New Jersey

[roadman65]

I was noticing that NJ does have somewhat of a grid with 500 series routes.  With the exception of CR 505 and CR 571, you do have a pattern.

Look at Bergen from the Hudson westward. 501, 503, 507, and 509. Then in Passaic County you continue with 511 and 513. Go to Sussex and it's 515, 517, 519, and 521 heading westward.

Then from the NY Border it's 502 going south into 504. Then 506, 508, 510, 512 etc.

It's not perfect, but it has some consistency.

[NJRoadfan]

There is a grid system for 500 series routes. The high numbered ones (570-580) were added to the system later and are out of grid.

[roadman65]

There is a grid system for 500 series routes. The high numbered ones (570-580) were added to the system later and are out of grid.

It also reverses after 521 as above 521 to 537, it increases W to E.

Also 505 is out of place east of 501 and 503.

[Alps]

505 is not out of place. Look north.

[storm2k]

I was noticing that NJ does have somewhat of a grid with 500 series routes.  With the exception of CR 505 and CR 571, you do have a pattern.

Look at Bergen from the Hudson westward. 501, 503, 507, and 509. Then in Passaic County you continue with 511 and 513. Go to Sussex and it's 515, 517, 519, and 521 heading westward.

Then from the NY Border it's 502 going south into 504. Then 506, 508, 510, 512 etc.

It's not perfect, but it has some consistency.

NJ historically treated the 5xx routes as more or less a secondary state highway network. They're county maintained, but it's why they're 5xx and don't change numbers as they cross county lines and why Monnmouth and Bergen Counties have them even though they don't subscribe to the whole 6xx-7xx county route numbering scheme. Hence the grid aspect makes perfect sense. IDK if NJDOT still officially considers them as such, but the network remains.

[roadman65]

I noticed on Eastcoast Roads that a mileage sign was erected on the I-80 Express Lanes as it commences from the I-95 SB Express lanes.

It lists Stroudsburg as the final control rather than the Delaware Water Gap.  It has Paterson listed as 9 miles away and  Stroudsburg is 72 miles out. No other cities like Dover or Netcong, just those two.

I'm wondering if that is a NJTA install or did NJDOT erect it. Evidence would suggest the former as NJDOT loves the Water Gap as its westbound control point. Plus NJDOT usually uses small mileage signs, but this one is a large sign similar to what the NJTA has on other parts of the Turnpike, or at least lately. Originally the Turnpike used single destination mileage sign at 10 mile intervals at the 10th mile with what is now Michigan's abbreviation following the number of miles and didn't erect the few it has until recently.

[akotchi]

I noticed on Eastcoast Roads that a mileage sign was erected on the I-80 Express Lanes as it commences from the I-95 SB Express lanes.

It lists Stroudsburg as the final control rather than the Delaware Water Gap.  It has Paterson listed as 9 miles away and  Stroudsburg is 72 miles out. No other cities like Dover or Netcong, just those two.

I'm wondering if that is a NJTA install or did NJDOT erect it. Evidence would suggest the former as NJDOT loves the Water Gap as its westbound control point. Plus NJDOT usually uses small mileage signs, but this one is a large sign similar to what the NJTA has on other parts of the Turnpike, or at least lately. Originally the Turnpike used single destination mileage sign at 10 mile intervals at the 10th mile with what is now Michigan's abbreviation following the number of miles and didn't erect the few it has until recently.

This is a NJTA install.  The very eastern end of I-80 (generally east of Teaneck Road) is under NJTA jurisdiction.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/XFP52dhsjQ1fMEJp8
I-80 West at the Express Local Split in Parsippany.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/XVRmgcSZsDVwpsWSA
I-280 approaching the same split.


Why does the former state that I-80 Express is solely I-80 with the local lanes signed for I-287 and US 46, but the new signs on I-280 show that I-80 is either express or local?

I would figure that both would be signed exactly the same.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/RKdJhew5YY7KLK5u5
Then just shortly after the Express/ Local split, your directed back to the one carriageway I-80 via a crossover ramp signing.

The I-80 signing is actually the better way. I-280 misleads you into thinking the Express / Local setup is indefinite.

[SignBridge]

I agree with you. It's not really an Express/Local split. I-80 signs it correctly. I can't understand why NJDOT would sign it as Express/Local on I-280 when the supposed local lanes are really the exit to Rts. 280-46.

I can see two possibilities. Either there is an engineering reason for that set-up on I-280 that's not readily apparent to us mere drivers, OR the engineers who spec'd the 280 signs weren't paying attention and made an error of sorts. 

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z9WVYorYzKHYFnqN9
Yet the actual split gets it right.  The " temporary " ( which for NJ means permanently as they don't like to shell out money for replacement gantries) signs do not show and express- local deviation and are uniform with I-80's signage.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/QnpK7BuFwu5Rbqd5A
I see as of some time between this past Spring and last August, the PANYNJ replaced the directional guide for Manhattan Eastside Traffic for this APL for the left NY 9A.

What is interesting is no mention of US 9 exiting from the NY 9A exit. Being this is US 9 proper here, it should get priority over NY 9A. Not to mention no guides for Manhattan Eastside either anymore.

[NJRoadfan]

US-9 hasn't been signed there since the 2002 replacement program. The old signs, at least on the upper level, had a US-9 shield for the W 178th St. exit. The good news is that they seem to be finally correcting the sequential exit numbers they put up in 2002. That ramp is now, for the first time ever, signed as Exit 1A as the pre-2002 signs had no number posted.

[roadman65]

Another bad issue with signs are on SB US 9W, as left turns onto SB I-95 are prohibited, traffic for both I-80 and The NJ Turnpike must use US 46 WB to access either. Sure, that way is no hardship, but NJDOT on the ramp for US 46 copies the NJTA error of signing US 1-9 South TO US 46 and no SB header for I-95 either. It appears that US 1/9/46 all access both directions in that it doesn't. Of course the frontage road that accesses the GWB Lower Level from US 9W at its technical end is missing any I-95 North shields or guides as well.

Signage for routes suck at all the approaches to the GWB. Yes I'm aware that trucks are now prohibited from using the lower level and the ramp from Fletcher to the GWB is lower level only with the further ramp to the upper level having only access during non peak travel from the EB frontage road.

Then the PANYNJ erroneously signs the Hudson Terrace Exit as for US 9W and NJ 67 which neither are aligned on Hudson Terrace nor trailblazing at the end of the ramp for either route.  Plus the Lower Level Fletcher Avenue Exit ( 72-74) is also signed erroneously for Route 67. Most likely cause there is no exit from the Lower Level to Lemoine Avenue and they want you to use Fletcher across the freeway and then EB on the Frontage Street. However, no trailblazing from the end of the Fletcher ramp to follow suit.

[Alps]

Regarding I-80 Express/Local, it's true that at least westbound, there is no reason for this to exist. All through traffic should be Express. Eastbound, it makes a lot more sense because you have access to return to I-80 that way - but then again it only serves a single exit.

Honestly, the whole thing could just as easily be a straight merge/split to a 5-lane section without separate roadways. But what do I know.

[SignBridge]

Regarding I-80 Express/Local, it's true that at least westbound, there is no reason for this to exist. All through traffic should be Express. Eastbound, it makes a lot more sense because you have access to return to I-80 that way - but then again it only serves a single exit.

Honestly, the whole thing could just as easily be a straight merge/split to a 5-lane section without separate roadways. But what do I know.

A five-lane section!!??  Shades of California!

[roadman65]

I-80 between I-287 and I-280 has the same set up, basically, as I-287 between US 202/206 and I-78 in Bridgewater has. It has a dual set up for separation of different traffic needs that appears to be an express local configuration, but is not.

Like Alps said, EB the inner ( through) roadway really only bypasses one exit and has a return at the end.  WB is more of a c/d roadway collecting traffic from US 46 and later Beverwyck Road and distributing traffic to I-287.  Plus they added that crossover at Beverwyck Road for US 46 entry traffic to use and no longer remain on the outer roadway to the end, so it's not at all even close to a local lane at all.

Doing what NJDOT did in South Jersey for I-76, which removed a barrier separating two roadways, wouldn't be a bad idea at all considering it's short in length. Having five lanes for a couple miles isn't a bad thing.

Plus they could eliminate the EB left I-280 exit for a proper right side exit and it would eliminate the weaving between the current end merge and Exit 47B this way as well. Currently to use Exit 47 B, one must contend with merging traffic from that so called local lane roadway.

Update: Not in NJ, but I-405 in LA is what Alps suggested in practice. https://maps.app.goo.gl/dJc1ZH9HFyXgrL4C6

[Mergingtraffic]

A nice new gantry on NJ-440.

[SignBridge]

Too much legend on that new gantry. I would remove the following: The words Outerbridge Crossing from the 440 North sign. And the word Downtown from the middle sign.

[jeffandnicole]

Too much legend on that new gantry. I would remove the following: The words Outerbridge Crossing from the 440 North sign. And the word Downtown from the middle sign.

Doesn't need a pull-thru sign on this gantry.

[SignBridge]

Well J&N, I think a pull-thru is a good idea at this location. Reason being the road is changing here from I-287 southbound to SR 440 northbound. So a confirmation here might be a good idea.

[jeffandnicole]

Well J&N, I think a pull-thru is a good idea at this location. Reason being the road is changing here from I-287 southbound to SR 440 northbound. So a confirmation here might be a good idea.

There's a pull-thru sign on the previous gantry at the CR 514 exits after 287 ended and 440 began, and on next gantry at the 1st exit for the GSP.  They're the proper places to put pull-thru signs.

I'm just saying you're saying there's too much legend on the gantry, and the pull thru sign is already on 2 other sign gantries.  Take it off here so motorists can concentrate on the upcoming exit signage, as there's still 2 reminders before and after this location.

[SignBridge]

Point taken J&N. I had not realized that the other gantries in the area had similar pull-thru's so maybe eliminating this one would be a reasonable way to reduce the sign clutter at that spot. Thanks!

[Alps]

Too much legend on that new gantry. I would remove the following: The words Outerbridge Crossing from the 440 North sign. And the word Downtown from the middle sign.

I would go with your suggestion as you have it.

[storm2k]

A nice new gantry on NJ-440.

These were erected back in 2021. I documented all of them along this stretch of 440 at the time. Most signs from this round of signage replacements feature a maddening feature of current NJDOT signage design: information overload. This is one of the worst offenders of this:

[Mergingtraffic]

Looks like the ramp from US-1/US-9 has been changed to two lanes via GSV. Which means a lane from the main line ends to allow the two-lane ramp from US-1/US-9 to be two.  Good idea or no?
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8576706,-73.9742574,3a,75y,147.21h,102.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s_jcgDfQuWVnVYR4QERLmIQ!2e0!5s20230801T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8577405,-73.9743482,3a,75y,303.26h,66.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRiSXKfDUMRYI72M32JYZqw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

It also means this sign has been replaced: