're on the Turnpike and simply taking pics just to take pics while rolling along at highway speeds, you're fine (if anything, the handheld cell phone law comes into play). If you are stopping at an accident scene to take pics, or you stop to take a pic of the inside of a toll booth, you're not. Simple as that.

[SignBridge]

You make a good point J&N re: photo taking today by everyone with smart phones is so common everywhere that any prohibition would be difficult to enforce. As the other poster mentioned, those incidents in the book happened in the 1980's when you still needed an actual camera to take photos so it was more noticeable.

[KEVIN_224]

Picture taking is so persuasive now that in a lot of buildings and areas where it used to be prohibited it's now tolerated to an extent. Casinos are one example - you're not supposed to take any pics on the casino floor, but people commonly will take and post pictures of winning bets.

I was almost thrown out of Mohegan Sun At Pocono Downs in Plains, PA (on PA Route 315 near Wilkes-Barre). That was back in July 2011, the day Derek Jeter got his 3000th hit. I had taken a pic with a digital camera of him on a monitor above one of their bars. Looking at the picture, I didn't think it would be a problem. 



Anyways...back to the interchange in Bucks County! 

[cpzilliacus]

So if you're on the Turnpike and simply taking pics just to take pics while rolling along at highway speeds, you're fine (if anything, the handheld cell phone law comes into play). If you are stopping at an accident scene to take pics, or you stop to take a pic of the inside of a toll booth, you're not. Simple as that.

I have seen more than one person taking pictures at New Jersey Turnpike service plazas, both in the parking lot and inside the plaza building.  Nobody seems to care.  Maryland does not care either (but we only have two commercial service plazas), nor does New York.

I stopped at the Plattekill plaza on I-87 northbound some years ago, and the NYSP and the NYSTA were having a sort of traffic safety day event there.  I snapped several pictures of a nice 1980's NYSP Ford Mustang GT trooper car (I had only seen Mustang GT police cars in Florida and especially California), which did not seem to bother anyone, including the troopers who were staffing the event. 

[SignBridge]

Some years ago when this issue came up I checked the NY Thruway, Penn. Turnpike and Massachusetts Turnpike and found no similar rules on those roads re: photography. It seems to be unique to the NJTA.

[roadman65]

Railroads too hate photography as well.  In Illinois I once was taking pictures of a rail yard near old Route 66 and got hassled about it.  I even tried to get permission before hand but the lady in the tower saw me wearing the camera on my body and came out yelling to get out!  I tried to even plead but her loud voice dominated the conversation and threatened me with the local cops.  When I had asked her why I could not photograph, she was a wise lady and said because "We don't want you to!

Anyway with rail yards and stuff I can see the liability issue as if one trips and falls the rail company is liable and open to be sued.  Believe me once a burglar who robbed a person's house got injured do to neglegence  of owner, sued, and actually won his case despite him being in state of trespassing which is illegal and punishable by jail time and class E Felony record for him.

The Turnpike though if you are on the road anyway, which you cannot be liable to be hurt, I do not see why they are so anal though.

As far as rail photos, most of Trains Magazine and Railfan Mag then feature illegally obtained photos as most are even trackside which is trespassing while there to photograph.  Heck the FEC Railway in Florida will indeed prosecute to the fullest if you are caught anywhere on their ROW taking photos or even a homeless person cutting across the tracks in between roads as shortcut.  The FEC wants no part in paying out liability and even private grade crossings must be signalized as other railways like CSX will allow unsignalized crossings, but not the FEC for the same reason despite property owners must pay hefty insurance premiums to have the signals and gates.

[ixnay]

I was almost thrown out of Mohegan Sun At Pocono Downs in Plains, PA (on PA Route 315 near Wilkes-Barre). That was back in July 2011, the day Derek Jeter got his 3000th hit. I had taken a pic with a digital camera of him on a monitor above one of their bars. Looking at the picture, I didn't think it would be a problem. 

Do you have a theory as to why it turned out to be a problem?  I see nothing wrong with it.  Could it have been the corporate logos?

ixnay

[MNHighwayMan]

I was almost thrown out of Mohegan Sun At Pocono Downs in Plains, PA (on PA Route 315 near Wilkes-Barre). That was back in July 2011, the day Derek Jeter got his 3000th hit. I had taken a pic with a digital camera of him on a monitor above one of their bars. Looking at the picture, I didn't think it would be a problem. 

Do you have a theory as to why it turned out to be a problem?  I see nothing wrong with it.  Could it have been the corporate logos?

Cameras are seen as a security problem, especially when you're dealing with loads of money in the way a casino does. A zero-tolerance policy/blanket ban is an easy way to deal with that problem.

[KEVIN_224]

More like that, yes. I put the camera away immediately and nothing happened after that. Plus, I was roughly 3 hours away from home (central CT). Couldn't leave the complex until the friend I was riding with was done. Didn't leave until nearly sunset that day.

As for photos and the new interchange in Bucks County? I haven't been through it yet.

[famartin]

Something nagging in me that just clicked: The new signage for the interchange doesn't leave room for the future additional movements.  If the remaining movements get added, these signs will need to be replaced to include mention of I-295 east along I-95 southbound (where I-276 west is currently the only road mentioned), and to mention of I-276 west along I-95 northbound (where I-295 east is currently the only road mentioned). 

This is unlike many signs along the NJTP between Exit 6 and 9, which left room for the future placement of I-95 shields (even if they seem to have forgotten to do it now that its time).  Not to mention how the Exit 6 signage had the I-95 signs created, but covered up with green panels for 4 or 5 years.

Which, I suppose, further increases speculation that the rest of the movements may not be coming for a LONG time.

[jeffandnicole]

They'll just replace the signage and/or supports. Completely normal and not really a big cost item. Because the next phase isn't event in design yet, it wouldn't make sense to try to build something now at extra cost that may need to be replaced anyway.

The NJ Turnpike signage is a different animal because all that's needed is a 95 shield.

[roadman65]

Nowadays signs are disposable it seems.  In the past they used to just add to the signs even if it was difficult they managed. The signs lasted for decades.

Now new signs and not only that but changed very often.

The same PTC in 1989 and 1990 at New Stanton had add on directional banners as the sign for US 119 was pre freeway as in before the current 119 expressway was built as originally US 119 used the connector arterial and had a very brief overlap with I-70 under the Turnpike bridge.  What PTC done was add a TO and a SOUTH place card to the prexisting US 119 NORTH even using a black on white TO and SOUTH to make it look like it was addlibbed as the US 119 NORTH was in standard white and no box for the NORTH.

They have replaced it since that other toll road opened, but had US 119 been built now, PTC would replace the entire sign instead of tacking on off color placecards.

[bzakharin]

They'll just replace the signage and/or supports. Completely normal and not really a big cost item. Because the next phase isn't event in design yet, it wouldn't make sense to try to build something now at extra cost that may need to be replaced anyway.

The NJ Turnpike signage is a different animal because all that's needed is a 95 shield.

The NJ Turnpike widening project was also (partially) linked to the new interchange, and originally had the same completion date (2014).

[theroadwayone]

I had a look at a road atlas today, and it showed the turnpike beyond the interchange as I-95, but US 13 was Exit 358.

[Bobby5280]

The reflective vinyl they use on these big green signs these days has a pretty limited life span. The Type III prismatic sheeting used on the green backgrounds may last 10 years at the most, but more likely 5-7 years before it starts getting weathered, oxidized and generally losing a lot of its reflective capabilities. The lettering on legends may last less time. Depending on the state/agency, plain "engineer's grade" reflective vinyl may be used on the letters. That stuff can start to crack and/or peel loose in as little as 2 years. Yet I've seen it used on highway signs here in Oklahoma.

The metal sign panels are not so cheap to replace. Those things can be huge; we're talking square footage sizes near that of billboards in some cases. The materials are even more expensive now with all the tariffs in place. They're often made of extruded aluminum beams 12" wide (most aluminum has to be imported). The beams are joined together to make a larger, solid panel. On the bright side, the modular construction makes it possible to alter the size or aspect ratio of a sign panel to fit a different highway sign layout.

[SignBridge]

The reflective sheeting stays effective for a lot longer than you say. We have BGS's here on Long Island that are twenty-plus years old and still working well.

[J N Winkler]

The service life of retroreflective sheeting is decently long in areas and mounting positions with little UV.  I tend to worry more about dye stability in certain process inks because I occasionally encounter signs I can see after dark (reflectivity still works) but can't read (process ink has faded so badly that legend is almost the same color as the background on which it appears).

The aluminum extrusions used for extruded panel signs are recyclable and some sign shops, notably the one operated by Illinois DOT, have equipment to remove old sheeting using water under high pressure.