New Jersey

[SignBridge]

Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.

For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.

I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way. 

[roadman65]

Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.

For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.

I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way. 

You mean this https://goo.gl/maps/6J3FaWX1TrXj9rTL9

I'm not sure why, but at least they acknowledge now, I-95 that wasnt done before.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/MX5G1eaQQ7TfH9a2A
This one still shows Kearny only.

https://goo.gl/maps/iDNQKzHu3GF4nZYx6
This one shows both with all the Essex County communities with Orange in the name.

[SignBridge]

Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.

For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.

I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way. 

You mean this https://goo.gl/maps/6J3FaWX1TrXj9rTL9

I'm not sure why, but at least they acknowledge now, I-95 that wasnt done before.

Yup, that's the location. While it is good that they finally posted I-95, I'm more concerned with drivers being forced into an exit they didn't mean to take because of NJDOT's not properly signing the lane-drop in advance of the exit.

[roadman65]

Of course. The 1 mile guide says nothing. It looks like an ordinary diverge from there.

I-78 at I-287 in Bedminster used to do that until they added KEEP LEFT to the pull through, which still doesn't warn of a lane drop as the right lane defaults to Exit 29 and the freeway drops to two lanes between the off and on ramps there.

[SignBridge]

At least on I-78 in Bedminster, the final overhead sign at the split has the yellow Exit Only panel that the whole series of signs should have. And yes, the Keep Left on the pull-thru signs helps. In Kearny on I-280, they didn't even do that much.

I wonder what NJDOT's reasoning is for not following the format in the Federal Manual. I'd expect this in Massachusetts, but not in New Jersey.

[roadman65]

NJ used to do that on US 1-9 in Elizabeth before they rebuilt the Elizabeth River Viaduct. The right lane used to default onto Elizabeth Avenue with no Right Lane Exit Only Signs or even guide signs for the ramp. You would see two flashing lights at the split as you’re only wake up to the right lane defaulting to a ramp.

Oh yes and Woodbridge on US 9 NB at the NJ Turnpike / Garden State Parkway NB left exit. There the left lane of US 9 defaults into the Parkway c/d roadway with no guides overhead or ground mounts with EXIT  ONLY warnings. You get rinky dink shields at the exit, but since 1972 when NJDOT built the current dual US 9/ Parkway carriage ways, no overheads were ever added there. Just a gore Parkway and Turnpike Entrance Sign. Now replaced with substandard signs. In fact a APL would work well here being the second to left lane is for both exit and straight through Route 9.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/Euy8AkZq3UcPooZ87
I see the original Garden State Parkway Bridge that once carried its NB carriage way over US 9 ( later converted to Exit 127) is being replaced.

Sadly I can't find anything on the NJTA website about the project.

Considering the bridge opened with the Driscoll Bridge in 1954, it's about lived more than its service life.

[Alps]

Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.

For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.

I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way. 

I get the feeling it was a straight replacement of the original 1970-ish signs (the ones that survived into this decade in a couple of spots at the interchange).

[SignBridge]

Speaking of I-280, has anyone ever noticed the terrible signing of the lane-drop eastbound at Exit-17A (CR 508 East) in Kearny? The MUTCD has a very specific sign format for lane-drops, where the right or left lane of a multi-lane freeway ends by "dropping" into the exit.

For unknown reasons NJDOT chose not to apply the lane-drop sign configuration here. The two signs prior to the split show it as a regular exit. But then at the split the right thru lane drops into the exit along with the deceleration lane and is only signed as such, on the overhead gantry at the split, not before. So a driver in what he thinks is the right thru lane either has to take the exit or suddenly swerve left to the next lane at the last minute at the split, a potentially dangerous move.

I've been puzzled for years as to why NJDOT set up the signing this way. 

I get the feeling it was a straight replacement of the original 1970-ish signs (the ones that survived into this decade in a couple of spots at the interchange).

Well the time line is actually a little later. That road was under construction thru Harrison in 1977 and probably opened around 1979-80 so the 1971 MUTCD would have been in effect.  But anyway, when they replaced the signs someone should have caught that deficiency and instead of doing a one-for-one replacement, the new signs should have been designed as per the newer standards for improved guidance and safety.

[roadman65]

I'm not making any excuses but I believe engineers thought that the exit is more of an equal split than a specific exit.  Remember a lot of folks exit here than go for the Turnpike as commuters to Lower Manhattan do utilize this freeway and exit.

[SignBridge]

Well then they should have signed it that way. The engineers who did the original signing should have made sure to indicate that traffic going thru to the NJ Turnpike has to be in the two left lanes. They could solve the problem now with one overhead sign around the beginning of the deceleration lane with a message to that affect. It's unsafe the way they signed it because it can cause a sudden last minute lane change.

[roadman65]

Oh I'm not agreeing with the poor signage at all. There should be better guides to promote an equal split if that is what they were going for.

[02 Park Ave]

Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?

Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80.  There is none at Exit 62.

[Rothman]

Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?

Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80.  There is none at Exit 62.

From where to where is inconvenienced without that connection?

[Alps]

Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?

Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80.  There is none at Exit 62.

I don't disagree with you, but it's probably up to the Turnpike Authority to speak up and ask for it to be signed. (And I don't think it's signed to I-80 West from GSP North)

[roadman65]

Most people from I-80 East to the GSP South use I-280 at Exit 47A, so many don't make it that far to be considered an issue.

Although Exit 62 should state that it's for GSP north only, as no direct ramps to the SB GSP going EB. That said, you can, though, access the SB Parkway via the streets of Saddle Brook, but with NJ 19 being a more direct connection, it should be altered to show this.

[NJRoadfan]

NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7

Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.

Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.

[Dough4872]

NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7

Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.

Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.

There are other places in New Jersey where the Garden State Parkway is signed with control cities. The NJ 70 interchange with the parkway has Woodbridge and Toms River as control cities.

[roadman65]

NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7

Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.

Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.

There are other places in New Jersey where the Garden State Parkway is signed with control cities. The NJ 70 interchange with the parkway has Woodbridge and Toms River as control cities.

I wonder how they’re going to sign the u turn for US 22 West now that it’s been eliminated after the NJ 82 EB exit?  Are they going to sign NJ 82 EB for both NJ 82 directions and for US 22 west using the Lowe’s Jughandle as a means to turn left onto NJ 82 WB being the present ramp is a right out?

It’s needed being the NB GSP lacks a connection to US 22 WB and relied solely on that u turn ramp to complete that movement.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/qdPUHNPi3Z1ajWLV6
I love how NJ DOT is inconsistent with the control cities here. Being the NJTA uses Metuchen and Perth Amboy for Exit 10 on the NJ Turnpike. This here is the ramp leading from Exit 10 to its distributed freeways. Yet no mention of either control points that were primary for the ramp.

[plain]

It appears the ramp is still under NJTA control (judging by the long dashes and those particular streetlights), I'm surprised NJDOT installed gantries there in the first place.

[roadman65]

It appears the ramp is still under NJTA control (judging by the long dashes and those particular streetlights), I'm surprised NJDOT installed gantries there in the first place.

That ramp always had NJTA signs. Only the split where the ramps depart for the two freeways had NJDOT old style triangular gantries.  Don't know why NJTA let them replace their signs and not inspect them to see that the control cities match.

[Alps]

NJDOT appears to finally using control cities for the GSP vs. "G. S. Parkway". This name sign was finally installed recently: https://goo.gl/maps/k86GHnpMvqpsZywZ7

Odd that they put I-95/NJTP on the US-22 East signs.

Not much more to report in that area as the rest of the signing is still not finished. The button copy on the eastbound approach appears to be still hanging on, but not for much longer. RIP 1950s concrete pavement in the area though.

I was slightly involved with sign design. But not enough to know where the I-95/NJTP shields came from.

[02 Park Ave]

Why isn't the Garden State Parkway shown on the exit sign for Exit 57A on the eastbound I-80?

Route 19 is the only direct connection to the southbound Parkway from the eastbound I-80.  There is none at Exit 62.

I don't disagree with you, but it's probably up to the Turnpike Authority to speak up and ask for it to be signed. (And I don't think it's signed to I-80 West from GSP North)

I verified yesterday morning that Route 19 to I-80 West appears on three signs approaching and at the exit.

There should be reciprocal signage on I-80 eastbound.