New Jersey Turnpike

[akotchi]

Modernizing signs or tolling doesn't magically create a need for I‑695. It just updates the hardware. The underlying user experience -- choose your spur by destination, not by number-- remains the same.

So how would you do mile-based exit numbers on there, especially if you followed the MUTCD requirements to follow I-95?  And how do you deal with GPS systems that navigate by route numbers over control cities?

That is the problem -- NJ I-95 would have milepost 0 where the PA Turnpike Extension crosses the Delaware River. Whereas NJTP milepost zero is where it starts a few miles north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. North of Exit 6 the two numbering systems would not match.

I-695 presumably would have its own milepost system zero to 10, and the NJ-3 exit would be based on that system.

An interesting quirk with I-95 mileage:  The total I-95 distance on the Pearl Harbor Memorial Extension, from the Connector Bridge to the merge with the mainline Turnpike northbound is about 6.3 miles (based on measurement).  Added to the 43.4 total miles in PA, this totals 50.9 miles.  The nearest mainline reference marker to the merge is 51.7.  Continuing exit numbers from Pennsylvania into New Jersey would blend into the Turnpike mile-based exit numbers, with a little fudging.  The U.S. 130 interchange would be 46 or 47.  Would not go too well with mileposts in the P3.0 range, but nothing would be perfect in this situation.

[vdeane]

Modernizing signs or tolling doesn't magically create a need for I‑695. It just updates the hardware. The underlying user experience -- choose your spur by destination, not by number-- remains the same.

So how would you do mile-based exit numbers on there, especially if you followed the MUTCD requirements to follow I-95?  And how do you deal with GPS systems that navigate by route numbers over control cities?

That is the problem -- NJ I-95 would have milepost 0 where the PA Turnpike Extension crosses the Delaware River. Whereas NJTP milepost zero is where it starts a few miles north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. North of Exit 6 the two numbering systems would not match.

I-695 presumably would have its own milepost system zero to 10, and the NJ-3 exit would be based on that system.

An interesting quirk with I-95 mileage:  The total I-95 distance on the Pearl Harbor Memorial Extension, from the Connector Bridge to the merge with the mainline Turnpike northbound is about 6.3 miles (based on measurement).  Added to the 43.4 total miles in PA, this totals 50.9 miles.  The nearest mainline reference marker to the merge is 51.7.  Continuing exit numbers from Pennsylvania into New Jersey would blend into the Turnpike mile-based exit numbers, with a little fudging.  The U.S. 130 interchange would be 46 or 47.  Would not go too well with mileposts in the P3.0 range, but nothing would be perfect in this situation.

Replace with mileage matching the exit sequence but keep the P prefix to differentiate from the Turnpike mainline?  I wonder if I-695 could be done similar, making it a number that aids GPS navigation and travelers unfamiliar with the Turnpike split without number jumps if you're following the Turnpike via the eastern alignment.

[Beltway]

An interesting quirk with I-95 mileage:  The total I-95 distance on the Pearl Harbor Memorial Extension, from the Connector Bridge to the merge with the mainline Turnpike northbound is about 6.3 miles (based on measurement).  Added to the 43.4 total miles in PA, this totals 50.9 miles.  The nearest mainline reference marker to the merge is 51.7.  Continuing exit numbers from Pennsylvania into New Jersey would blend into the Turnpike mile-based exit numbers, with a little fudging.  The U.S. 130 interchange would be 46 or 47.  Would not go too well with mileposts in the P3.0 range, but nothing would be perfect in this situation.

Normally Interstate highway milesposts are supposed to reset at a state border, but not always.

The I-495 Capital Beltway has milepost zero at the southern Potomac River crossing, looping thru Maryland to the northern Potomac River crossing which is MP 42, around thru Virginia to MP 57 at I-95/I-395.

The remaining 7 miles carries the I-95 milepost numbering from 171 to the southern Potomac River crossing.

The highway had two different exit numbering schemes before that above was settled on in 1992 -- using milepost numbering for exits.

http://www.capital-beltway.com/Capital-Beltway-History.html#Exit-Numbering

[roadman65]

I-255 in Illinois and Missouri has one scheme.  IDOT uses Missouri's zero point to continue the numbering.

I-405 in OR- WA uses one scene across the Columbia River.

[Beltway]

Makes sense on supplementary (3di) loop/bypass routes that cross state lines.

Wonder if there are any mainline (2di) examples.

[zzcarp]

Makes sense on supplementary (3di) loop/bypass routes that cross state lines.

Wonder if there are any mainline (2di) examples.

The eastern I-86 starts its sequential numbering sequence at I-90 in Pennsylvania and continues it into New York (and even through its brief dip back into Pennsylvania near South Waverly). It was like that even when it was just solo PA 17/NY 17 as well.

I-24 continues its Tennessee exit numbers when it makes its dip into Georgia west of Chattanooga.

[roadman65]

Makes sense on supplementary (3di) loop/bypass routes that cross state lines.

Wonder if there are any mainline (2di) examples.

That's why Massachusetts should continue Rhode Island mileage and exits on I-295, but they restart even with only one or two exits in Mass and very short mileage.

[jeffandnicole]

Makes sense on supplementary (3di) loop/bypass routes that cross state lines.

Wonder if there are any mainline (2di) examples.

Can probably include Exit 354 on I-76 coming into NJ, which should be Exit 2 if it used NJ's exit numbering.

[bob7374]

Makes sense on supplementary (3di) loop/bypass routes that cross state lines.

Wonder if there are any mainline (2di) examples.

That's why Massachusetts should continue Rhode Island mileage and exits on I-295, but they restart even with only one or two exits in Mass and very short mileage.

I contacted MassDOT about this when they were soliciting opinions on the state's exit renumbering project in 2020. The response was that they thought starting the exit numbers at the state line was helpful for drivers as a signal that they had crossed the state border (apparently large welcome signs are not enough) and so they would not continue RI's numbers on either I-295 or I-195.

[ilpt4u]

I-255 in Illinois and Missouri has one scheme.  IDOT uses Missouri's zero point to continue the numbering.

Conversely, I-270 (the rest of the St Louis Beltway) has independent mileage & exit numbers in Missouri and Illinois

270-IL's zero point is the state line on the Chain of Rocks Bridge

270-MO's zero point is where it meets/becomes 255 and also meets 55

[Rothman]

Isn't this the NJ Turnpike thread?

[vdeane]

Isn't this the NJ Turnpike thread?

Isn't it amazing how quickly any thread can turn into a list thread?

[Beltway]

Isn't this the NJ Turnpike thread?

. . . and questions about possible redesignation of NJTP route numbers, mileposts, and exit numbers.

Precedents if any.

[Rothman]

Isn't this the NJ Turnpike thread?

. . . and questions about possible redesignation of NJTP route numbers, mileposts, and exit numbers.

Precedents if any.

Off-topic if not.  Could be split off into its own thread.

[Beltway]

Isn't this the NJ Turnpike thread?

. . . and questions about possible redesignation of NJTP route numbers, mileposts, and exit numbers.
Precedents if any.

Off-topic if not.  Could be split off into its own thread.

I don't think the bi‑state examples were off‑topic. They were brought in specifically as precedents for how numbering and redesignation have been handled elsewhere, which is directly relevant to the NJTP discussion. When we're talking about possible renumbering, milepost changes, or how NJTA might approach a redesignation, looking at how other multi‑state corridors have done it (I‑495 VA/MD, I‑255 MO/IL, I‑295 RI/MA, etc.) seems well within the scope of this thread. Nothing had drifted into unrelated territory; it was all still tied back to how the Turnpike might handle its own numbering.

[roadman65]

Someone posted an article on FB about the Delaware Memorial Bridge going cash less, which we expected.  However, some user pointed out that Exit 1 on the Turnpike already is cash less.

I haven't heard anything other than the ACE in NJ going cash less.  So im guessing the user comment was wrong.

The entire 118 miles is still accepting cash then?

[jeffandnicole]

Someone posted an article on FB about the Delaware Memorial Bridge going cash less, which we expected.  However, some user pointed out that Exit 1 on the Turnpike already is cash less.

I haven't heard anything other than the ACE in NJ going cash less.  So im guessing the user comment was wrong.

The entire 118 miles is still accepting cash then?

Some user was incorrect. Maybe they confused the express toll lanes at Interchange 1 as being cashless.  The interchange still takes cash. 

[roadman65]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/55098445202/in/photostream/

A classic NJ Turnpike guide that is still in use along US 40 Westbound.  Not many left of the original signage for the toll road.

To me I find it neat that the shield extends beyond the borders of the guide.

[74/171FAN]

Statement by Governor Mikie Sherrill on the Newark Bay Extension

[SignBridge]

A bad idea to only rebuild it as 4 lanes. I can understand that some may have considered the 8 lane proposal to be excessive, but they should compromise and make it 6 lanes. It's very shortsighted to think that in 70 years since the bridge's construction that the need for more capacity hasn't increased. And who knows what the demand will be over the next 50 years. I hope Gov. Sherrill and company come to their senses before it's too late.

[Plutonic Panda]

It should be eight lanes. They need to build for the future.

[SignBridge]

The only upside of the 4 lane plan is that in 10 years, when New Jersey realizes their mistake, they can still build another 4 lane bridge parallel to the one being built now to increase capacity to 8 lanes. But the price tag will be much higher.

[storm2k]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/55098445202/in/photostream/

A classic NJ Turnpike guide that is still in use along US 40 Westbound.  Not many left of the original signage for the toll road.

To me I find it neat that the shield extends beyond the borders of the guide.

I'm pretty sure the shield is a replacement and they spec'd it just a tiny bit too big.

[roadman65]

I was reading a pop up on FB where a NJ politician is trying to get an interchange between Route 42 and the Turnpike.  His argument is that you have the sixth largest US city and one of the busiest toll roads in the nation only 3 miles apart ( as the NJTA and Rt 42 crossing and the Walt Witman Bridge are that as the crow flies) and no direction connection.  People have to mix with local traffic on NJ 168 and it has enough motorists as is.


I dont think the Turnpike Authority would even consider adding it to the 1-4 plan as its as promising as Route 55 to be completed.  You have too much development as well as Big Timber Creek Wetlands as well as the Route 55 interchange and the new I-295 direct connection being right up to the grade separation of the two freeways to prevent another interchange.

[Roadgeek Adam]

The wetlands are enough alone to sink a plan of any interchange (no pun intended). However, both sides of 42 have 4-F issues with parks being in the way. The 42 north bound interchange to 295 south and Beningo Boulevard and the 42 interchange to 55 are far too close to produce a safe result. (I don't mind building an interchange within a mile, but this is too close.) Not to mention, interchange 3 is literally right there with a connection to 295 and 42.