New Jersey Turnpike

[storm2k]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector.  The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.

Yea...they really need to change the EXITS on I-95 north of Exit 18, and as well the mileposts.
Like the exit is 73 (I suppose corresponding to the Somerset Expressway NOT the NJTP, I-95, or I-80), but the mile markers still correspond to the NJTP.

Needs fixed, and also lets get rid of Trenton as the directional city and put in Philadelphia.
A few more mileage indicators for Philly, especially at Exit 6, would be helpful.

I find it so odd that the Molly Pitcher is actually halfway between NYC and Philly, never knew until they recently put up the 'Philly 51 miles' after exit 9 on mile 81.

Honestly, the only change that I think the NJTA would make would be to make those exits a mile based continuation of the Turnpike mainline as this is how that stretch of road is mileposted anyway. And even that's not a guarantee since they would have to get the Port Authority to change their signage near the GWB, and honestly the PA hasn't shown any interest on fixing their signage on the Trans-Manhattan to go back to mileage based exits to match up with the Cross Bronx, so I don't expect these changes anytime in the near future.

[vdeane]

Fun fact: the continuation of PA's mileage to Turnpike exit 6 and the Turnpike's mileage to exit 6 are within 2.5-3 miles of each other.  Another fun fact: the MUTCD doesn't actually require starting mileage from 0 (which can be either abused (see: I-17) or used logically (see: I-276)).  If you number the northern exits by the Turnpike mileage and the Turnpike Extension by extending PA's mileage, you can easily number both without compromising either set of numbers significantly, as the 2-3 exit number jump in I-95 would hardly be noticed.

[PHLBOS]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector.  The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.

Really?  Changing exit numbers to comply with an undesignated, unsigned route should've been the priority?

IIRC, NJDOT has had the present I-95 alignment in their single-line diagram drawings since at least 1990.   Mind you, we're not talking about a stretch of the NJ Turnpike per se that couldn't yet receive an I-95 designation due to the then-absence of the Bristol ramps.  This stretch of highway in question has been designated & signed as I-95 since at least the 60s(?).

While the overall I-95 routing may not have been fully signed & designated out in the field at the time; there was not a snowball's chance in Hades of the Somerset Freeway ever being revived... then & now.  One could debate the validity of keeping the current/old numbering alive for so long.

And they're off, what, 3 or 4 miles from the new reality?

The GSP recently revised some of their interchange numbers for mile differences as low as 1.

Fun fact: the continuation of PA's mileage to Turnpike exit 6 and the Turnpike's mileage to exit 6 are within 2.5-3 miles of each other.  Another fun fact: the MUTCD doesn't actually require starting mileage from 0 (which can be either abused (see: I-17) or used logically (see: I-276)).  If you number the northern exits by the Turnpike mileage and the Turnpike Extension by extending PA's mileage, you can easily number both without compromising either set of numbers significantly, as the 2-3 exit number jump in I-95 would hardly be noticed.

Neither I-17 nor I-276 cross state lines.  While I do know that in certain circumstances/scenarios, 3-digit Interstates don't have to reset their exit numbering (I-495 in MD/VA for example) when crossing state lines; I don't believe that such is allowed for 1 and 2-digit Interstates.

[Beltway]

Fun fact: the continuation of PA's mileage to Turnpike exit 6 and the Turnpike's mileage to exit 6 are within 2.5-3 miles of each other.  Another fun fact: the MUTCD doesn't actually require starting mileage from 0 (which can be either abused (see: I-17) or used logically (see: I-276)). 

The mileposting and the exit numbering scheme of the I-495 Capital Beltway does not reset at the northern state border.

At that time it was decided to continue Maryland's I-495 mileposting from Maryland's Milepost 42 at the Virginia shoreline at the Legion Bridge near Cabin John, to a new Milepost 57 at the I-95/I-395/I-495 Springfield Interchange; and to continue I-95's mileposting (170 through 177) along the I-95/I-495 section of the Beltway from I-95/I-395/I-495 Springfield Interchange to the state border at the Wilson Bridge at Alexandria.
http://www.capital-beltway.com/Capital-Beltway-History.html#Exit-Numbering

There were several schemes used over the years and this was the best and final.

[vdeane]

Hmm, let's see here...

Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.

[PHLBOS]

lets get rid of Trenton as the directional city and put in Philadelphia.

I meant to chime on this earlier; such is not going to happen IMHO.  Although Trenton is smaller in size than Philly; it is still NJ's capital city.  So such will still appear on primary directional signage where applicable/appropriate.

A few more mileage indicators for Philly, especially at Exit 6, would be helpful.

I agree with you there... and such at least started to take place per your below-comment.

I find it so odd that the Molly Pitcher is actually halfway between NYC and Philly, never knew until they recently put up the 'Philly 51 miles' after exit 9 on mile 81.

_______________________________________________

Hmm, let's see here...

Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State.

Should, not shall.

Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.

[jeffandnicole]

And they're off, what, 3 or 4 miles from the new reality?

The GSP recently revised some of their interchange numbers for mile differences as low as 1.

This was for a mass wholesale change in signage where revising exit numbers was done to differentiate interchanges, not a floating set of exit numbers where changing them a few numbers doesn't result in any differences to the motoring public.

[bzakharin]

Port Authority to change their signage near the GWB, and honestly the PA hasn't shown any interest on fixing their signage on the Trans-Manhattan to go back to mileage based exits to match up with the Cross Bronx, so I don't expect these changes anytime in the near future.

On the other hand the DRBA recently changed their Delaware Memorial Bridge mile markers to coincide with I-295's actual mileage in both Delaware and New Jersey, where it used to go from zero where the DRBA jurisdiction began and increase until NJDOT's began with Mile 1.0.

[vdeane]

Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.

And breaking up the mileage/exits of the NJ Turnpike wouldn't be?  Most people think of the road as the Turnpike, not I-95.  Mileage/exit numbering following interstates is a shall statement, so using I-95 numbers for the spur and Turnpike numbers for the mainline is not allowed.

[thenetwork]

My guess is likely the NJTP, if they WERE to renumber exits based on mile markers, they would do so using the mileage from the Delaware River Bridge. 

I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.

[PHLBOS]

Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.

And breaking up the mileage/exits of the NJ Turnpike wouldn't be?

Just where in my post did I mention that changing the mileposts along the NJ Turnpike north of Exit 6 was going to be a cakewalk?

Mileage/exit numbering following interstates is a shall statement, so using I-95 numbers for the spur and Turnpike numbers for the mainline is not allowed.

To be clear, I was never inferring nor implying anything different.  That said & at face value, your earlier statement regarding breaking up the mileage exit with respect to I-95 flies right in the face of the mileage/exit numbering shall follow Interstates MUTCD statement.

I mentioned of a possible compromise solution in both a Fictional thread as well as the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange thread; keep the sequential exit numbers from exit 6 southward along the NJ Turnpike and convert both the PA Connector and the mainline NJ Turnpike from Exit 6 northward to mile marker based numbering.  The PA Connector is roughly 6 miles so Exit 6 will remain unchanged aside from adding EXIT 6 tabs to the exit ramp signs from I-95 northbound/Connector eastbound to the southbound NJ Turnpike mainline.  Exit 7 (US 206) would probably become Exit 9 in this scenario and all the interchanges northward would follow I-95's mileage.  Such would reduce or eliminate any duplicating of exit numbers between the separate NJ Turnpike & I-95 portion of it.  Whether or not MUTCD would go for keeping the lower Turnpike's exit numbers sequential is anybody's guess (I would assume no).

Nonetheless, whatever renumbering plan is ultimately in store for the NJ Turnpike; this is one case where it would be more prudent to hold off on any changes along the tolled portion (Exit 18 and southward) until such goes fully AET.  At present, I don't believe there's a time-table for such.

My guess is likely the NJTP, if they WERE to renumber exits based on mile markers, they would do so using the mileage from the Delaware River Bridge.

I'm assuming you meant the Delaware Memorial Bridge.  This is one case where wording matters because the PA/NJ Turnpike (I-95) bridge is called the Delaware River Bridge.  Regarding your guess, see both MUTCD and my earlier statement about the NJTA waiting until such converts to full AET before changing any of its numbers.

I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.

These are two circumstances where comparing the interchange number conversions of the OH Turnpike and even the PA Turnpike circa 2000-2001 to the NJ Turnpike's future exit number conversion is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

1.  When the OH Turnpike converted, E-ZPass was still in its early years of operations and AET, as we know it today, was non-existent.  I.e., cash tolls via a ticketed-system or collected at every mainline toll plaza were still how the majority of the driving population paid tolls.  Similar held true for the PA Turnpike at the time.

2.  The westernmost point of the OH Turnpike, where the interchange numberings begin is already I-80 (& I-90).  Similarly, the PA Turnpike at its western end is already I-76.  While the PA Turnpike's mileage continues along the I-276 portion (such did during the sequential numbering era as well); it does now change along the I-95 stretch, a recent one-year-old development, which is outside the ticketed system an is realistically not considered a toll-facility anymore between the new interchange and the US 13 interchange despite it still being a PTC roadway.

In the case of the NJ Turnpike, its southernmost point has no externally-signed route number (it's internally known as NJ 700) let alone an Interstate number.  The scenario with the NJ Turnpike & I-95 is opposite of the I-80/90/OH Turnpike & I-76/276/PA Turnpike scenarios; the Interstate route meets & utilizes the toll road further along.

Note: even if the Somerset Freeway portion of I-95 had been built as originally planned; one would still have a similar scenario between the NJ Turnpike & I-95 that exists today, except such would've occurred further north at Exit 10 not Exit 6.

[bzakharin]

Well, the NYS Thruway completely ignores the interstates it is concurrent with. I-87 resets to zero twice, while I-90 is mostly mile-markered backwards (east to west). Of course the Thruway doesn't use mile-based exits.

[PHLBOS]

Well, the NYS Thruway completely ignores the interstates it is concurrent with. I-87 resets to zero twice, while I-90 is mostly mile-markered backwards (east to west). Of course the Thruway doesn't use mile-based exits.

As with the NJ Turnpike, it would probably be better to hold off converting the interchange numbers along the Thruway, I-87 & 90 until the entire NYS Thruway is fully converted to AET.

[akotchi]

The same MUTCD section also says that "(i)nterchange exit numbering shall use the reference location sign exit numbering method."  Some interpretation of this standard suggests that the exit number be consistent with the prevailing milepost.  Unfortunately, the various "shall" provisions of this section would require a wholesale change to the Turnpike's mileposting (and, by extension, record keeping).

If applying this section strictly . . . Four separate sets of mileposting would have to be established -- one for the NJ 700 section, one for I-95 (covering Pa Extension, mainline, one of the spurs and the northern free section), one for I-78 (continuing NJDOT mileposts), and one for the spur that is not considered mainline I-95.  The NJ 700 section would not change from what is there now, but the rest would.  New Jersey is a small enough state that the milepost numbers do not get large -- for the four milepost scenarios I illustrated, the highest number would be about 77.  Having several sets of similar numbers would wreak havoc on the toll collection and maintenance records, whether under current ticket system or any future AET application.  For instance, both 14A and 15E may be Exit 62, while both 14C and 15X may both be Exit 65.  Mainline Turnpike mileage is between 105 and 112 in those areas.  Exits 6 and 12 on the mainline may both be Exit 51 to northbound drivers, 45 miles apart.  Pennsylvania does use separate mileposting for I-76/276 and I-476, but similar numbers are hundreds of miles apart.

The ultimate goal is clear guidance for the motorist to get where he/she needs to go with tools to estimate when he/she would get there.  The above scenario does not necessarily do that.  There is, alas, no perfect solution for this type of situation.  Add in I-295 at the south end, with its Exit 1, and it gets more interesting.

The current mainline toll road exit numbering in other states seems to tacitly acknowledge the toll road as an Interstate-like facility with other Interstates concurrent with it.  As noted, New Jersey's is among the only toll roads (that I am aware of) whose 0-point is as a non-Interstate and picks up Interstates along the way, but I don't see a practical reason why the same mileposting/exit numbering convention cannot be used here.  The spurs can be fudged as needed to avoid duplication of exit numbers.

My ten cents (long post  . . . ), for what it is worth.  I am sure others know better.

[PHLBOS]

Having several sets of similar numbers would wreak havoc on the toll collection and maintenance records, whether under current ticket system or any future AET application.

Should NJTA implement AET in the same manner that MassDOT did for the Mass Pike, AET gantries only along the mainline corridors only as opposed to within the interchanges like the current ticket-system; the level of havoc, if any, would be reduced.  The new mainline AET gantries could be identified by what city/town they're situated in rather than the mile marker (in cases where mile markers might run the risk of duplication depending on segment).

[vdeane]

Nonetheless, I believe that it'll be a tough sell to have I-95's mileage not reset at the PA-NJ State Line while resetting at all its other state borders.

And breaking up the mileage/exits of the NJ Turnpike wouldn't be?

Just where in my post did I mention that changing the mileposts along the NJ Turnpike north of Exit 6 was going to be a cakewalk?

Mileage/exit numbering following interstates is a shall statement, so using I-95 numbers for the spur and Turnpike numbers for the mainline is not allowed.

To be clear, I was never inferring nor implying anything different.  That said & at face value, your earlier statement regarding breaking up the mileage exit with respect to I-95 flies right in the face of the mileage/exit numbering shall follow Interstates MUTCD statement.

I mentioned of a possible compromise solution in both a Fictional thread as well as the I-95/PA Turnpike interchange thread; keep the sequential exit numbers from exit 6 southward along the NJ Turnpike and convert both the PA Connector and the mainline NJ Turnpike from Exit 6 northward to mile marker based numbering.  The PA Connector is roughly 6 miles so Exit 6 will remain unchanged aside from adding EXIT 6 tabs to the exit ramp signs from I-95 northbound/Connector eastbound to the southbound NJ Turnpike mainline.  Exit 7 (US 206) would probably become Exit 9 in this scenario and all the interchanges northward would follow I-95's mileage.  Such would reduce or eliminate any duplicating of exit numbers between the separate NJ Turnpike & I-95 portion of it.  Whether or not MUTCD would go for keeping the lower Turnpike's exit numbers sequential is anybody's guess (I would assume no).

Nonetheless, whatever renumbering plan is ultimately in store for the NJ Turnpike; this is one case where it would be more prudent to hold off on any changes along the tolled portion (Exit 18 and southward) until such goes fully AET.  At present, I don't believe there's a time-table for such.

I guess you're taking a strict view of the three mile jump as "breaking the sequence".  One could put the jump at the state line if you want to get really detail-oriented, but I would think a change at existing exit 6 would be less noticeable.  In any case, it's still better than what Indiana did with I-69, and IMO with far less justification.  I'm really not sure what else one would do without making either the Turnpike or I-95 the sacrificial lamb, especially since I'm not really a fan of leaving exits 1-6 sequential while converting the rest.  Those southern miles drag on because of the large gaps between the exits, and the sequential numbers don't help.

I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.

These are two circumstances where comparing the interchange number conversions of the OH Turnpike and even the PA Turnpike circa 2000-2001 to the NJ Turnpike's future exit number conversion is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

1.  When the OH Turnpike converted, E-ZPass was still in its early years of operations and AET, as we know it today, was non-existent.  I.e., cash tolls via a ticketed-system or collected at every mainline toll plaza were still how the majority of the driving population paid tolls.  Similar held true for the PA Turnpike at the time.

2.  The westernmost point of the OH Turnpike, where the interchange numberings begin is already I-80 (& I-90).  Similarly, the PA Turnpike at its western end is already I-76.  While the PA Turnpike's mileage continues along the I-276 portion (such did during the sequential numbering era as well); it does now change along the I-95 stretch, a recent one-year-old development, which is outside the ticketed system an is realistically not considered a toll-facility anymore between the new interchange and the US 13 interchange despite it still being a PTC roadway.

I-76 is fairly similar to the NJ Turnpike scenario, as it starts at I-71 west of Akron, and joins the Ohio Turnpike later.  Of couse, the 2009 MUTCD wasn't around way back when, and I don't know what exit numbering/milepost mandates were originally present.

[PHLBOS]

I'm basing my guess on how the Ohio Turnpike did not let the change from I-80 to I-76 in Youngstown influence the exit numbers when they went from sequential to mileage-based in the 90's.

These are two circumstances where comparing the interchange number conversions of the OH Turnpike and even the PA Turnpike circa 2000-2001 to the NJ Turnpike's future exit number conversion is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

1.  When the OH Turnpike converted, E-ZPass was still in its early years of operations and AET, as we know it today, was non-existent.  I.e., cash tolls via a ticketed-system or collected at every mainline toll plaza were still how the majority of the driving population paid tolls.  Similar held true for the PA Turnpike at the time.

2.  The westernmost point of the OH Turnpike, where the interchange numberings begin is already I-80 (& I-90).  Similarly, the PA Turnpike at its western end is already I-76.  While the PA Turnpike's mileage continues along the I-276 portion (such did during the sequential numbering era as well); it does now change along the I-95 stretch, a recent one-year-old development, which is outside the ticketed system an is realistically not considered a toll-facility anymore between the new interchange and the US 13 interchange despite it still being a PTC roadway.

I-76 is fairly similar to the NJ Turnpike scenario, as it starts at I-71 west of Akron, and joins the Ohio Turnpike later.  Of couse, the 2009 MUTCD wasn't around way back when, and I don't know what exit numbering/milepost mandates were originally present.

While I-76 scenario with respect to the OH Turnpike could be interpreted as similar to the I-95/NJ Turnpike scenario; the main difference is that the OH Turnpike west of the I-76/80 handoff in North Jackson already has its mile-marker-based interchange numbering based off of a 2-digit Interstate... I-80 (& I-90).  Such is more like the I-76/276/PA Turnpike scenario rather than I-95/NJ Turnpike.

The OH Turnpike converted to mile-marker-based interchange numbering circa 1994-1995.  I know that because I drove out to Toledo in early 1995 and saw some dual-numbering for the Turnpike's interchanges.  Needless to say that its conversion not only predated MUTCD 2009; it also predated the adoption of E-ZPass, so not switching the mile markers/interchange numbers to I-76's mileage at North Jackson when such was converted was justified/made sense during its exit (for toll ticket reasons). 

Had the OH Turnpike been fully AET when it numbers were converted; maybe the I-76 leg would've been based on I-76's mileage.

[The Ghostbuster]

I'd like to see the New Jersey Turnpike switch to mileage-based exit numbers. Mile 0 would be at the interchange with Interstate 295 and continue northward from there. After present-day exit 18, the exits would be renumbered to be a continuation of the exit numbers of the New Jersey Turnpike (mileage-based, of course). The New Jersey Turnpike Newark Bay Extension's Exits would be renumbered to correspond with the mileage of Interstate 78 from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border. As for the Interstate 95 connection with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the two exits along that stretch would be numbered via the mileage from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border.

[PHLBOS]

I'd like to see the New Jersey Turnpike switch to mileage-based exit numbers. Mile 0 would be at the interchange with Interstate 295 and continue northward from there. After present-day exit 18, the exits would be renumbered to be a continuation of the exit numbers of the New Jersey Turnpike (mileage-based, of course). The New Jersey Turnpike Newark Bay Extension's Exits would be renumbered to correspond with the mileage of Interstate 78 from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border. As for the Interstate 95 connection with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the two exits along that stretch would be numbered via the mileage from the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border.

With the above in mind; how does one handle the numbering of I-95 north of the ticketed system (Exit 18)?  At present & as earlier discussed, such is still signed with respect to I-95's pre-1982 mileage... Exit 68 being for Challenger Rd.  Such would probably be Exit 118 if one uses NJ Turnpike mileage.  Such would probably be Exit 73 if one uses I-95's current mileage.

If one uses the NJ Turnpike mileage all the way to current Exit 74; I-95's northernmost exit prior to the bridge would probably be Exit 124.  If one uses I-95's current mileage, such would probably be Exit 77 or 78.

Another question would be how would the western spur's mile-marker-based interchange numbering be handled?

[vdeane]

The western spur/eastern spur situation is indeed a big issue with respect to exit numbers.  It's hard to see how it would translate to mile-based exit numbers.

While I-76 scenario with respect to the OH Turnpike could be interpreted as similar to the I-95/NJ Turnpike scenario; the main difference is that the OH Turnpike west of the I-76/80 handoff in North Jackson already has its mile-marker-based interchange numbering based off of a 2-digit Interstate... I-80 (& I-90).  Such is more like the I-76/276/PA Turnpike scenario rather than I-95/NJ Turnpike.

I don't agree.  I wouldn't even consider the I-95/NJ Turnpike situation and I-276/PA Turnpike situation to even be particularly similar, other than a Turnpike being involved.  With respect to both I-95/NJ Turnpike and I-76/Ohio Turnpike, an interstate with its own mileage is joining a toll facility with its own, larger mileage and assumes the Turnpike's mileage from there on out.  In the case of I-276, it doesn't exist outside of the PA Turnpike mainline.  It's numbers start where I-76 splits off from the PA Turnpike, with no other set of numbers around.

[Beltway]

So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?

[jeffandnicole]

So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?

The opposite of whatever is chosen.

[Beltway]

So what is the best solution for mileposting both the NJTP and NJ I-95?

The opposite of whatever is chosen.

Start the mileposting at I-80 and go southward!

That way the common mileposting would spilt at the PA Turnpike and follow each road, to the Delaware River for the PA TPK and to I-295 at Deepwater NJ for the NJTP.

I suppose that would violate MUTCD.

[Alps]

Mileage at the north end of I-95 follows the unbuilt Somerset Freeway.

That being the case, such should've changed decades ago, when it was decided that I-95 in NJ would ultimately utilize the PA Turnpike Connector.  The fact that the through-I-95 ramps in Bristol, PA finally became reality last year was/is not an excuse for not changing/correcting those interchange numbers IMHO.

They will be corrected at the same time as the rest of I-95 in NJ. Whenever that may be. Until then, there's no reason to change them now.

[KEVIN_224]

Could the mileage run this way?

From the beginning of the NJ Turnpike after I-295 (near the D.M. Bridge) to the GW Bridge tolls?

As for the current I-95 mileage in north Jersey...I always thought it was a continuation from the I-80 mileage. It DOES nearly match, to be honest.

Of course there's the nagging issue of the Turnpike not being I-95 south of Exit 6 in Mansfield.