New Jersey Turnpike

[storm2k]

Driving north on the Turnpike from 12 to 15W this morning and saw some new signs showing a travel time to 14A. There is one on the Tremley Point Rd overpass and another one just past 13A. They are BGS's with a VMS element to show the actual travel time. I'm not sure if they're permanent or just here for the duration of the latest round of NHBE construction. Just another element of signage that isn't using the actual VMS and VSLS they spent thousands on a few years ago which could show the same data without more signs.

Will try to grab a picture of one of these tomrorow.

[PHLBOS]

Cross-post from the I-95/PA Turnpike Interchange Thread:

Some of the pull-through signs along the I-95 portion of the NJ Turnpike between Exits 9 (not a typo, I will elaborate below) through 7 have recently been replaced with signs showing I-95 shields.

Observations as of this past Labor Day weekend (Aug. 30 & Sept. 2):

Northbound outer corridor:  Despite prior signs leaving a space for future I-95 shields to be added, the NTPA replaced the entire panels (regardless of whether such read THRU TRAFFIC or New York) with ones that read in a 2-line layout

95 NJTP NORTH
New York City

Replacements were done at Exit 8, 8A & 9; even though the pull-through at Exit 9 already had an I-95 shield on it (sign layout was in a vertical/stacked format that had space for a control city although none was listed).  I guess the NJTA is standardizing/rationalizing its pull-through sign format because such along that stretch varied based on when/which project such were erected.

Southbound inner corridor: as with the northbound panels, the entire panels were replaced rather retrofitted (the wider outline of the NJTP shield on the newer signs being the dead give-away).  Replacements were done at Exit 8A, 8 & 7A.  As expected, Trenton is used as a control city for the signs at 8A & 8 while the pull-through at Exit 7A (I-195) uses Camden.  Exit 7A is now the northernmost location for where Camden is used on a southbound pull-through sign.

No changes for any of the Exit 7 pull-through signs as of yet & I have no info. regarding any revisions/retrofits to the ramp signs on the Turnpike side of the toll plazas.

[storm2k]

As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.

[jeffandnicole]

As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.

Very...um...basic and generic!  Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!

[odditude]

As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.

Very...um...basic and generic!  Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!

i also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.

[Flyer78]

Also, couldn't it vary for outer vs inner roadways?

[roadman]

As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.

Very...um...basic and generic!  Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!

Interesting that the sign lists only one exit.

I also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.

Most states (such as Massachusetts) avoid mounting signs to bridge structures unless there is no practical alternative.  In this case, NJTA may have decided it wasn't practical to post mount the sign in the median between the inner and outer roadways.

[KEVIN_224]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

[roadman]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

Not to mention that the sign 'cage' is attached to the concrete deck and facia in an apparently dubious manner.  Normal practice for bridge mounting of signs is to weld or bolt the support members to the outside beam, and not to the deck or facia.  The whole installation cries out to me "Let's put this sign in in the quickest and least expensive way possible."

[famartin]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

Is that the justification of the guidance to not mount on bridges?  I noticed a few years ago VDOT did some sign replacements where they removed the bridge-mounted signs and placed an independent gantry instead.  I found it a bit odd, but I guess that might explain it.

[roadman]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

Is that the justification of the guidance to not mount on bridges?  I noticed a few years ago VDOT did some sign replacements where they removed the bridge-mounted signs and placed an independent gantry instead.  I found it a bit odd, but I guess that might explain it.

The issue with bridge-mounted BGSes is the torsional effects from having a large sign panel protrude above the bridge structure.  Over time, this results in failure of the sign attachment points to the concrete deck and facia, as well as fatigue cracking where the sign support 'cage'  attaches (either by welds or bolts) to the outside beam.  I have seen evidence of both types of damage personally when requested to review bridge-mounted BGS installations within Massachusetts.

In the past, FHWA had supported (pardon the pun) the provision of bridge-mounted signs as part of their overall efforts to minimize roadside hazards such as sign supports.  The change in recommended practice actually came about as a result of the I-35W bridge collapse in 2007.  After that collapse, FHWA directed states to accelerate inspections of all bridges.  Although the priority was for those structures that were non-redundant in design, this direction included simple overpasses as well.  It was in doing these overpass inspections that many states discovered the aforementioned issues with some of their bridge-mounted BGS installations.

[Alps]

As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.

Very...um...basic and generic!  Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!

i also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.

Also, couldn't it vary for outer vs inner roadways?

All of these are correct per NJTA policy for guide signs. Makes me wonder where this sign came from.

[storm2k]

As promised, here is a picture of the new Travel Time signs that showed up on the Northbound Turnpike. This is attached to the Tremley Road overpass.

Very...um...basic and generic!  Doesn't look like a Turnpike sign at all, actually!

i also thought current guidance is to not mount signs to bridges.

Also, couldn't it vary for outer vs inner roadways?

All of these are correct per NJTA policy for guide signs. Makes me wonder where this sign came from.

I'm guessing whatever contractor is doing the NBHCE work. This is why it lists 14A as the destination there. Again, though, the Turnpike Authority has all of those fancy colorful VMS's that could do this just as well, and customize for each roadway.

[Alps]

All of these are correct per NJTA policy for guide signs. Makes me wonder where this sign came from.

I'm guessing whatever contractor is doing the NBHCE work. This is why it lists 14A as the destination there. Again, though, the Turnpike Authority has all of those fancy colorful VMS's that could do this just as well, and customize for each roadway.

That would make a lot of sense and would be why a new pole wasn't installed.

[MNHighwayMan]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

That's a solar panel for power.

[storm2k]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

That's a solar panel for power.

Given that it's likely a temporary setup, that is a lot easier than having to get electrical service run to that location to power the VMS element.

[akotchi]

Cross-post from the I-95/PA Turnpike Interchange Thread:

Some of the pull-through signs along the I-95 portion of the NJ Turnpike between Exits 9 (not a typo, I will elaborate below) through 7 have recently been replaced with signs showing I-95 shields.

Observations as of this past Labor Day weekend (Aug. 30 & Sept. 2):

Northbound outer corridor:  Despite prior signs leaving a space for future I-95 shields to be added, the NTPA replaced the entire panels (regardless of whether such read THRU TRAFFIC or New York) with ones that read in a 2-line layout

95 NJTP NORTH
New York City

Replacements were done at Exit 8, 8A & 9; even though the pull-through at Exit 9 already had an I-95 shield on it (sign layout was in a vertical/stacked format that had space for a control city although none was listed).  I guess the NJTA is standardizing/rationalizing its pull-through sign format because such along that stretch varied based on when/which project such were erected.

Southbound inner corridor: as with the northbound panels, the entire panels were replaced rather retrofitted (the wider outline of the NJTP shield on the newer signs being the dead give-away).  Replacements were done at Exit 8A, 8 & 7A.  As expected, Trenton is used as a control city for the signs at 8A & 8 while the pull-through at Exit 7A (I-195) uses Camden.  Exit 7A is now the northernmost location for where Camden is used on a southbound pull-through sign.

No changes for any of the Exit 7 pull-through signs as of yet & I have no info. regarding any revisions/retrofits to the ramp signs on the Turnpike side of the toll plazas.

I was on the Turnpike this weekend, and there are several pull-through signs that have yet to be replaced (or overlaid):  Exit 7, both directions, both barrels; Exit 8A, southbound, both barrels and northbound inner.  I did not go north of Exit 9, so not sure if horizontal pull-through signs are replacing the verticals further north.  The design depicted on NJTA's standard drawings is the horizontal panel design.

I know why, but it seems odd to see I-95 South and Camden on the same pull-through panel . . .

No new signs on the entrances to Exit 7, Exit 7A or Exit 6A.  The rest in this area (Exits 8 and 8A) already have I-95 shields but are of the older designs.

[roadman]

Practical until that receive part at the top gets damaged or vandalized.

That's a solar panel for power.

Given that it's likely a temporary setup, that is a lot easier than having to get electrical service run to that location to power the VMS element.

Solar power is now standard in most states (such as Massachusetts and Maine) that provide these 'hybrid' travel time signs, even at those locations where commercial power is readily available.  In addition to easier constructability and lower cost, going solar avoids the need for the DOT to set up agreements with the utility providers for power, and also avoids the complexities of billing, etc. for multiple locations where different utility companies might be involved.

[Roadwarriors79]

So within the last week or so, one more pull through sign was replaced on the SB outer roadway at Exit 7. Youtuber "Future Travel Drone" was driving on the Turnpike between NYC and Philly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc08qnxPJvo&t=2250s (SB signs of note start at 9:02)

NB, the signs were changed at Exit 7, so all the pull through signs on the NB outer roadway now have I-95 shields. At Exit 10 and north of there, the pull through signs were not changed. Also, an extra "TO North I-95" standalone sign has been placed on the side of the inner roadway NB, in the middle of the Exit 6 interchange.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AABubP0qwZ4&t=2403s (NB signs of note start at 25:38)

[storm2k]

SB there are new pullthru signs for Exits 8, 7A, and 7. Still not new pullthru's at 8A yet. NB there are at 7 on the outer roadway, and new signs at 7A, 8, 8A, and 9. So they're moving along with the newer pullthrus with actual 95 shields on them. Will be curious if they replace any other ones north of 9 to include New York City instead of no control city.

[bluecountry]

Anybody else notice, when driving south on the NJTP, around exit 9 I believe, maybe 11, there is now a sign indicating the miles to Camden and Philadelphia?
I always wondered why on the NJTP south there is hardly a mention of Philly.

[PHLBOS]

I always wondered why on the NJTP south there is hardly a mention of Philly.

The likely reasons for such are:
1.  The mainline NJ Turnpike doesn't enter into PA let alone Philadelphia.

2.  As most here know, the pre-1982 plan for I-95 called for it to leave the Turnpike at Exit 10 and utilize the current I-287 corridor to where the proposed Somerset Freeway would've connected.  Had such been built; there probably would've been either signage listing Philadelphia or at least Pennsylvania be it on the Exit 10 signage itself or supplemental signage for said-exit.  Original/early-generation signs along the former-I-95 around Trenton used to list either Pennsylvania or just Penna. on its signs.

3.  Prior to I-95 coming into existence, US 1 was likely the preferred route to Philadelphia but was signed for Trenton because one coming from the north encounters it first & such being NJ's capital.

[bluecountry]

Now its time to fix it.

[jeffandnicole]

Now its time to fix it.

Fix what?

You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95.  What more is there to fix?

[bluecountry]

Now its time to fix it.

Fix what?

You said there's a mileage sign for Philly, and the new signage now lists Philadelphia on the Exit signs to continue on I-95.  What more is there to fix?

More mileage signs, and having Philadelphia be the control city from the GWB south.