NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway go MUTCD!

[Alps]

The problem is the arrow...

The arrow is temporary, reflecting construction conditions. Look more closely.

Maybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.

[J N Winkler]

Maybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.

Believe it.

There are actually two versions of the Exit 6 exit direction sign with the W1-4 reverse-curve arrow substituted for the true Type D arrow.  Both versions were designed by the same person, have identical legend and greenout instructions (and yes, commenters upthread are correct:  the covered-up shield and cardinal direction word is "SOUTH [I-95]," while the covered-up line of primary destination legend is "Philadelphia"), and are the same width (22' 6").  But on the version shown in the construction plans for contract no. T869.120.101, the fake Type D arrow is 37.5" wide, while on the version included in the plans for contract no. T869.120.102, it is 51" wide and almost touches the "e" in Turnpike.

[Zeffy]

Maybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.

Believe it.

There are actually two versions of the Exit 6 exit direction sign with the W1-4 reverse-curve arrow substituted for the true Type D arrow.  Both versions were designed by the same person, have identical legend and greenout instructions (and yes, commenters upthread are correct:  the covered-up shield and cardinal direction word is "SOUTH [I-95]," while the covered-up line of primary destination legend is "Philadelphia"), and are the same width (22' 6").  But on the version shown in the construction plans for contract no. T869.120.101, the fake Type D arrow is 37.5" wide, while on the version included in the plans for contract no. T869.120.102, it is 51" wide and almost touches the "e" in Turnpike.

So why couldn't they just use the true Type-D arrow instead of the W1-4 arrow? I find it hard to believe that they don't have the specifications to build one instead of settling for the easy way out and using one that looks "like it".

Maybe I just don't want to believe the permanent arrow can be touching the "e" in Turnpike.

I don't wanna believe it either.

[Ned Weasel]

So why couldn't they just use the true Type-D arrow instead of the W1-4 arrow? I find it hard to believe that they don't have the specifications to build one instead of settling for the easy way out and using one that looks "like it".

If they wanted an "easy way out," they should have just used an MUTCD-style advance (45-degree) turn directional arrow.  It doesn't have the exact same meaning as the NJTA Type-D arrow, but it would serve the same purpose.

[SignBridge]

Why did they bother even putting Philadelphia on the sign? They'll be replacing these signs with MUTCD compliant ones before the I-95/Pennsy Pike interchange and the 2nd Delaware River Bridge are ever completed! Construction on them hasn't even started yet!

[roadman65]

Why did they bother even putting Philadelphia on the sign? They'll be replacing these signs with MUTCD compliant ones before the I-95/Pennsy Pike interchange and the 2nd Delaware River Bridge are ever completed! Construction on them hasn't even started yet!

I knew it!  I bet even that our grandkids will  not even see the completion of this project if the modern world and USA still exist then.

[akotchi]

Why did they bother even putting Philadelphia on the sign? They'll be replacing these signs with MUTCD compliant ones before the I-95/Pennsy Pike interchange and the 2nd Delaware River Bridge are ever completed! Construction on them hasn't even started yet!

The design of the signing began prior to issuance of the 2009 MUTCD and any inkling of system-wide conversion to its guidelines.  I personally checked to see if the then-pending new Manual would be applied prior to directing the design.

For the record, I am the engineer of record for the prime consultant for the design plans that resulted in the controversial arrows on the Exit 6 Exit Direction signs.  I have, however, remained silent amid the firestorm this has created.  I cannot comment on any of the circumstances because the ultimate outcome of this issue has possibly not yet been resolved.

At least I have managed to provide something to talk about . . .

[SignBridge]

LOL, okay then! Thanks akotchi! I'm sure we appreciate whatever wisdom and input you're able to give us within the limits of professional responsibility to your firm's client, in this case the NJTA. Maybe some day in the future you can tell us the true stories behind some of these mysteries. I would really like to hear from someone on the inside how all these signing decisions are made. Just so I could find out about various factors I'm not aware of as a layman who reads the MUTCD as a hobby.

[roadman65]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Secaucus,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.765421,-74.068666&spn=0.007305,0.017896&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=17.343453,36.650391&oq=seca&t=h&hnear=Secaucus,+Hudson,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.765132,-74.069216&panoid=0DyT18qFV9EdKIBg__kR5g&cbp=12,49.77,,0,0
Speaking of arrows, I am surprised that no one saw this beauty with one arrow a traditional downward type of NJT arrow for Exit 18E and typical lane control arrow for Exit 16E.
If NJTA would have the same arrow on the Exit 16E guide pointing at a 5 o clock setting it would relay to the motorists of the configuration of the toll plaza ahead more better.  Also, to add on a NJ 495 and NJ 3 shields would not hurt either considering the the NJTA finally acknowledged the former interstate designation on the Secaucus Road overpass when they replaced the guide signs there about a mile north of this location.

[SignBridge]

Funny that you should bring that up Roadman. Interesting history lesson about those particular signs. The original signs there from the 1964 rebuilding of the Exit-16 complex were set-up as follows:

The left sign read: Exit-18, Geo. Washington Bridge, US 46 with the long arrow pointing down at the 7 o'clock position! The right sign read: Exit-16, Lincoln Tunnel, NJ 3 - Secaucus, with a similar long arrow pointing at 5 o'clock as you just suggested.

Some years later the left arrow was changed to the 6 o'clock position as on the current sign. I agree with you that 6 o'clock and 5 o'clock were the best configuration for this location. 

[SignBridge]

I just looked at this stretch of the Turnpike on Google Earth. The next signs in the sequence have the arrows just as Roadman and I agree on. But what's troubling is if you check the whole sequence of signs leading up to the toll barrier, the name Secaucus and Routes 3 and 495 keep appearing and disappearing. Only the name Lincoln Tunnel is consistently shown on all Exit-16E signs.

This is a violation of MUTCD standards (Sec. 2E-30) which requires  consistent destination messages through the entire sequence of signs for a given exit. And paragraph 2E-30-02 strongly recommends that no destination info be dropped and none added thru the major sign sequence. You would expect that NJTA would have enough sense to follow those standards and recommendations even within the format of their own sign system. Shame on NJTA!

Akotchi are you with us today? Any comment? 

[Ned Weasel]

I just looked at this stretch of the Turnpike on Google Earth. The next signs in the sequence have the arrows just as Roadman and I agree on. But what's troubling is if you check the whole sequence of signs leading up to the toll barrier, the name Secaucus and Routes 3 and 495 keep appearing and disappearing. Only the name Lincoln Tunnel is consistently shown on all Exit-16E signs.

This is a violation of MUTCD standards (Sec. 2E-30) which requires  consistent destination messages through the entire sequence of signs for a given exit. And paragraph 2E-30-02 strongly recommends that no destination info be dropped and none added thru the major sign sequence. You would expect that NJTA would have enough sense to follow those standards and recommendations even within the format of their own sign system. Shame on NJTA!

Akotchi are you with us today? Any comment? 

Maybe the NJTA just considers the Lincoln Tunnel the most important destination served by Exit 16E.  Whether it is actually where most motorists using Exit 16E are heading could easily be proven or disproven with quantitative data.

If you want to lambaste the NJTA for violating that provision of the MUTCD, then why not be fair and direct some of your anger toward the Ohio Turnpike, which is probably a worse offender?  This is actually a common violation, of which it's easy to find isolated examples.  Frankly, I think that MUTCD rule is a bit silly, as DOTs and toll road authorities are usually good at establishing a hierarchy of information they want to provide in guide signs, and such a hierarchy is useful for determining which piece(s) of information should be included on every guide sign, and which pieces are supplemental.

[roadman65]

One thing about New Jersey, especially on the Parkway and Turnpike the exit numbers dominate.  The exit numbers are a destination in itself. Even on the new gantries on the GSP approaching the Raritan Toll Plaza where directional information for Exits 123 and 124, which require you to pass through the toll booths to access as the open road tolling lanes have no access (at least safely) to those two interchanges have only the Exit numbers with little other information except Route 9 and Sayreville. 

Most people in NJ know the exit number and can actually survive on having them on the signs exclusively!  Look at SB Eastern Spur Exit 15E with no control cities on the guides whatsoever.  People who frequently exit there, do not care about Newark and Jersey City or Route 1-9 (the new way of saying it) but that it is Exit 15E.

[SignBridge]

Right again Roadman on a couple of points. The GS Parkway was probably the first major highway in the Northeast to show exit numbers on a separate number tag on top of the sign going back to the 1950's. NYS DOT didn't start doing that until about 1965.

Exit 15E southbound on the Eastern Leg is a signing disaster. Why NJTA doesn't better sign that exit is beyond me. It's not even normal for their system which usually has plenty of informational signs for all exits, even if their destination messages are not consistent.

And Strident, I've never been on the Ohio Turnpike so I can't comment on their practices. But I think the MUTCD standard exists for a good reason. Inconsistent sign messages will confuse drivers which can potentially cause accidents. I agree with the Manual that keeping the same route numbers and destinations on the whole sequence of signs for each exit gives maximum clarity and confirmation for the driver. Any additional destinations can be shown on a supplemental guide sign usually located after the first advance sign. (Sec. 2E-35)

Also I found the same rule in another section, 2E-33-07, which states: The legend on the advance guide signs shall be the same as the legend on the exit-direction sign, (except for the bottom line distance message)

[roadman65]

You are right, about Exit 15E SB on the Eastern Spur signed real bad even for them!  The Western Spur has Exit 15E signed normal, but, of course, no route shields.  Then again is Exit 5 signed as CR 541?

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Union,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.695298,-74.260411&spn=0.006003,0.015278&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=25.761936,62.578125&oq=unio&t=h&hnear=Union,+New+Jersey&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.695453,-74.260141&panoid=7JwudS5WNA3raJtlulPuow&cbp=12,90,,0,0
I am surprised that the Garden State Parkway was ever allowed to use wooden poles for street lighting as seen in the link.  I know that back in the 50s when the GSP was constructed you did not have today's safety issues pending, so no one said anything about it or even thought it was a problem.  My guess it was easier to install at the time as you did not have to dig underground for wiring as you can see in the GSV caption that the wiring is strung between the poles, but I would figure with all the widening projects the NJTA (formerly the NJHA for the GSP)  has done over the years would at some point have put the more traditional breakaway poles in by now, especially where this caption is in Union, NJ.

Then how about this one at SB GSP Exit 140 where the exit guide is in the gore.  Also no mention of NJ 82 either.  In addition here the sign was manufactured long after the MUTCD upgraded freeway signing (notice the proper placement of today's exit tab requirement) as this replaced the old NJDOT signing of when this section was under state control which had all upper case lettering prior to the latest MUTCD issue.https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Union,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.695412,-74.260561&spn=0.006003,0.015278&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=25.761936,62.578125&oq=unio&t=h&hnear=Union,+New+Jersey&layer=c&cbll=40.695494,-74.260444&panoid=PHxME7Gybp91ayqLBqPmYg&cbp=12,315,,0,0&z=16

Another thing to note is why Morristown is signed here when previous Exit 142 for I-78 is better suited for Morristown via I-78 and NJ 24.  Instead "Springfield" is used for I-78 westbound there that should be used here where Morristown is placed as control point.  Clinton or Easton is used elsewhere on I-78 on WB entrance ramps to the interstate even in other places such as the NJ Turnpike at Exit 14 which is presently the same agency signing it all!

[SignBridge]

All these constantly changing destinations on the signs is enough to make your head spin. It seems like the powers that be change the destinations before they even finish resigning from the last change. So you end up with one road showing several destinations in the same area. I'm glad I live on Long Island. At least all westbound roads read the same: "New York". Eastbound is a whole different matter, but that's another discussion.

[Ned Weasel]

As a counterpoint to some of my earlier sentiments, I do see some benefit in converting the New Jersey Turnpike signage to the MUTCD style.  I think the classic NJTA-style signage would have worked beautifully for the entire Turnpike if it was applied consistently, but anyone who has driven all or most of the Turnpike, and tends to observe such things, knows that it isn't.  Things become especially inconsistent north of Exit 13A, from what I've observed.  I also think the classic NJTA style is brilliant in its design of up arrows but doesn't know what to do with down arrows.

Part of my complaint about converting to the MUTCD style stems from one trend I've observed in the classic NJTA style: in one specific way, the latter provides a higher standard of signage than what the MUTCD requires.  In addition to the advance guide signs, the classic NJTA style provides an advance exit direction sign (something that doesn't exist in the MUTCD), and then it provides an overhead exit gore sign, instead of the less-noticeable MUTCD-prescribed, post-mounted exit gore sign.  It occurs to me, however, that the classic NJTA style's higher standard would essentially be met if the new Turnpike signage included half-mile advance guide signs (or 3/4-mile or 1/4-mile), and I believe Steve has mentioned that these signs will be installed.

So, if Steve has had a hand in building a better New Jersey Turnpike by making the signage more consistent and legible, then I wish to give credit where credit is due.

The only thing I really oppose here is the idea that the MUTCD is inherently better than any alternative style of signage and should therefore never be questioned.

[roadman65]

At least Exit 13 is finally consistent!  It used to be at 2 Miles the control city was Elizabeth.  At one mile it was both the Goethals and Verazzano Bridges.  Then at the start of the deceleration lane with the upward arrow it would be just Verrazano Bridge while the diverge point had Elizabeth.  The only thing consistent was the I-278 shield!

Now I see that Elizabeth- Goethals Bridge- Verazzano Bridge are on all guide signs. 

Exit 11 NB in the inner (Cars Only) roadway has the pull though sign at the Exit Number overhead sign instead of at the point of deceleration lane.  That sign, though, has only a partial gantry like the typical exit number overhead does.

[SignBridge]

Strident, I'm not sure the FHWA ever stated or implied that the MUTCD sign system was necessarily better than any toll-road's system. I believe their position is simply that theirs is the national standard system and that all states and agencies must comply just so there is one standard on all roads nationwide to benefit all drivers.

Steve, I'm pleased to hear that NJT is finally displaying consistent destinations on its exit signs. As I stated earlier the MUTCD is very clear in its insistence that the entire sequence of signs for each exit must display the same destination message. This is an area where NJTA has been notably deficient over the years and needs to be corrected along the entire length of the road.

Unfortunately they're erring to another extreme now of putting too many destinations on these signs as in your example of Exit-13. NJDOT seems to have the same problem on I-295 as well. I'll have to check, but I believe that somewhere in the Manual there is a suggestion that only 2 destinations be shown for each exit, with any additional destinations shown on a supplemental sign after the first advance sign.

[Alps]

Strident, I'm not sure the FHWA ever stated or implied that the MUTCD sign system was necessarily better than any toll-road's system. I believe their position is simply that theirs is the national standard system and that all states and agencies must comply just so there is one standard on all roads nationwide to benefit all drivers.

Steve, I'm pleased to hear that NJT is finally displaying consistent destinations on its exit signs. As I stated earlier the MUTCD is very clear in its insistence that the entire sequence of signs for each exit must display the same destination message. This is an area where NJTA has been notably deficient over the years and needs to be corrected along the entire length of the road.

Unfortunately they're erring to another extreme now of putting too many destinations on these signs as in your example of Exit-13. NJDOT seems to have the same problem on I-295 as well. I'll have to check, but I believe that somewhere in the Manual there is a suggestion that only 2 destinations be shown for each exit, with any additional destinations shown on a supplemental sign after the first advance sign.

Keep in mind that the MUTCD compliant signs are for future rollout. Signs that have already gone up, or even those as part of the 6-9 Widening, were designed before that time. The one example at Exit 13, I don't know where it came from, but it sure never came across my desk.

[SignBridge]

Thanks Steve; point taken. I seem to make the mistake of equating the new bright reflective green signs with MUTCD compliance but I guess that's not the case?  The NJTA went with the reflective green only for now. Full Manual compliance will come later, correct?

[SignBridge]

Follow up........I found the Manual section that addresses the number of destinations per sign. Sec. 2E-10: No more than two destination names or street names should be displayed on any Advance Guide sign or Exit Direction sign. Where two or three signs are placed on the same supports, destinations or names should be limited to one per sign or to a total of three in the display.  Sign legends should not exceed three lines of copy, exclusive of the exit number, and action or distance information.

It's worth noting that these are recommendations, not standards and even I have to admit that sometimes more info should be provided in complex signing situations, though I prefer compliance with the MUTCD in most cases. 

[roadman65]

Here are the new signs that have replaced some of the old ones.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.858825,-75.079204&spn=0.003055,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.858718,-75.079827&panoid=g8uAtHLi7uq0iGINpeY2nw&cbp=12,61.93,,0,0
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.863923,-75.050976&spn=0.003088,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.863988,-75.050609&panoid=Yt4f7w92kF-SvIzL7aG5Sg&cbp=12,308.12,,0,0

I have both the new NEXT EXIT XX MILES on the one mile guide now and the at exit guide.  The overhead sign is northbound approaching Exit 3.
Notice that "Philadelphia" was changed to the "Atlantic City Expressway" which is better being most folks traveling this way come from I-95 in DE, which would have them stay on 95 if going to Philly anyway, so the sign was really not that much a guide. 

[jeffandnicole]

Here are the new signs that have replaced some of the old ones.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.858825,-75.079204&spn=0.003055,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.858718,-75.079827&panoid=g8uAtHLi7uq0iGINpeY2nw&cbp=12,61.93,,0,0
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bellmawr,+NJ&hl=en&ll=39.863923,-75.050976&spn=0.003088,0.007639&sll=27.698638,-83.804601&sspn=7.213306,15.644531&oq=bellma&t=h&hnear=Bellmawr,+Camden,+New+Jersey&z=17&layer=c&cbll=39.863988,-75.050609&panoid=Yt4f7w92kF-SvIzL7aG5Sg&cbp=12,308.12,,0,0

I have both the new NEXT EXIT XX MILES on the one mile guide now and the at exit guide.  The overhead sign is northbound approaching Exit 3.
Notice that "Philadelphia" was changed to the "Atlantic City Expressway" which is better being most folks traveling this way come from I-95 in DE, which would have them stay on 95 if going to Philly anyway, so the sign was really not that much a guide. 

Additionally (for those coming South), Exit 6 will be signed 'Philadelphia' in the future.  At Exit 4, Philadelphia was left off the BGS as well.  There is a supplemental 'Philadelphia' banner below the main BGS...which may be removed when the PA Turnpike/95 project is completed (HA).

[KEVIN_224]

I just know that 9 times out of 10, many Peter Pan and Greyhound drivers will take Exit 4 for NJ Route 73 in Mount Laurel. Some schedules stop at the terminal nearby on Fellowship Road, but some don't (with the driver taking that exit anyways). Only once did I have a driver take Exit 3 for some odd reason (coming from New York City).