AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: New Jersey Turnpike  (Read 886013 times)

storm2k

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 40
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: January 19, 2022, 10:30:28 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4200 on: October 19, 2021, 10:22:24 PM »

New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine itís awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound itís blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.

The MUTCD screwed up everything saying itís a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.

Such is true, in the NYC area, the bridges make real sense as controls becasue they are landmarks in their own right and mark the points of division between different jurisdictions.  It is a city of islands and the bridges/tunnels are key connections.

That being said, from NJ, there are good substitutes for the bridges that can be used.

Staten Island in place of Outerbridge crossing, Goethals Bridge, or Bayonne Bridge
Lower Manhattan in place of Holland Tunnel
Midtown Manhattan in place of Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan in place of GWB

"New York" is not a good control to be used from exit 14 northward, from any vantage point.  Arguably, heading east on I-78 or staying north on I-95 can both get you to New York.  Using Lower Manhattan for i-78 east and Upper Manhttan for I-95 north helps to distinguish between the two locations.



Lower and Upper Manhattan do not mean anything to a lot of drivers. New York City (which they should be using over just generic New York) does. I actually prefer they include both the tunnel/bridge name and New York City. NJDOT has started embracing that (see the new signs on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy), NJTA should as well.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 800
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 04:25:34 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4201 on: October 19, 2021, 10:33:11 PM »

New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine itís awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound itís blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.

The MUTCD screwed up everything saying itís a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.

Such is true, in the NYC area, the bridges make real sense as controls becasue they are landmarks in their own right and mark the points of division between different jurisdictions.  It is a city of islands and the bridges/tunnels are key connections.

That being said, from NJ, there are good substitutes for the bridges that can be used.

Staten Island in place of Outerbridge crossing, Goethals Bridge, or Bayonne Bridge
Lower Manhattan in place of Holland Tunnel
Midtown Manhattan in place of Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan in place of GWB

"New York" is not a good control to be used from exit 14 northward, from any vantage point.  Arguably, heading east on I-78 or staying north on I-95 can both get you to New York.  Using Lower Manhattan for i-78 east and Upper Manhttan for I-95 north helps to distinguish between the two locations.



Lower and Upper Manhattan do not mean anything to a lot of drivers. New York City (which they should be using over just generic New York) does. I actually prefer they include both the tunnel/bridge name and New York City. NJDOT has started embracing that (see the new signs on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy), NJTA should as well.

NJDOT is signing Staten Island, not New York City, on 440, though both would technically be fine. I donít see why people would have trouble with upper/midtown/lower Manhattan on signs vs NYC. NYC can mean the five boroughs (tho yes, I know most people only think of Manhattan when they say nyc). Most people do know Manhattan is the center of NYC, so signing that definitely shouldnít be a problem.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3630
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: January 20, 2022, 08:23:28 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4202 on: October 20, 2021, 11:15:35 AM »

New York is fine but odd at this location is what I was implying. Not to debate control cities, though I can imagine itís awkward to find the ideal city north of that intersection. Eastbound itís blank to avoid confusion with I-78 going to New York, but a suggestion EB would be to use Midtown and sign Downtown for the Newark Bay Extension.

The MUTCD screwed up everything saying itís a mortal sin to use bridges and tunnels on guide Ignacio as control points.

Such is true, in the NYC area, the bridges make real sense as controls becasue they are landmarks in their own right and mark the points of division between different jurisdictions.  It is a city of islands and the bridges/tunnels are key connections.

That being said, from NJ, there are good substitutes for the bridges that can be used.

Staten Island in place of Outerbridge crossing, Goethals Bridge, or Bayonne Bridge
Lower Manhattan in place of Holland Tunnel
Midtown Manhattan in place of Lincoln Tunnel
Upper Manhattan in place of GWB

"New York" is not a good control to be used from exit 14 northward, from any vantage point.  Arguably, heading east on I-78 or staying north on I-95 can both get you to New York.  Using Lower Manhattan for i-78 east and Upper Manhttan for I-95 north helps to distinguish between the two locations.



Lower and Upper Manhattan do not mean anything to a lot of drivers. New York City (which they should be using over just generic New York) does. I actually prefer they include both the tunnel/bridge name and New York City. NJDOT has started embracing that (see the new signs on 440 in Woodbridge/Perth Amboy), NJTA should as well.

NJDOT is signing Staten Island, not New York City, on 440, though both would technically be fine. I donít see why people would have trouble with upper/midtown/lower Manhattan on signs vs NYC. NYC can mean the five boroughs (tho yes, I know most people only think of Manhattan when they say nyc). Most people do know Manhattan is the center of NYC, so signing that definitely shouldnít be a problem.

Right.  My thinking is that when you are far away, the appropriate control should be "New York".  As you get closer, especially when you pass through places that are decision points to different parts of New York, then they should be differentiated to the extent practical.

With regards to NJ, there are certain decision points like 95/287/440 where you could get to New York in two directions.  Since one leads to Manhattan and one leads to Staten Island, it is fitting to sign "New York" on the path to Manhattan.  Elsewhere, there are decision points between the three Manhattan crossings.  There, especially if you are relatively close to the crossings, it is more appropriate to distinguish between Lower Manhattan, Midtown Manhattan, and Upper Manhattan.  But once a decision point passes, you can revert to using "New York" until you reach the crossing.

I-80 EB (with one exception) basically defaults traffic onto I-95 NB toward the GWB.  New York is an appropriate control over the entire stretch in NJ and it doesn't need to say "Upper Manhattan" instead.  This is true even though the GWB is a bit far from many of the NYC landmarks in Midtown and Downtown.  It is the main crossing into New York, as it has more lanes than the tunnels and is fed by full interstate quality highways, as opposed to NJ-495 and the traffic lights on Jersey City's 12th street.

That being said, it is curious that the I-80/US 46 decision point is signed as I-80 toward GWB and New York with US 46 (to NJ-3) being signed as to Wayne, Clifton, and Lincoln Tunnel.  Why should "New York" bound traffic take the GWB instead of the Lincoln Tunnel?

(If it were up to me, I would not use "New York" on any panel for that interchange and would distinguish between Midtown Manhattan and Upper Manhattan.  Once past the interchange, both roads can be signed for New York.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8948482,-74.2609072,3a,15y,73.94h,96.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8YfHB0nO8Qqf2nWDJ6nQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Logged

Steve D

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 104
  • Road Man

  • Location: Fairfax, VA
  • Last Login: October 20, 2021, 12:57:21 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4203 on: October 20, 2021, 12:23:18 PM »


[/quote]

That being said, it is curious that the I-80/US 46 decision point is signed as I-80 toward GWB and New York with US 46 (to NJ-3) being signed as to Wayne, Clifton, and Lincoln Tunnel.  Why should "New York" bound traffic take the GWB instead of the Lincoln Tunnel?

(If it were up to me, I would not use "New York" on any panel for that interchange and would distinguish between Midtown Manhattan and Upper Manhattan.  Once past the interchange, both roads can be signed for New York.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8948482,-74.2609072,3a,15y,73.94h,96.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8YfHB0nO8Qqf2nWDJ6nQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
[/quote]

Because the GWB  route provides expressway / highway access to Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn past the GWB.  The Lincoln Tunnel route drops you off on the streets in midtown Manhattan.  So IMO, appropriately signed.  Those specifically wanting the tunnel (for the midtown streets) go one way, everyone else for all other points in NY, use the GWB.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11888
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:05 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4204 on: October 20, 2021, 12:45:19 PM »



That being said, it is curious that the I-80/US 46 decision point is signed as I-80 toward GWB and New York with US 46 (to NJ-3) being signed as to Wayne, Clifton, and Lincoln Tunnel.  Why should "New York" bound traffic take the GWB instead of the Lincoln Tunnel?

(If it were up to me, I would not use "New York" on any panel for that interchange and would distinguish between Midtown Manhattan and Upper Manhattan.  Once past the interchange, both roads can be signed for New York.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8948482,-74.2609072,3a,15y,73.94h,96.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8YfHB0nO8Qqf2nWDJ6nQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
[/quote]

Because the GWB  route provides expressway / highway access to Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn past the GWB.  The Lincoln Tunnel route drops you off on the streets in midtown Manhattan.  So IMO, appropriately signed.  Those specifically wanting the tunnel (for the midtown streets) go one way, everyone else for all other points in NY, use the GWB.
[/quote]



Not Staten Island though. To use the GWB for that is way out.  :bigass:
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14714
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:18:11 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4205 on: October 20, 2021, 05:42:28 PM »

Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.

bzakharin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1598
  • Last Login: January 20, 2022, 05:06:11 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4206 on: October 22, 2021, 11:32:50 AM »

Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.
I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 800
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 04:25:34 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4207 on: October 22, 2021, 11:51:28 AM »

Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.
I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.

That's tough. Midtown *and* Upper Manhattan would be best I think. You can do that also on I-95 northbound at that point if you use Lower Manhattan in lieu of Holland Tunnel.

The truth is that a lot of signage has become almost "hereditary". People expect to see signs saying a certain thing just because that's how its always been.
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13710
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 02:51:57 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4208 on: October 22, 2021, 12:20:16 PM »

Quote
Quote

That being said, it is curious that the I-80/US 46 decision point is signed as I-80 toward GWB and New York with US 46 (to NJ-3) being signed as to Wayne, Clifton, and Lincoln Tunnel.  Why should "New York" bound traffic take the GWB instead of the Lincoln Tunnel?

(If it were up to me, I would not use "New York" on any panel for that interchange and would distinguish between Midtown Manhattan and Upper Manhattan.  Once past the interchange, both roads can be signed for New York.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8948482,-74.2609072,3a,15y,73.94h,96.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8YfHB0nO8Qqf2nWDJ6nQw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Because the GWB  route provides expressway / highway access to Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn past the GWB.  The Lincoln Tunnel route drops you off on the streets in midtown Manhattan.  So IMO, appropriately signed.  Those specifically wanting the tunnel (for the midtown streets) go one way, everyone else for all other points in NY, use the GWB.



Not Staten Island though. To use the GWB for that is way out.  :bigass:

Not just Staten Island. The same principle applies to large parts of Brooklyn and various parts of Queens. My mother's parents lived in Bay Ridge, a few blocks from the Verrazano. It'd be crazy to take the GW to go there (especially coming from the south, as we were). Same would apply to Coney Island. My aunts now live in Roxbury and Breezy Point. Going over the GW doesn't help much with getting there (even if you take the Van Wyck) because you wind up too far to the northeastóthe Verrazano to the Belt Parkway to Flatbush Avenue is by far the faster route.

(I tried to fix your garbled quote tags and the above was the best I could easily do right now.)
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
óOlaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"óKolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8952
  • Last Login: Today at 07:18:25 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4209 on: October 22, 2021, 12:35:24 PM »

Just use "Big Apple"
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12860
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:08 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4210 on: October 22, 2021, 02:09:40 PM »

Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.
I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.

That would apply *after* you get on the Turnpike though.  The other option would be to take the Turnpike/95 South, which would also be using more localized points, not "New York". 

This is pretty much the case entering a highway in any city.  If I enter the Interstate from Center City, and the next 3 exits down are still within the city, the exit signs are going to provide a local destination, not repeat the city's name several times, and there won't be any pull-thru signage showing the control city of the city you're already in.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3630
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: January 20, 2022, 08:23:28 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4211 on: October 22, 2021, 05:52:22 PM »

Just to note from the thread - control cities should always be consistent. Once you separate New York into constituent boroughs, any given path should not reaggregate back into New York.
I feel like that's too restrictive. Let's say you're coming from New York on I-78 West. Does it make sense to sign I-95 North as "upper Manhattan" there? Or if you get on Turnpike North north of all the other crossings, the best way to get to anywhere in NYC is to keep going. If all you see is "Upper Manhattan", it might be confusing.
It is too restrictive.  The 80/46 interchange is a major decision point for travel along the I-80 corridor.  It is also more than 15 miles away from either GWB or Lincoln Tunnel.  For those coming from far west, they can decide to take 46 to Lincoln Tunnel for Midtown Manhattan or take 80 to GWB for Upper Manhattan and Bronx.  (For Queens, Brooklyn, or Staten Island, depending on ultimate location, one could take GWB or likely take 46 to 3 to NJTP south to the Goethals.)  But once the decision point is passed on either 80 or US 46-NJ 3, there is no reason that you can't keep signing toward New York.  Certainly for anyone still on the highway, they need guidance to actually get them to the city.  Plus, for those who entered to the east of the 80/46 decision point, it would absolutely be helpful to be guided there on the guide signs.

With the NJTP, it is a little clearer.  Since it is the easternmost N-S expressway that is west of the Ny-NJ state line, it becomes the de facto route of connection between the crossings.  If you are headed on I-78, continuing straight will lead you to the Holland Tunnel for Lower Manhattan.  And if you want to reach other parts of NYC, you can transfer either north or south on the NJTP mainline to reach a different crossing.

From I-78, I-95's SB control should be either Trenton or Philly.  But supplemental guide signs should guide Brooklyn and Staten Island traffic to I-95 south.  Likewise, I-95 north's control should be Upper Manhattan, with guide signs for Midtown Manhatthan and Bronx to use I-95 north as well.

Some of these thoughts could become even more imporatant, to the extent that congestion pricing comes about.  If your goal is midtown, which will be in the congested zone, you do not want to take GWB to Manhattan and then a parkway or street south, because then you will face a double toll.  You will rather take the Lincoln Tunnel.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 800
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 04:25:34 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4212 on: October 22, 2021, 07:23:56 PM »

Weíre probably getting too deep in the weeds here. You canít sign every location a road connects you to, there are too many. You need to pick the best one or two. An argument could be made that since I-95 forms a bit of a loop around the core of the city (diverting northward near Elizabeth and westward in the Bronx), anywhere between those points could be signed with the next control city beyond NYC. Most northbound traffic that follows 95 beyond Route 3 probably isnít going to Manhattan at all. Most southbound traffic heading to Manhattan probably doesnít go beyond 278, Iíd guess. The main problem with this is when the 80 traffic merges in to 95 northbound, as some of that probably is going to Manhattan (though even in that case, a fair chunk probably heads towards the Lincoln Tunnel instead).
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3630
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: January 20, 2022, 08:23:28 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4213 on: October 23, 2021, 08:59:19 PM »

Weíre probably getting too deep in the weeds here. You canít sign every location a road connects you to, there are too many. You need to pick the best one or two. An argument could be made that since I-95 forms a bit of a loop around the core of the city (diverting northward near Elizabeth and westward in the Bronx), anywhere between those points could be signed with the next control city beyond NYC. Most northbound traffic that follows 95 beyond Route 3 probably isnít going to Manhattan at all. Most southbound traffic heading to Manhattan probably doesnít go beyond 278, Iíd guess. The main problem with this is when the 80 traffic merges in to 95 northbound, as some of that probably is going to Manhattan (though even in that case, a fair chunk probably heads towards the Lincoln Tunnel instead).

This is a fair point.  The control cities that are used on the big overhead signs should be limited to listing no more than two destinations.

From NJ, the main roads that lead into NYC are: I-95 NB, US 1&9 NB, I-287 EB/NJ 440 NB, I-278 EB, US 22 EB, I-78 EB, I-280 EB, US 46 EB, NJ-3 EB/ NJ-495 EB, I-80 EB, NJ-208SB/NJ-4 EB, and Palisades Parkway (PIP) SB.  To the extent that any of these roads lead only to one of the tunnels/bridges, then the road simply leads to New York.  But to the extent that any of the roads leads to a decision point between the crossings, then it is appropriate to list a more specific control at the decision point, but possibly continuing to use the more generic New York control past the decsision point.

As our thread is discussing the NJTP, it is appropriate to analyze the situation of I-95 NB.  Certainly, south of I-287/NJ 440, the control of New York is best.  The first decision point is at I-287/NJ 440.  The EB control here should list Staten Island, but the NB control could still be New York.  I would say similar at the I-278 interchange.  Supplemental signage (on a roadside low sign, not overhead) could mention Brooklyn for those exits as well.

Once you get to the I-78 interchange, then I don't believe it is appropriate to use New York as the northbound control.  Some parts of New York like the financial district are best approached through the Holland Tunnel and some parts are better approached through the Lincoln or GWB further north.  A better distinguishing point is Lower Manhattan vs. Midtown & Upper Manhattan.  But once you continue beyong that decision point, New York, again becomes appropriate until the next decision point, which is the interchange for NJ-495.  Midtown Manhattan vs. Upper Manhattan & Bronx.  Then, it would probably be OK to keep "Upper Manhattan & Bronx" as the control until the stream of traffic from I-80 joins in.  At that point, "New York City" once again becomes the appropriate control all the way to the bridge.

The controls need to have "New York" need to guide people to New York.  And in my mind that means Manhattan.  At the appropriate decsion points between the Holland/Lincoln/GWB, the controls can be specific to guide you to the right parts of Manhattan, but once those decision points are passed, the guide signs should again lead you to New York until you reach the crossing.

Some of this would need to be adjusted for congestion pricing.  At the current time, I don't believe there needs to be any supplemental signage guiding I-80 traffic onto I-95 south to the Lincoln Tunnel.  Midtown bound traffic on I-80 (once past US 46) could still take the GWB and then go south on either HHP or Harlem River Drive.  With the new tolling though, it would be better to recommend that Midtown and Lower Manhattan traffic use I-95 south to reach either Lincoln or Holland to avoid the high congestion pricing toll.
Logged

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1766
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: January 20, 2022, 10:08:07 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4214 on: October 23, 2021, 09:15:34 PM »

MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.

That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions. 
Logged

cpzilliacus

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11120
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: November 20, 2021, 05:57:02 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4215 on: October 27, 2021, 09:24:23 PM »

MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.

That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions. 

I have seen many panels with three (especially common in Virginia) and even four lines which seem to work well for me.
Logged
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11888
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:05 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4216 on: October 27, 2021, 09:51:59 PM »

MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.

That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions. 


Airports are the worst violators with ten airlines on one panel.  Airlines are like cities and the same as driving directions.  If they can do it, why not public freeways.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1766
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: January 20, 2022, 10:08:07 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4217 on: October 27, 2021, 09:58:43 PM »

The guidelines in the MUTCD section that I cited above are designed for easiest readability at interstate highway speed which was probably presumed to be around 65mph. The idea being to not overload the driver's ability to read at that speed. My guess is that the issue is less critical on airport approach roads with somewhat lower speeds. Though I agree that ten names on a sign would be hard to read.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12860
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:08 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4218 on: October 27, 2021, 11:10:21 PM »

MUTCD Sec. 2E.10 reads in part: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide Sign or Exit Direction sign. When two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to total of three in the display.

That recommendation (not a standard) has existed through many generations of the Manual and is one I generally agree with. And as we've all noted it is followed in varying degrees. But it must also be a difficult task for the engineers involved to make the best decisions in this regard and not all of us will agree with all such decisions. 


Airports are the worst violators with ten airlines on one panel.  Airlines are like cities and the same as driving directions.  If they can do it, why not public freeways.

Just because they are doing it, doesn't mean they're doing it well.
Logged

ran4sh

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 572
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Georgia
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:06 PM
    • YouTube - mostly my Cities:Skylines live streams
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4219 on: October 28, 2021, 05:54:21 PM »

I think with airlines it is not usually a problem because people expect there to be an airline list at some point, and if it's alphabetical then it's easy for a lot of drivers to pick out if their airline is there or not.

As for what I-95's control city should be for the northbound entrance from westbound I-78 - I wouldn't use NYC at all because that traffic is either coming from NYC or coming from a point where, if they wanted to go to NYC, they should have entered I-78 east instead of west. Thus, it would be appropriate to use the next control city for I-95, which is New Haven.
Logged
Atlanta Braves 2021 Champions! Georgia Bulldogs 2021-22 CFP Champions!

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12860
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:08 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4220 on: October 28, 2021, 06:14:04 PM »

As for what I-95's control city should be for the northbound entrance from westbound I-78 - I wouldn't use NYC at all because that traffic is either coming from NYC or coming from a point where, if they wanted to go to NYC, they should have entered I-78 east instead of west. Thus, it would be appropriate to use the next control city for I-95, which is New Haven.

The Control City for I-95 North from WB 495, where many have come from the Lincoln Tunnel, is the George Washington Bridge.  https://goo.gl/maps/xwXnQd9zBB3PwaJeA  And this would be even closer than I-78.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11888
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:05 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4221 on: October 28, 2021, 10:50:30 PM »

Go back to Turnpike North again like previously. 😁
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11888
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 12:48:05 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4222 on: November 09, 2021, 01:45:09 PM »

Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96

Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 800
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: Today at 04:25:34 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4223 on: November 09, 2021, 01:57:03 PM »

Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96

Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.

No, thatís deliberate since itís beyond the ticket system.

Plus, itís not ďreallyĒ the turnpike, itís the Bergen-Passaic Expressway from the I-80 junction to the bridge 😈
Logged

storm2k

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 40
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: January 19, 2022, 10:30:28 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4224 on: November 09, 2021, 10:41:09 PM »

Here they forgot that the Turnpike still exists north of Exit 19.
https://goo.gl/maps/itsbuAuY1XkgQsY96

Plus they use the GWB without hesitation unlike the ramp NB from Newark Bay.

NJTA owns and maintains the section of 95 north of 18E-W, but it's not officially the Turnpike and never has been.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.