New Jersey Turnpike

[Beltway]

I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.  Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.  More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.

There is a legal way.  Get off, then back on at a service plaza.

That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.  Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.

Still legal though.

It wouldn't take much volume before it congested and became problematic and got made illegal.

[RobbieL2415]

I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.  Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.  More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.

There is a legal way.  Get off, then back on at a service plaza.

That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.  Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.

Still legal though.

It wouldn't take much volume before it congested and became problematic and got made illegal.

Which there would be no way to enforce unless you built two more rest areas.

[bluecountry]

NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway, including some rough estimates on costs. Money raised from this toll increase is supposed to help pay for this plan.

I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.
More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.

There is a legal way.
Get off, then back on at a service plaza.

I meant use the 'Police' exits between median breaks.

Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.

The entire Turnpike needs to be a minimum of 6-lanes, including the southern section. It can easily congest during peak travel periods and only 4-lanes.

I drive it a lot, I really haven't seen it jammed, MAYBE during thanksgiving, and I think more effective would be making all exit ramps high speed interchanges.

[Alps]

NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway, including some rough estimates on costs. Money raised from this toll increase is supposed to help pay for this plan.

I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.
Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.
More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.

My friend... they are not proposing projects that are not needed. (:

[jeffandnicole]

I drive it a lot, I really haven't seen it jammed, MAYBE during thanksgiving, and I think more effective would be making all exit ramps high speed interchanges.

What's your definition of you "drive it a lot"?  Does that mean a few times a year, every month, every week?  Unless you mean every day, then you're missing out.  While it may not jam every day, peak period travel is definitely increasing and even hitting the speed limit can become a challenge, especially between Interchanges 4 and 3.  And when it congests around Interchange 4 Southbound, that means it starts backing up between Interchanges 5 and 4.  And as I referenced earlier, that means traffic will exit at Int. 4 and head over to 295 South, further congesting that highway.  And it would be nice for the Turnpike to start widening the worst part of this stretch of highway before it becomes a daily, multi-hour problem.  Holiday and summer weekends - every weekend - are the worst right now, per my observations.

Hell, I can make an argument that the LA area barely sees any congestion...if I drive thru there at 2am every day.  So timing makes a huge difference between if you don't think there's a problem, and if you specifically avoid it because of the problem!

I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.  Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.  More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.

There is a legal way.  Get off, then back on at a service plaza.

That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.

Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

[Beltway]

And it would be nice for the Turnpike to start widening the worst part of this stretch of highway before it becomes a daily, multi-hour problem.  Holiday and summer weekends - every weekend - are the worst right now, per my observations.

According to the PROPOSED 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

MAINLINE WIDENING BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 1 - 2
TOTAL PROJECT COST $400 Million
SCHEDULE Planning & Design: 60 months Construction: 24 months

MAINLINE WIDENING BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 2 - 3
TOTAL PROJECT COST $400 Million
SCHEDULE Planning & Design: 60 months Construction: 24 months

MAINLINE WIDENING BETWEEN INTERCHANGES 3 - 4
TOTAL PROJECT COST $300 Million
SCHEDULE Planning & Design: 60 months Construction: 24 months

None yet have a programmed construction date.

I love the idea to provide a 'legal' method to go from the inner to outer roadway on the NJTP.  Not sure the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes south of exit 4.  More needed is widening the western spur north of Exit 16.

There is a legal way.  Get off, then back on at a service plaza.

That means using low-speed surface roads to make the connection.
Instead of using a high-speed freeway ramp.

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

I wasn't promoting the idea, just questioning the comment that suggested cutting thru the service area, and citing how it should be done if such a movement were to be proposed.

[vdeane]

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages.  Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason.  Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.

[Beltway]

As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages.  Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason.  Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.

To add more details to what I said earlier, a service area may or may not have a dedicated circulator roadway system, and if it does they may not necessarily be well marked, and they may have one or more intersections along the way, with many connections to portions of the parking areas.  There would be slow moving vehicles entering and leaving the parking areas.

Not suitable for handling more than a miniscule amount of traffic that wants to connect from one mainline roadway to the other mainline roadway.

Whether freeway-grade ramps should be built to accomplish such movements, is a separate matter that should be evaluated in a traffic engineering study if in fact it is to be considered in the first place, and I have no other opinion about whether they should build them.

[bluecountry]

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages.  Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason.  Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.

It definitely is needed, and there should be a few of them, it would cut down on 'Z' switches (and why is it called Z, the movement mimics a reverse Z).

As for expansion, I really don't think the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes to exit 4.
I think a far better use of limited funds would be:

-Make the exits high speed/high capacity with better and longer auxiliary lanes.
-If anything, yes widen but do so from exit 3-4; no reason from exit 2.
-The NJTP western spur needs widened to 6 lanes, that definitely is routinely jammed.

[Alps]

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages.  Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason.  Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.

It definitely is needed, and there should be a few of them, it would cut down on 'Z' switches (and why is it called Z, the movement mimics a reverse Z).

You have the Z turns and then you have the DeLorean turns (ɔ c 1000). I love those signs.

[Rothman]

Heh.  I like the term, "DeLorean turns."

Figuring out what those signs meant was a highlight of my childhood.

[jeffandnicole]

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages.  Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason.  Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.

Currently, if theres a reason to shut down an entire roadway which is rare, they shut it down at the beginning. Gates and signage at the on ramps do the rest. If you're to shut it down midstream, you'll need multiple trucks to shut it down,  causing congestion,  slowly merge then to the other roadway, then create congestion on that roadway as they merge in

The  current method they use has worked for them for several decades. This isn't even a concern from what I can tell because no one ever brings it up.  The Turnpike would rather you not switch roadways midstream,  so there's nothing that details how to do it.

Has anyone here actually switch roadways because there is an actual reason to do so?

[bzakharin]

Has anyone here actually switch roadways because there is an actual reason to do so?

I'm pretty sure my father did at least a few times at a service area due to congestion ahead, back when we made the trip every Sunday in the mid to late 90s.

[jeffandnicole]

So why is this needed though?  Other than the "because they can" factor, there isn't much reason.  Unlike other inner/outer roadway setups, the NJ Turnpike permits all movements from both roadways.  There hardly appears to be much traffic that utilizes a service plaza's ramps in this manner.  If one roadway has congestion due to an accident, most motorists just need to wait out the congestion, just like on any other roadway.  And if you think building a few ramps will eliminate people from using the "Z" cut-throughs, you're gonna be horribly mistaken - some motorist will use them for any reason, even if they're sitting in minor congestion and they're getting off the next exit anyway.

As mentioned, cutting through the service areas is a low-capacity movement for the switch, and not one the Turnpike encourages.  Whenever there's an incident or something necessitation a full closure of a carriageway, they shut down the whole thing, not just the area around the incident, for exactly that reason.  Having proper crossovers be built would allow them to keep part of the system open in these circumstances.

It definitely is needed, and there should be a few of them, it would cut down on 'Z' switches (and why is it called Z, the movement mimics a reverse Z).

As for expansion, I really don't think the NJTP needs to be widened from 4 to 6 lanes to exit 4.
I think a far better use of limited funds would be:

-Make the exits high speed/high capacity with better and longer auxiliary lanes.
-If anything, yes widen but do so from exit 3-4; no reason from exit 2.
-The NJTP western spur needs widened to 6 lanes, that definitely is routinely jammed.

What the hell? Did you actually read the proposals?

There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.

There IS a proposed widening on the western spur, which is noted as projects 27, 28 & 29.

High speed interchanges are generally unsafe unless they're connecting two limited access highways. That means Interchanges 6, 7A, 8A, 10, 11, 14 and 16E. 14 and 16E are about as smooth as you're gonna get, they've already widened 11 thru the years, they're working on 10, and they just rebuilt 6, 7A and 8A.

[sprjus4]

There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.

He never said there was...

[jeffandnicole]

There's no proposed widening from 4 to 6 lanes between interchanges 4 to 6.

He never said there was...

You're right...

[bluecountry]

Yeh, and if not high speed than high volume.
The NJTP has a lot of very bad exits with a lot of weaving and short distances to the toll booth.
I can see extending the 6 lanes from Exit 4 to exit 3, but beyond that, improving the interchanges so they can handle high volumes, which means less weaving at the tolls (or how about all electronic tolls) would do the trick.

[sprjus4]

I can see extending the 6 lanes from Exit 4 to exit 3, but beyond that, improving the interchanges so they can handle high volumes, which means less weaving at the tolls (or how about all electronic tolls) would do the trick.

Except the toll booths, which already have 2 high-speed E-ZPass lanes in each direction, and the two interchanges don't cause the congestion.

The lack of needed capacity on the mainline during peak travel times, causing bumper to bumper, 45 - 65 mph traffic, random stop-go congestion, is the issue, and this needs to be properly addressed by widening to 6-lanes. The turnpike north of Exit 4 opens up to 6-lanes, and all of these problems seem to disappear.

The interchanges would likely be improved with a widening, fixing whatever issues they may have.

The widening is needed, and will be completed in the decade.

[bluecountry]

I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.
Spot treatment would be better.

[sprjus4]

I just don't think that's necessary, those NJTP exits are not high speed/high volume, causing quotes onto the NJTP.
Spot treatment would be better.

Queues are not what cause the backups... Every time I've driven it stuck in bumper to bumper traffic moving 45 - 65 mph during peak weekends, I've never passed an exit with traffic dumped in the mainline then have it open back up once everybody moves out of the way and gets past it. The heavy thru traffic is the issue, and why it's being widened.

Interchange improvements will likely be included in such projects.

[bluecountry]

This is unrelated to most of the topic, but does anybody know where I can get a nice aerial picture of the NJTP?

[lepidopteran]

NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway...

That picture on Page 10 of the plan, looks like a "war room" control center.  Is that in that building at interchange 9 that reads "New Jersey Turnpike Authority"?

If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant?  Though by the time they implement it, the plaza will have been up for 20 years, and it was worth it to build -- I remember waiting in 2-mile-long traffic jams at the old plaza.  But the new toll plaza at interchange 8 (which includes an underground access tunnel) will only have been in for about 10 years.

One of the items on the list was to extend the 4th lane the mainline at interchange 13.  It says that a railroad overpass would need to be rebuilt.  But would it?  I'm not sure that bridge has been used for a long time.  For when the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge was rehabilitated recently, the railroad also built a connecting spur to the "Chemical Coast Line" (those tracks that run parallel to, and east of, the Turnpike), thus avoiding the bridge over the pike.  Then again, when the Goethals bridge was rebuilt, the right-of-way leading to that overpass was clearly kept intact.

As an aside, when the Turnpike was recently widened between 8A and 6, a bridge just north of interchange 8 that went over tracks at a sharp angle was completely rebuilt.  But these tracks come to an end just south of the pike, and, while spurs to existing industry exist, no one appears to have used them for a while.  There's also an overpass just south of interchange 3, where the tracks were truncated just beyond, or perhaps underneath the pike itself!  While that might serve as a locomotive turnaround space for the nearby industrial spur, that would likely be filled in/re-graded if and when that stretch is widened.  There is also a vestigial rail underpass beneath the GSP in Clark, NJ, just north of exit 135 and including some of its ramps.

[Alps]

NJTA has posted a somewhat more detailed capital plan with some more details about various projects for the Turnpike and Parkway...

That picture on Page 10 of the plan, looks like a "war room" control center.  Is that in that building at interchange 9 that reads "New Jersey Turnpike Authority"?

If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant?  Though by the time they implement it, the plaza will have been up for 20 years, and it was worth it to build -- I remember waiting in 2-mile-long traffic jams at the old plaza.  But the new toll plaza at interchange 8 (which includes an underground access tunnel) will only have been in for about 10 years.

One of the items on the list was to extend the 4th lane the mainline at interchange 13.  It says that a railroad overpass would need to be rebuilt.  But would it?  I'm not sure that bridge has been used for a long time.  For when the Arthur Kill Lift Bridge was rehabilitated recently, the railroad also built a connecting spur to the "Chemical Coast Line" (those tracks that run parallel to, and east of, the Turnpike), thus avoiding the bridge over the pike.  Then again, when the Goethals bridge was rebuilt, the right-of-way leading to that overpass was clearly kept intact.

As an aside, when the Turnpike was recently widened between 8A and 6, a bridge just north of interchange 8 that went over tracks at a sharp angle was completely rebuilt.  But these tracks come to an end just south of the pike, and, while spurs to existing industry exist, no one appears to have used them for a while.  There's also an overpass just south of interchange 3, where the tracks were truncated just beyond, or perhaps underneath the pike itself!  While that might serve as a locomotive turnaround space for the nearby industrial spur, that would likely be filled in/re-graded if and when that stretch is widened.  There is also a vestigial rail underpass beneath the GSP in Clark, NJ, just north of exit 135 and including some of its ramps.

Rail is a tricky beast, and maybe I'm only speaking to NJ in this, but if a rail alignment is intact and not legally abandoned, it remains preserved in case it will be reactivated someday. That's probably to do with all of your notes above.

[cpzilliacus]

Rail is a tricky beast, and maybe I'm only speaking to NJ in this, but if a rail alignment is intact and not legally abandoned, it remains preserved in case it will be reactivated someday. That's probably to do with all of your notes above.

I think that applies nationally.

A railroad company that wants to abandon a line generally has to get approval from the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB, the defunct Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is the predecessor agency to the STB).  Approval by the STB is not automatically granted either.

[storm2k]

If they are getting rid of all the toll booths in favor of ETC/Toll-by-plate, that would kind of make the grandiose "lighthouse" toll plaza at the south end a bit of a white elephant?

It's not unprecedented. They rebuilt the Pascack Valley toll plaza on the Parkway around the same time as Exit 1, with two way Express EZ-Pass. When one way tolling was implemented there, they just barricaded off the northbound side of the thing and took down the old booths for the manual side and that was that. They could conceivably leave the middle part of the Exit 1 plaza standing and just close off the rest of the booth lanes and call it a day without much of an issue, but knowing the Turnpike Authority, they'd probably elect to tear the whole thing down and do the more modern gantries you see at 18W.

The real pain in the ass one is going to be Exit 6 on the PHMTE since they built that as part of the overall booth structure instead of the tall structure like they did at Exit 1.