Should The New Jersey Turnpike Standardize BGS and Exit Signs?

[Don'tKnowYet]

It has been threatened twice before - in 1990 and 1994.

What were the issues at stake in those instances?

The story goes like this which you'll have to trust me comes on good authority — been in the game a long time.  

In 1968, a structure located on the grounds of what is now the PNC Bank Arts Center was called the Celebrity House.  At the time, the Executive Director noticed that it attracted over 400,000 visitors that summer.  Although original legislation creating the Highway Authority and the Arts Center grounds required it to provide only "cultural and recreation"  facilities and activities only, the leaders of the Authority quickly realized that they could be making money off of the site in some way shape or form.  In order to mask the finances that would be trading hands, the Commissioners always required that parking remain free so as to insinuate that visitation was free since events were free.  Although the nature trials, picnic areas and amphitheater events were free, the Celebrity House was not.  

The Celebrity House was a structure with maximum capacity of 70 people that would be rented out to any individual interested before attending another free event that day.  It was then realized that a reception center would better suffice.  However, making money from a reception center would be against the original legislation rendering the grounds no longer cultural and recreational, but more commercial.  Remember, the original legislation was to build and engineer a roadway, not to run a commercial pseudo-mall.  The reception center never came into being until 1983 for fear of violating the original legislation.  

The part of the story I don't actually know or have ever heard is how the reception center ever came to finally exist.  How did that fear get overcome?  I guess it didn't matter — what was done was done.  

However, the Township of Holmdel started to get wind that money was changing hands and wanted to tax it (this was just a pre-thought at this time. Holmdel didn't get really annoyed until about the mid-1990's and actually sued the Turnpike Authority in 2004/5).  A special NJ Senate Investigation Committee was organized and met in the late 1980s to discuss the operation of the reception center.  It concluded that the reception center violated state law.  

Then, NJHA got it from another angle in 1990 when using their glowcube variable message signs within the roadway right-of-way to advertise the concerts at the amphitheater.  FHWA got wind — I don't know how that happened either.  FHWA sent a memorandum to the NJDOT telling them that the DOT risked losing funds if they somehow couldn't figure out a way to have the HA knock it off.  The HA was advised and stopped, but only momentarily.  Since the culture was that they operated the way they did since 1955 without having to answer to anyone, and as long as they avoided public scrutiny at all costs, then how could they be forced to stop?  So they started up the advertisements again and a second FHWA memo was written in 1994 this time spelling out the amount and the funds to be withheld.  NJDOT got the HA to stop again and successfully had the FHWA rescind their 2nd memo (or whatever it was - i don't know if it was catually a memo).  

This was the beginning of the end as 1 year later Holmdel slapped the HA with a $2M tax lien on the grounds.  They did this annually for about 4 years.  The HA never paid and was sued.  Shortly thereafter, the HA decided to lease the grounds long term and collect funds that way rather than being scrutinized for every move.  This long term lease expires at 11:59p.m., October 31, 2017.

In 2003, the NJ Authorities merged and public meetings were held to determine the fate of the reception center.  Essentially no one showed up and it was ruled that the arts center grounds violate no rules pertaining to the original legislation (even though the Senate Committee did some 15 years earlier).  This is why it continues to operate as it does.  You may or may not have figured out my perspective on the whole thing, but after this ruling, I became apathetic to the arrangements that run in and out of that place on an annual basis.  Look at the roadside advertisements on the existing signs, which as all advertising is illegal all up and down the GSP, but not interestingly on their own property.  Since the 2003 ruling, I've lost interest so I don't even know who won the lawsuit between Holmdel and the TA.

Sorry for the huge tangent, but you asked.  If I'm still alive, I'll attend the public hearing in about 5 years for the reauthorization of the long term lease.  I've got nothing else better to do.

holy Hell, paragraph breaks are your friend!

[agentsteel53]

maybe they can put up federal standard signs if they absolutely need replacement, but this sign gantry serves its purpose and looks downright awesome, so it should be kept as long as possible.



(okay, the interstate shields could use a little help...)

[NJRoadfan]

Unless the feds force them to, its not likely. The only section that the feds can withhold funding for non-compliance is the section north of US-46. It would be nice to get some standard signing and mileage based exit numbers for I-95, but it will likely never happen.

That makes no sense how funding can be held for certain corridors.  Whatever.

I-95 north of US-46 (the original end of the NJ Turnpike) was built using federal Interstate Highway funds. As such, it is eligible for federal interstate maintenance funds. Prior to 1992 the road was 100% maintained by NJDOT, they "sold" it to the NJTA to fill a budget gap.

I don't know how any withholding of funds would work with the GSP since none of it was built using Interstate funds. I think all the free sections (maintained by NJDOT prior to 1987) at MM 9-11, MM 80-83 (multiplexed with US-9) and MM129-140 are eligible for federal funding. I know the traffic light elimination project received some TEA-21 funding, so its very likely that FHWA's memo affected funding for those sections.

[akotchi]

I always liked the Southbound Art-deco style gantry for the PA Turnpike connector exit (Exit 6, I think?) on the NJTP. With all the improvements made over the years, that gantry AFAIK is still in existance. I hope they find a way to keep it when 95 is rerouted.

It is infact Exit 6 and it was still standing last month when I passed under it.  I like it also and hope it survives 95's southward rerouting.  However, with the ongoing widening project, I fear it will one day be removed.

There are three of them in the Interchange 6 area:  one on the southbound mainline, two on the eastbound extension.  Unfortunately, none of them will survive the interchange modifications.

There is still one entering the Turnpike at Interchange 14A in Bayonne, though.


(Pictured above . . .)

[NJRoadfan]

There are three of them in the Interchange 6 area:  one on the southbound mainline, two on the eastbound extension.  Unfortunately, none of them will survive the interchange modifications.

There is still one entering the Turnpike at Interchange 14A in Bayonne, though.


(Pictured above . . .)

Some of those signs are even backlit still. Did they finally take out the signs at Exit 14C? I seem to recall them still hanging around, heck NJDOT even (erroneously) replicated the design for a gantry on the NJ-139 viaduct they recently rebuilt.



It replaced this gantry: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_139/wu.jpg

Also the original gantry at the NJ-139/I-78 split remain albeit with new BGSes: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Route_139_split.jpg

edit: actually come to think of it, that one might be a reproduction too! The original clearly didn't span the entire roadway: http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_139/w78.jpg

[agentsteel53]

There is still one entering the Turnpike at Interchange 14A in Bayonne, though.

one at 14B as well. 

[Duke87]

The mainline one at exit 6:


The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

[NJRoadfan]

The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

See the reproductions above ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Route_139_split.jpg ), wouldn't look so bad if they didn't make the BGSes larger then the height of the gantry and didn't have all that exposed metal framework. Thankfully Clearview seems not be taking over NJ at all.

[D-Dey65]

Aside from those neon VMS signs, one feature I've always found unique about New Jersey Turnpike's BGS's are the interchangeable lines.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42178139@N06/4023350575/

How can you look at the creases in these and not realize that the signs are designed to read something else in some situations? I don't know if or when those signs have ever had to change, but there must've been some reason they had those additional features. I don't think I'd want to lose that.

[Don'tKnowYet]

The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

See the reproductions above ( http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Route_139_split.jpg ), wouldn't look so bad if they didn't make the BGSes larger then the height of the gantry and didn't have all that exposed metal framework. Thankfully Clearview seems not be taking over NJ at all.

Clearview is on 676

[Duke87]

How can you look at the creases in these and not realize that the signs are designed to read something else in some situations? I don't know if or when those signs have ever had to change, but there must've been some reason they had those additional features. I don't think I'd want to lose that.

I can speak from experience that one of the options on these signs is white-on-red reading "ROAD CLOSED".

And at the northern split between the spurs the sign for the western spur has an option that says something like "Exit 16W - Meadowlands Traffic Only". ..although I doubt that was actually physically true. The NJTP treats recommendations as commands all the time with regards to the spurs.  Northbound, you can get to the GWB going the way that says "Lincoln Tunnel", and southbound the eastern spur isn't exit 17 for it. The signs lie!

[ATLRedSoxFan]

The mainline one at exit 6:


The gantries themselves are certainly rather distinct, but really, it's the old signs that make them. Could you imagine modern bright green reflective signage on one of these things? Or worse, Clearview?

I was thinking the same thing. To me, the unique signing was one of the more enjoyable experiences of driving the NJTP. And that gantry has always facinated me since I was a kid from summers driving back and forth from Atlanta to Montreal. Of course, you'd never know I'm a road geek..lol!

[NJRoadfan]

Clearview is on 676

I don't know if its a contract error or a test install. Looks like Exit 3 1 mile advance southbound has Clearview, while Exit 4 has the new FHWA 2000 fonts, both appear to have been installed at the same time. Can't find any other signs in Streetview with it... hopefully it was a mistake.  Here it is in HD quality:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Camden,+NJ&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=45.601981,56.601563&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Camden,+New+Jersey&ll=39.930858,-75.113611&spn=0.005422,0.006909&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.930786,-75.113689&panoid=pGWerAFkn_cPpdJHkbU3JA&cbp=12,210.23,,1,-14.08

[J N Winkler]

I don't know if its a contract error or a test install. Looks like Exit 3 1 mile advance southbound has Clearview, while Exit 4 has the new FHWA 2000 fonts, both appear to have been installed at the same time. Can't find any other signs in Streetview with it... hopefully it was a mistake.

I wonder if that length of I-676, which is essentially a connector between the Walt Whitman and Ben Franklin Bridges, is owned by the DRPA.  Both bridges are DRPA-owned.

[NJRoadfan]

I wonder if that length of I-676, which is essentially a connector between the Walt Whitman and Ben Franklin Bridges, is owned by the DRPA.  Both bridges are DRPA-owned.

DRPA jurisdiction ends at the I-676/US-30 split just east of the toll plaza. NJDOT maintains the rest and the signs are definitely classic NJDOT issue. Almost all of the signs on that road have been replaced in the past 10 years with a few older button copy signs remaining.

[hbelkins]

AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

Incorrect.  You are referred to Item 7 of the PURPOSE AND POLICY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAYS by AASHTO. 

And try not to get into that policy says US Routes.  Item 7 holds true for both US Routes and Interstates Highways.

AASHTO is a group made up of state highway departments through a voluntary association. It is not a governmental body and cannot set policy. If there is a "policy," which would be more accurately referred to as a guideline or rule, there is no penalty for violating it and no enforcement mechanism. AASHTO cannot fine a state or withhold money.

FHWA is an agency of the federal government and it can set policy, withhold money, etc.

[shoptb1]

Compliant mileage numbers would be nice, but I hope that the non-standard signage remains.

[Don'tKnowYet]

AASHTO doesn't have policy. FHWA, maybe, and if that's true there are a lot of violations of this "policy" about E and W suffixes.

Incorrect.  You are referred to Item 7 of the PURPOSE AND POLICY IN THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAYS by AASHTO. 

And try not to get into that policy says US Routes.  Item 7 holds true for both US Routes and Interstates Highways.

AASHTO is a group made up of state highway departments through a voluntary association. It is not a governmental body and cannot set policy. If there is a "policy," which would be more accurately referred to as a guideline or rule, there is no penalty for violating it and no enforcement mechanism. AASHTO cannot fine a state or withhold money.

FHWA is an agency of the federal government and it can set policy, withhold money, etc.

Sort of.  I should have originally referred you to the Establishment of a Marking System of the Routes Comprising the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways policy since the Turnpike is Interstate 95 where the suffixes would apply.  See Number 2 of the Policy, which by the way is taken from the AASHTO Transportation Policy dated 2000.  AASHO was the orginal policy maker prior to the birth of FHWA.  FHWA absorbed and retained the policy

[SignBridge]

To answer D-Dey's question above about the variable message signs on NJTP entrance ramps. Sometimes one set of lanes will be closed for an emergency situation or maintenance. In that case one sign will say "ROADWAY CLOSED" and the other will say "ALL TRAFFIC". I don't know if there are any other possible messages.

[tollboothrob]

To answer D-Dey's question above about the variable message signs on NJTP entrance ramps. Sometimes one set of lanes will be closed for an emergency situation or maintenance. In that case one sign will say "ROADWAY CLOSED" and the other will say "ALL TRAFFIC". I don't know if there are any other possible messages.

These signs are called Changeable Message (CM) signs, and are changed due to reasons already mentioned. In addition, the signs can read "Roadway Congested," which is also white text on red background, usually used during holidays or weekends with heavy traffic volumes. My experience is during these times the inner roadway (cars only) is overloaded as all the cars cram into this roadway. When the signs read "congested," the ramp is not physically blocked, so sometimes it's better to take that roadway instead, since everyone else will take the other roadway because that's what the sign says.

The Authority is planning on replacing these signs, with the addition of a small VMS under it, I assume to describe the reason for the closure. The CM sign will be the same design, with the VMS underneath. I wondered at first why they wouldn't just use VMS's to display the same messages, but I don't think it would catch the driver's eye as quickly. Even with lighted gates blocking the ramps, and conelines and maintenance trucks blocking the mainline approaches to the closed roadway, vehicles can and do sometimes enter the closed roadway, obviously endangering the workers inside it.

[NJRoadfan]

BTW, here is a shot of the new pull through BGSes south of Exit 6. Hopefully these make their way north with I-95 shields. The "Next Exit XX Miles" information has been tacked onto the bottom of the advance BGSes for the exit.

[tollboothrob]

BTW, here is a shot of the new pull through BGSes south of Exit 6. Hopefully these make their way north with I-95 shields. The "Next Exit XX Miles" information has been tacked onto the bottom of the advance BGSes for the exit.

Wilmington is being used as a control city for the exits south of 6, and New York (or New York City on some) for northbound. I saw a pull-through at Interchange 4 with New York, and also noticed last week the signs coming off the Delaware Memorial Bridge at the southern end have been replaced, and the second one, on the 295 overpass, before the US 40 uses New York City.

[connroadgeek]

I say standardize upon replacement, unless there's some special need for NJ to do things differently. I know road geeks tend to favor the unique signs, but I say out with the weird arrows, mechanical signs, neon VMS, etc. - it just looks like NJ is trying too hard to be different.

[SignBridge]

On the contrary, the NJ Turnpike Authority tries to be the best, and they do a pretty good job of it. I agree the signs should be standardized, but the rest of the country would do well to imitate the NJ Turnpike.

[connroadgeek]

On the contrary, the NJ Turnpike Authority tries to be the best, and they do a pretty good job of it. I agree the signs should be standardized, but the rest of the country would do well to imitate the NJ Turnpike.

Are you suggesting the other 49 states should apply a standard that converges with New Jersey's? Which part do you think they "do a pretty good job of?" In what way is their signage superior compared to the standard used everywhere else?