New York

[snowc]

That was just done due to signs needing to be replaced.

People who attended the Oil City meet got the full rundown on this.

Aren't the signs on I-81 in Region 3 fairly new?  Same for I-690.

Mostly.

Some signs are new, some are not. Like on I-81 near Exit 29N (Now Exit 98B)

[Rothman]

That was just done due to signs needing to be replaced.

People who attended the Oil City meet got the full rundown on this.

Aren't the signs on I-81 in Region 3 fairly new?  Same for I-690.

Mostly.

Some signs are new, some are not. Like on I-81 near Exit 29N (Now Exit 98B)

Thanks for the echo.

[machias]

Wikipedia's Interstate 81 in New York page already has some of the old sequential numbers converted to mileage-based numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_81_in_New_York#Exit_list. No updates on the Interstate 481/future Interstate 81 or the Interstate/NY 690 pages.

I was going to update the I-690 page with the exit numbers shown on the viaduct plans but I can't ever figure out how to mess with tables in Wikipedia so I decided to just skip the effort.

If Region 3 really wanted to all in on their renumbering, the NY 5 bypass would be getting exit numbers as well. They'd be fun because the exit numbers would be in the 220s

[SignBridge]

That was just done due to signs needing to be replaced.

People who attended the Oil City meet got the full rundown on this.

Aren't the signs on I-81 in Region 3 fairly new?  Same for I-690.

Mostly.

Some signs are new, some are not. Like on I-81 near Exit 29N (Now Exit 98B)

Re: the sign for exit 28: Why does Region 3 (and whatever region Westchester County is in) put the road name in all uppercase lettering in a box? Region 10 on Long Island has never done that and puts the road name in the same mixed case lettering as the destination name which I think looks far better than the boxed road name.

[vdeane]

Wikipedia's Interstate 81 in New York page already has some of the old sequential numbers converted to mileage-based numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_81_in_New_York#Exit_list. No updates on the Interstate 481/future Interstate 81 or the Interstate/NY 690 pages.

Citation needed.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/2024_06_14%20Region%203%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Number%20Conversions%20I81_I690_State%20RT%20481.pdf is dead.

The link on the press release works.  I wonder when they slipped that in.  Interesting that @Rothman mentioned the I-81 numbers earlier... I think the I-690 ones are more questionable.

A few comments (which I might email to Region 3 once I can find a good way to do so).

I-81:
-There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

I-690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for D265136, which follow the mileposts.
-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.
-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

(personal opinion)

Re: the sign for exit 28: Why does Region 3 (and whatever region Westchester County is in) put the road name in all uppercase lettering in a box? Region 10 on Long Island has never done that and puts the road name in the same mixed case lettering as the destination name which I think looks far better than the boxed road name.

It was an option in the NYS MUTCD to treat street names like route numbers, I presume to make them easier to differentiate from control cities.  Region 3 used them occasionally, Region 8 more, and Region 2 all the time.

[snowc]

Wikipedia's Interstate 81 in New York page already has some of the old sequential numbers converted to mileage-based numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_81_in_New_York#Exit_list. No updates on the Interstate 481/future Interstate 81 or the Interstate/NY 690 pages.

Citation needed.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/2024_06_14%20Region%203%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Number%20Conversions%20I81_I690_State%20RT%20481.pdf is dead.

The link on the press release works.  I wonder when they slipped that in.  Interesting that @Rothman mentioned the I-81 numbers earlier... I think the I-690 ones are more questionable.

A few comments (which I might email to Region 3 once I can find a good way to do so).

I-81:
-There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

I-690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for D265136, which follow the mileposts.
-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.
-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

(personal opinion)

Re: the sign for exit 28: Why does Region 3 (and whatever region Westchester County is in) put the road name in all uppercase lettering in a box? Region 10 on Long Island has never done that and puts the road name in the same mixed case lettering as the destination name which I think looks far better than the boxed road name.

It was an option in the NYS MUTCD to treat street names like route numbers, I presume to make them easier to differentiate from control cities.  Region 3 used them occasionally, Region 8 more, and Region 2 all the time.

Now it says An error occurred while processing the request. Try refreshing your browser. If the problem persists contact the site administrator

[snowc]

Wikipedia's Interstate 81 in New York page already has some of the old sequential numbers converted to mileage-based numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_81_in_New_York#Exit_list. No updates on the Interstate 481/future Interstate 81 or the Interstate/NY 690 pages.

Citation needed.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/2024_06_14%20Region%203%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Number%20Conversions%20I81_I690_State%20RT%20481.pdf is dead.

The link on the press release works.  I wonder when they slipped that in.  Interesting that @Rothman mentioned the I-81 numbers earlier... I think the I-690 ones are more questionable.

A few comments (which I might email to Region 3 once I can find a good way to do so).

I-81:
-There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

I-690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for D265136, which follow the mileposts.
-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.
-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

(personal opinion)

Re: the sign for exit 28: Why does Region 3 (and whatever region Westchester County is in) put the road name in all uppercase lettering in a box? Region 10 on Long Island has never done that and puts the road name in the same mixed case lettering as the destination name which I think looks far better than the boxed road name.

It was an option in the NYS MUTCD to treat street names like route numbers, I presume to make them easier to differentiate from control cities.  Region 3 used them occasionally, Region 8 more, and Region 2 all the time.

Now it says An error occurred while processing the request. Try refreshing your browser. If the problem persists contact the site administrator

Now it works.

[vdeane]

I-81 near Exit 29N (Now Exit 98B)

Did they actually post that?  As I understand it, I-81 exits 16A-29, I-690 from exit 9 east, and all of I-481 were being handled by the I-81/I-481 projects.  Since the completion of the upgrades to I-481 and resulting designation swap aren't until next year, I expect these numbers will be waiting until then to be changed (meanwhile, the I-690 numbers will likely wait even longer).

[SignBridge]

Wikipedia's Interstate 81 in New York page already has some of the old sequential numbers converted to mileage-based numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_81_in_New_York#Exit_list. No updates on the Interstate 481/future Interstate 81 or the Interstate/NY 690 pages.

Citation needed.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/2024_06_14%20Region%203%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Number%20Conversions%20I81_I690_State%20RT%20481.pdf is dead.

The link on the press release works.  I wonder when they slipped that in.  Interesting that @Rothman mentioned the I-81 numbers earlier... I think the I-690 ones are more questionable.

A few comments (which I might email to Region 3 once I can find a good way to do so).

I-81:
-There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

I-690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for D265136, which follow the mileposts.
-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.
-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

(personal opinion)

Re: the sign for exit 28: Why does Region 3 (and whatever region Westchester County is in) put the road name in all uppercase lettering in a box? Region 10 on Long Island has never done that and puts the road name in the same mixed case lettering as the destination name which I think looks far better than the boxed road name.

It was an option in the NYS MUTCD to treat street names like route numbers, I presume to make them easier to differentiate from control cities.  Region 3 used them occasionally, Region 8 more, and Region 2 all the time.

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

[Rothman]

Wikipedia's Interstate 81 in New York page already has some of the old sequential numbers converted to mileage-based numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_81_in_New_York#Exit_list. No updates on the Interstate 481/future Interstate 81 or the Interstate/NY 690 pages.

Citation needed.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/news/repository/2024_06_14%20Region%203%20Mile%20Based%20Exit%20Number%20Conversions%20I81_I690_State%20RT%20481.pdf is dead.

The link on the press release works.  I wonder when they slipped that in.  Interesting that @Rothman mentioned the I-81 numbers earlier... I think the I-690 ones are more questionable.

A few comments (which I might email to Region 3 once I can find a good way to do so).

I-81:
-There doesn't seem to be an exit number listed for I-81 N -> BL 81 N even though there is one for I-81 -> BL 81 S.  I hope this is a table oversight and not an inconsistency.

BL 81:
-5B and 5C NB should be swapped, as the NY 370 ramp comes first.

I-690:
-The mile numbers are inconsistent with the mileposts, which are continuous with NY 690.  They are also inconsistent with the exit numbers listed in the plans for D265136, which follow the mileposts.
-While current exit 6 is a big interchange and the ramps diverge a mile apart, it would be less confusing if exit 4 were used for both directions, which would remove some "alphabet soup" westbound.  Fudging a number by 1 to avoid suffixes is allowed per the current MUTCD.
-Bridge Street should be exit 13 in both directions.  While accessing it EB requires using the collector/distributor lanes, it is as much its own interchange as the US 11/Airport/Taft Road interchanges are on BL 81.  Treating this differently is inconsistent.

NY 481:
-Old exit 11 appears to be inconsistent with the plans for PIN 3806.73/D265142 (although the number listed in the chart appears more accurate).

(personal opinion)

Re: the sign for exit 28: Why does Region 3 (and whatever region Westchester County is in) put the road name in all uppercase lettering in a box? Region 10 on Long Island has never done that and puts the road name in the same mixed case lettering as the destination name which I think looks far better than the boxed road name.

It was an option in the NYS MUTCD to treat street names like route numbers, I presume to make them easier to differentiate from control cities.  Region 3 used them occasionally, Region 8 more, and Region 2 all the time.

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I sort of like it.

[Jim]

It was an option in the NYS MUTCD to treat street names like route numbers, I presume to make them easier to differentiate from control cities.  Region 3 used them occasionally, Region 8 more, and Region 2 all the time.

My assumption has been that that style is supposed to look like a street sign blade.  I like how it conveys the additional information very quickly and clearly that you're looking at a street name not a place name (though, yes, it's almost always obvious from the name anyway).

[TheDon102]

I found this recent article regarding the Nassau Expressway from a nassau county legislator.

Why hasn't the state ever finished this roadway? The ROW is there, and there seems to be a need for it.

[vdeane]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

[SignBridge]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

[PColumbus73]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

I've thought that it's good to have both the road name and nearest town (if there is one nearby) on exit signage. If I'm taking an exit in an unfamiliar area, for a detour or to find something, I would like to know what road I'm getting on and where does that road go.

[roadman65]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

I've thought that it's good to have both the road name and nearest town (if there is one nearby) on exit signage. If I'm taking an exit in an unfamiliar area, for a detour or to find something, I would like to know what road I'm getting on and where does that road go.

I grew up in NJ where both road name and municipality were used everywhere. 

I think that's handy to a driver. The MUTCD can take a leap.

[The Ghostbuster]

Wikipedia has been updated to include all the new exit numbers on the Interstate 81, Interstate 481/future Interstate 81, and Interstate/NY 690 pages. It appears NY 690 will have exit numbers, and Interstate 690's will be a continuation of NY 690's exit numbers.

[Rothman]

Wikipedia has been updated to include all the new exit numbers on the Interstate 81, Interstate 481/future Interstate 81, and Interstate/NY 690 pages. It appears NY 690 will have exit numbers, and Interstate 690's will be a continuation of NY 690's exit numbers.

Oof.  Wouldn't have done that until it's signed.

[vdeane]

Wikipedia has been updated to include all the new exit numbers on the Interstate 81, Interstate 481/future Interstate 81, and Interstate/NY 690 pages. It appears NY 690 will have exit numbers, and Interstate 690's will be a continuation of NY 690's exit numbers.

Oof.  Wouldn't have done that until it's signed.

Agreed.  Especially since Wikipedia doesn't agree with what NYSDOT uploaded.  And since many of the numbers won't switch until next year or later.  Makes me wonder where they got the information from.

[SignBridge]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

I've thought that it's good to have both the road name and nearest town (if there is one nearby) on exit signage. If I'm taking an exit in an unfamiliar area, for a detour or to find something, I would like to know what road I'm getting on and where does that road go.

I grew up in NJ where both road name and municipality were used everywhere. 

I think that's handy to a driver. The MUTCD can take a leap.

Right, but no longer the case in New Jersey, at least not on roads run by the Turnpike Authority. Since they converted parts of the Turnpike and most of the G.S. Parkway to MUTCD compliant signs, now many exits on the Parkway are posted only with town names, not road names. The NJTA is following the Manual to the letter, whether it makes good sense or not.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

The new MUTCD is super sloppy. I was puzzling over the new guidance on lane reduction signs/markings for a few minutes before realizing that the figures don't agree with each other and it's all nonsense. And they also jumped the gun posting the new MUTCD without an updated SHS so there are new signs that we are supposed to be using with no design details yet.

[SignBridge]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

The new MUTCD is super sloppy. I was puzzling over the new guidance on lane reduction signs/markings for a few minutes before realizing that the figures don't agree with each other and it's all nonsense. And they also jumped the gun posting the new MUTCD without an updated SHS so there are new signs that we are supposed to be using with no design details yet.

Actually the examples I mentioned of the MUTCD showing signs with both road name and town name appeared in the 2009 Manual as well. There is a lot of new material in the 2023 Manual and it's practically gotten to a point that the whole Manual is too big and complex compared to the older editions.

[roadman65]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

I've thought that it's good to have both the road name and nearest town (if there is one nearby) on exit signage. If I'm taking an exit in an unfamiliar area, for a detour or to find something, I would like to know what road I'm getting on and where does that road go.

I grew up in NJ where both road name and municipality were used everywhere. 

I think that's handy to a driver. The MUTCD can take a leap.

Right, but no longer the case in New Jersey, at least not on roads run by the Turnpike Authority. Since they converted parts of the Turnpike and most of the G.S. Parkway to MUTCD compliant signs, now many exits on the Parkway are posted only with town names, not road names. The NJTA is following the Manual to the letter, whether it makes good sense or not.

Not at Exit 3. They spell out the ACE and nixed off Philly and Woodbury to do so.

[SignBridge]

Well vdeane, I for one, never had difficulty differentiating a road name from a city name even when both were printed in the same mixed case lettering. I really can't understand NYS DOT thinking they need to do this in some regions.

I haven't either, but the MUTCD (federal) discourages it, so this isn't just a NY thing (if that's even the reason for the boxed street names at all).

True vdeane, and I have long disagreed with that policy in the Federal Manual and obviously so does NYS DOT to their credit. What's ironic about the Federal MUTCD is although they discourage the practice on page 301 of the new 2023 Manual (Sec.2E-15-01), on page 358 (Fig.2E-45) they actually show graphics of signs with street name and town name (LOL) the same design that they discourage. Seems like the left hand doesn't coordinate with the right hand at the FHWA. What a joke !

I've thought that it's good to have both the road name and nearest town (if there is one nearby) on exit signage. If I'm taking an exit in an unfamiliar area, for a detour or to find something, I would like to know what road I'm getting on and where does that road go.

I grew up in NJ where both road name and municipality were used everywhere. 

I think that's handy to a driver. The MUTCD can take a leap.

Right, but no longer the case in New Jersey, at least not on roads run by the Turnpike Authority. Since they converted parts of the Turnpike and most of the G.S. Parkway to MUTCD compliant signs, now many exits on the Parkway are posted only with town names, not road names. The NJTA is following the Manual to the letter, whether it makes good sense or not.

Not at Exit 3. They spell out the ACE and nixed off Philly and Woodbury to do so.

NJ Turnpike, Exit 3 ? Although it was updated to the brighter green color, that's still the old style NJTA signing, NOT MUTCD compliant.  (My apologies for being off-topic here on the New York board.)

[roadman65]

New Jersey still uses mixed street names and control cities. Only the NJTA has changed to MUTCD ways.

All except Exit 159 on the Garden State Parkway that has new guides but still lists the GWB over New York.  It's very odd considering that Exit 153 dropped the Lincoln Tunnel for Secaucus at the same time.  For some reason for I-80 the NJTA didn't want to drop the use of a crossing for a city ( or town) at Exit 159.