Pulaski Skyway to close to NY Bound traffic for two years starting in 2014

[SteveG1988]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Pulaski-Skyway-Highway-Closures-2014-New-Jersey-Commuters-Holland-Tunnel-186249242.html

[NE2]

Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.

[SteveG1988]

Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.

The problem is, the road is not configured to allow for that, since I-78 turns into a NJTP extension, there are free flow ramps from the extension to the turnpike, and toll ramps for traffic exiting the toll system.

[NJRoadfan]

They plan on restriping the eastbound shoulder of the Newark Bay Extension as an extra lane to carry the detoured traffic. I don't see why they can't figure out a way to reverse traffic for just the morning hours. The crossovers can be placed completely out of the construction zone.

[Alps]

They plan on restriping the eastbound shoulder of the Newark Bay Extension as an extra lane to carry the detoured traffic. I don't see why they can't figure out a way to reverse traffic for just the morning hours. The crossovers can be placed completely out of the construction zone.

That's actually been studied as one of the many, many alternatives. This is a lot simpler and, as I've said elsewhere, as long as you adjust the signal timing on Jersey Ave., more traffic using I-78 actually won't make things that much worse. The real bottleneck is NYC constraining traffic through the tunnel and backing up through the tolls. Now, yes, I-78 has its own bottleneck, which hopefully the reinstitution (albeit temporarily) of the third EB lane will help. It could also be a managed lane, open as needed during heavy traffic conditions and kept as a shoulder otherwise, but I have 0 clue as to how far that idea went and who was for or against it.

[hbelkins]

I'd love to drive (or ride as a front-seat passenger) the Pulaski Skyway.

[Duke87]

I'm assuming the seemingly obvious option of making it one lane each way isn't being done due to the roadways being too narrow to install a temporary barrier in the middle?

[NE2]

Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.

The problem is, the road is not configured to allow for that, since I-78 turns into a NJTP extension, there are free flow ramps from the extension to the turnpike, and toll ramps for traffic exiting the toll system.

Keep the toll booths but charge nothing, like on the Masspike west of Springfield and the NY Thruway to/from I-88.

[NJRoadfan]

Seems the plan is getting some flack from the general public: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/01/njdot_responds_to_angry_motori.html

[Alps]

I'd love to drive (or ride as a front-seat passenger) the Pulaski Skyway.

Come visit.

I'm assuming the seemingly obvious option of making it one lane each way isn't being done due to the roadways being too narrow to install a temporary barrier in the middle?

Definitely. Reversible was the only option for that.

Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.

The problem is, the road is not configured to allow for that, since I-78 turns into a NJTP extension, there are free flow ramps from the extension to the turnpike, and toll ramps for traffic exiting the toll system.

Keep the toll booths but charge nothing, like on the Masspike west of Springfield and the NY Thruway to/from I-88.

Between 14 and 14C, I assume? Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges? How about freezing toll hikes on the Holland Tunnel for the duration of the project instead?

[Mr. Matté]

Seems the plan is getting some flack from the general public: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/01/njdot_responds_to_angry_motori.html

nj.com commentors and Jeff Tittel aren't exactly the best people to give the public's overall opinion on things.

[NE2]

Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?

NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.

[Alps]

Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?

NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.

You overestimate how much NJDOT cares about traffic issues. They will do their best to accommodate traffic, but I'd be shocked if they threw a bone to the Turnpike unless the NJTA is going to lose revenue. Since, if anything, they stand to gain it, expect no such deal.

[D-Dey65]

Incredible how many people there are recommending mass transit as an alternative, while ignoring the fact that it's just as overcrowded.

[vdeane]

Why not just shift the lanes without a barrier?  NYSDOT did that with I-390 for a couple years near NY 17.

[cpzilliacus]

Incredible how many people there are recommending mass transit as an alternative, while ignoring the fact that it's just as overcrowded.

That's a reflexive suggestion in many parts of the world.

[hbelkins]

Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?

NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.

Another good argument against having toll road agencies separate from the state DOT.

[Interstatefan78]

Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.

That wouldn't work out beacuse I-78 signs from exit 14-14c are in the NJTP authority style, and this scenario would require NJDOT to run I-78 from the PA/NJ border at the delaware river bridge between Williams Township, Pennsylvania, and Phillipsburg,NJ Delaware heights portion to the NJ-139/I-78 approach at Jersey City,NJ. Also this plan requires the fmr tolled section of I-78 from exit 14-14c to have a speed limit of 55mph to match I-78 speed limit from the Bergen ST overpass in Newark up to the Montgomery ST exit in Jersey City.

[NE2]

what the fuck

[NJRoadfan]

what the fuck

A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.

[SteveG1988]

I wonder if they thought about doing the project in a smaller scale, keeping the road open with 2 lanes (one each way) but decided that doing it two lanes at a time, closing one direction, would cause the least problems.

Close it for 2 years and get 1/2 of it redecked, then do the other side, versus taking 6 or more years to do it any other way, the time scale is just an estimate it could be more or less.

[Roadsguy]

Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?

NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.

Act -44?

[hbelkins]

what the fuck

A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.

He's probably referring to this:

Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?

NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.

Another good argument against having toll road agencies separate from the state DOT.

Which I still stand by.

When you have an independent tolling agency involved, it's more interested in protecting its revenue stream than anything else. Any system-to-system connections -- say, eliminating the "Breezewood" at Breezewood -- takes cooperation of two agencies.

When the toll agency is a part of the overall DOT, as it was in Kentucky when the Division of Toll Facilities was a part of the Transportation Cabinet, then only one set of bureaucrats is making the decision and that decision is being made in the best interests of the traveling public, not in protecting toll revenue. If the Turnpike was a part of NJDOT, then the DOT could just  do what was required to keep traffic moving and there would be no worries about losing money, or one agency having to pay another.

[Kacie Jane]

what the fuck

A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.

He's probably referring to this:

No, I'm pretty sure it was in response to Interstatefan78's pile of gobbledygook that I can't make any sense of, and the parts I can make sense of don't have any bearing on this thread.  I'd say "what the fuck" was a pretty reasonable response.

[hbelkins]

No, I'm pretty sure it was in response to Interstatefan78's pile of gobbledygook that I can't make any sense of, and the parts I can make sense of don't have any bearing on this thread.  I'd say "what the fuck" was a pretty reasonable response.

After reading that aforementioned pile of gobbledygood, I know less than I did when I started.

But given NE2's animosity toward me and my opinions, I'd still say my guess applies as well.