Major Deegan Expressway rehabilitation

[J N Winkler]

NYSDOT has given the roadgeek community an early New Year's present:

https://www.dot.ny.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.BC_CONST_DIGITAL_DOCS.show?p_arg_names=p_d_id&p_arg_values=D262391

The rehabilitation contract (D262391) itself includes full sign replacement with pattern-accurate sign layout sheets and sign summary sheets (in the plans set) as well as separate pattern-accurate signface layout PDFs for both temporary and permanent signs.  But the supplemental documents are also of interest:

*  MDE 54-1:  This includes the original (1954) expressway signing.  It is a horror show by modern standards--8" Series C (all-uppercase, of course) for primary destination legend, multiple downward-pointing arrows racked next to each other rather than centered over lanes, etc.--but the plans do show that exit numbering was in use (vitreous enamel plaque, square, 1 1/2" word "EXIT" above 8" exit number, all in Series C).

*  D257548:  These are the construction plans for a sign rehabilitation carried out in 1997.  The sign layout sheets do not show sign sketches but the sign summary sheets are pattern-accurate since NYSDOT had just started using GuidSIGN.

There are also a number of expansion and rehabilitation as-builts from the 1960's through the 1980's, with sign sketches (not pattern-accurate).

[Zeffy]

I'm thoroughly confused on why on the signs for EXITS 7 N-S 'Trenton' is listed as a control city. Yes, US 1 runs through the city, but that far north? I would honestly have chosen either 'Newark', 'Jersey City', or 'Elizabeth' rather than go all the way through the state to Trenton. One sign for Exit 7 S shows

[95] SOUTH [1] SOUTH
  G WASHINGTON BR
     TRENTON
        ↓


where once again, Trenton is extremely far down US 1 from this point. And to that effect, Newark and Jersey City are both bigger cities in terms of population compared to Trenton, so why they used Trenton and not JC / Newark is just puzzling.

[J N Winkler]

Zeffy--the sign you are talking about comes from D257548 (the 1997 sign replacement job), not D262391 (the currently proposed work).  I am not sure if that sign will be left in place when the current job is finished.  It is not marked up as a removal, so if it is still there, it likely won't be disturbed.

The signing for Exits 7N-S that is being replaced in kind (including the stippled-arrow diagrammatic) seems to be designed to reference I-95 control cities since I-95 is the more important route.  They are Trenton on the one hand (66 miles away) and New Haven (80 miles away) on the other.  I wouldn't quibble with either choice, though I am sure there are some believers in an implied minimum spacing between control cities who would argue that Washington and Boston are better choices.

[Zeffy]

The signing for Exits 7N-S that is being replaced in kind (including the stippled-arrow diagrammatic) seems to be designed to reference I-95 control cities since I-95 is the more important route.  They are Trenton on the one hand (66 miles away) and New Haven (80 miles away) on the other.  I wouldn't quibble with either choice, though I am sure there are some believers in an implied minimum spacing between control cities who would argue that Washington and Boston are better choices.

If they are referencing I-95 control cities, then I would honestly choose Philadelphia instead of Trenton, since both portions of I-95 (Trenton and NJTP) do not go into the city itself, where one forms a partial beltway around Trenton and one just bypasses it completely to the east.

I don't have a problem with how far away the destinations are - it's if a destination is used in lieu of one that may be a better choice - for example, if you had a "minor" city with sub 100k population, and a "major" city with a population of 250k, which one would you choose to sign? This isn't me hating on Trenton by any means, it's just that I wonder how much of that 95 traffic is actually going to end up using Trenton (which involves jumping from freeway to freeway) whereas another city, such as Newark has prominent venues for entertainment and enjoyment.

Of course, if the sign isn't actually going to be replaced and is just standing there, then I'm not going to argue that NYSDOT should amend the sign - I'm just saying for future signing projects, it's something to consider.

[KEVIN_224]

@ ZEFFY: You also have signs along I-278 EAST (Bruckner Expressway) that say "NEW HAVEN CT", even though that's done once I-278 EAST merges with I-95 NORTH.

As for the southbound control city of Trenton, maybe "NJ TURNPIKE" would've been better?

[Duke87]

Given the numerous number of directions one can head in once across the bridge I would just stick with "New Jersey" as the southbound control point (if "George Washington Bridge" is not itself sufficient).

[NJRoadfan]

Newer signs on the Cross Bronx use Newark instead of Trenton for I-95 south's control city. NJ is kind of a black hole with control cites on I-95 considering that it was never finished and the fact that until very recently the NJ Turnpike Authority wasn't all that keen on using control cities.

[KEVIN_224]

Here in greater Hartford, the control city on I-84 EAST, once you reach the Hartford city limits, reads "Boston". It happens by MM 60, by Exit 46 for Sisson Avenue. Of course, anybody in New England will tell you that I-84 ends in Sturbridge, MA, which is over 50 miles west of Boston. There's also about 44 miles of I-84 left once at the Sisson Avenue exit, before one reaches the Massachusetts Turnpike. Getting closer to the topic at hand, about the only city I-84 would pass through on the way from that point would be Manchester? "MANCHESTER/STURBRIDGE", although correct, would look awkward and may not help the long distance traveler.

Getting back on topic...I'm trying to remember what the signs at the I-95/US 1 exit said 10 years ago.

[Zeffy]

Given the numerous number of directions one can head in once across the bridge I would just stick with "New Jersey" as the southbound control point (if "George Washington Bridge" is not itself sufficient).

That's how they do it on I-278 WB heading back into New Jersey...

[shadyjay]

I would prefer to see New England/New Jersey as control cities for 95 coming off the Deegan.   From what others have mentioned, the use of states as control cities is no longer permitted.   Newer signs on I-95 in NYC show Newark as the new SB control city.   This goes on par with similar signage in NJ on 95 at the 95-80 split. 

[Steve D]

NYSDOT has given the roadgeek community an early New Year's present:

*  MDE 54-1:  This includes the original (1954) expressway signing.  It is a horror show by modern standards--8" Series C (all-uppercase, of course) for primary destination legend, multiple downward-pointing arrows racked next to each other rather than centered over lanes, etc.--but the plans do show that exit numbering was in use (vitreous enamel plaque, square, 1 1/2" word "EXIT" above 8" exit number, all in Series C).

* 

Wow...signs for the Polo Grounds!

[NE2]

Exit numbers, northbound:
*3 149th Street (now 4)
*4 Yankee Stadium (now 5)
*5 Jerome Avenue (now also 5) - I'm not sure about this; the only sign for it is just after crossing 150th Street, as an advance sign for the Yankee Stadium exit
southbound:
*20 Jerome Avenue (now 5)
*21 138th Street (now 3)

Also of note: MDE 49-1 shows an early plan for the Deeg alignment around Van Cortlandt Park (also appears on 1949 Hagstrom). MDE 50-2 and on show the eventual alignment but with a few interchanges different (pretty sure I saw a better quality map of this once but I don't know where). Based on this, other exits were as follows (there seem to be too few for the exit numbers):

*Willis Avenue (now 2)
*138th Street (now 3)
*3-5 above
*167th Street
*179th Street (now 8)
*Fordham Road (now 9)
*230th Street (now 10)
*Van Cortlandt Park South (now 11)
*Mosholu Parkway (now 12)
*233rd Street (now 13)
*merge into Jerome Avenue

*Van Cortlandt Park South (now 11)
*230th Street (now 10)
*Fordham Road (now 9)
*20-21 above
*Willis Avenue (now 2)
*Bruckner Boulevard (now 1, sort of)