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  (Read 763464 times)

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3750 on: January 24, 2022, 07:57:27 PM »

Yeah it should be GREEN Brook, then Springfield, and finally Newark.  WB Hillside ( as is already from US 1 & 9) , North Plainfield, and then Somerville.  West of Somerville Clinton is fine.

Neither North Plainfield nor Green Brook are frankly important enough to warrant control city status. I'd be fine for Clinton, Somerville, Springfield, and Newark.

Neither is Franklin Park on I-287 in Oakland for Route 208, but itís used.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3751 on: January 24, 2022, 08:04:01 PM »

To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.

And what is now the actual continuation of I-280 over the Stickel Bridge was originally supposed to be an exit onto that old four-lane highway (NJ Route 58) to the Bridge and ending across the river in Harrison. And yes, that road is obviously not up to Interstate standards.

I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.   
To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.

And what is now the actual continuation of I-280 over the Stickel Bridge was originally supposed to be an exit onto that old four-lane highway (NJ Route 58) to the Bridge and ending across the river in Harrison. And yes, that road is obviously not up to Interstate standards.

I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.   

No that was for never built NJ 75 that would have connected to I-78 at the Elizabeth Avenue systems interchange.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1830
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 09:05:32 PM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3752 on: January 24, 2022, 08:09:56 PM »

Well if that's true, then where was supposed to be the original end of I-280? It might be that there were several different plans floated at different times for these roads.
Logged

noelbotevera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3306
  • Now at a Redbox kiosk near you!

  • Age: 18
  • Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
  • Last Login: March 18, 2022, 09:56:27 PM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3753 on: January 24, 2022, 09:56:18 PM »

To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.

(snip)

I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Either way, I-280 would still be interchanging with the GSP regardless of whether it reached I-78 or not. I personally think that there had to be a better way to design that interchange, especially since there was nothing stopping NJDOT tearing apart The Oranges. Assuming that the extension to I-78 was still on the books in the 60s, then we'd see a left merge (but I guess we should be thankful that never happened) with small ramps to NJ 58.

Still, echoing what famartin says - who really knows what NJDOT wanted to do here. I shouldn't be surprised that the 280/GSP interchange is a nightmare because it's literally from a different generation of cars and drivers.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2022, 10:23:51 PM by noelbotevera »
Logged
Doing things that nobody wants to do since 2004.
I was THE youngest forum member from May 14th, 2015 to September 25th, 2016.

I am the second Alex, since I currently use my father's name...

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14935
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 11:56:11 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3754 on: January 24, 2022, 11:35:00 PM »

To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.

(snip)

I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Either way, I-280 would still be interchanging with the GSP regardless of whether it reached I-78 or not. I personally think that there had to be a better way to design that interchange, especially since there was nothing stopping NJDOT tearing apart The Oranges. Assuming that the extension to I-78 was still on the books in the 60s, then we'd see a left merge (but I guess we should be thankful that never happened) with small ramps to NJ 58.

Still, echoing what famartin says - who really knows what NJDOT wanted to do here. I shouldn't be surprised that the 280/GSP interchange is a nightmare because it's literally from a different generation of cars and drivers.
We all know what NJDOT wanted to do here because the plans are on the books. Signs even had room for 75 shields.

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13243
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 10:31:06 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3755 on: January 25, 2022, 09:28:39 AM »

To further clarify: the current Left Exit 13, was supposed to be the continuation of I-280 East thru Newark to I-78 as someone else said above. But when that didn't get built the freeway was ended at First St.

(snip)

I-280 and its interchange with the Garden State Pkwy were designed in the early 1960's according to the engineering standards of that era. And yes, large areas of East Orange were torn down for the project.
Either way, I-280 would still be interchanging with the GSP regardless of whether it reached I-78 or not. I personally think that there had to be a better way to design that interchange, especially since there was nothing stopping NJDOT tearing apart The Oranges. Assuming that the extension to I-78 was still on the books in the 60s, then we'd see a left merge (but I guess we should be thankful that never happened) with small ramps to NJ 58.

Still, echoing what famartin says - who really knows what NJDOT wanted to do here. I shouldn't be surprised that the 280/GSP interchange is a nightmare because it's literally from a different generation of cars and drivers.

The NJ State Library in Trenton has a lot of old plans for highways when they were first designed or proposed. I haven't been in there in ages, but that would be a great source to locate what might have been...
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3756 on: January 25, 2022, 09:42:12 AM »

Also Steve Anderson has done a lot of research to it as well.  Check out his NYC Roads site.

http://www.nycroads.com/roads/unbuilt_NJ/

http://www.nycroads.com/roads/NJ-75/

This here has diagram of original interchange and plan for Route 75.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2022, 09:44:41 AM by roadman65 »
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

SignBridge

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1830
  • Location: Long Island, New York
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 09:05:32 PM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3757 on: January 25, 2022, 08:27:32 PM »

Somewhere in past years I'm almost sure I saw several different plans for where I-280 was to end. Regrettably I can't remember where I saw them, but I still think one route was for I-280 to go to I-78. And that this was the final plan until local opposition in Newark forced the re-routing over the Stickel Bridge and east to the Turnpike.

I could be mistaken but I'm almost positive I saw that plan somewhere, with the explanation of the multi-ramp interchange on I-78 being where I-280 was supposed to end. 
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 10:58:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3758 on: January 25, 2022, 08:46:40 PM »

Somewhere in past years I'm almost sure I saw several different plans for where I-280 was to end. Regrettably I can't remember where I saw them, but I still think one route was for I-280 to go to I-78. And that this was the final plan until local opposition in Newark forced the re-routing over the Stickel Bridge and east to the Turnpike.

I could be mistaken but I'm almost positive I saw that plan somewhere, with the explanation of the multi-ramp interchange on I-78 being where I-280 was supposed to end.

You may be right, but I've never seen mention of the plan you describe on NYCRoads, and Steve's pretty thorough, so if that idea was floated, I'd think I'd have seen it there.
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/I-280_NJ/
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3759 on: January 25, 2022, 09:05:29 PM »

According to Steve, I-95 was once proposed to use NJ 75, but was truncated to I-287 which later got deleted in 1988.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 10:58:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3760 on: January 25, 2022, 10:44:07 PM »

According to Steve, I-95 was once proposed to use NJ 75, but was truncated to I-287 which later got deleted in 1988.
1982. But yes, the NJ 75 alignment is shown in the DEIS for the Somerset County segment of I-95 as one of the proposed routings for I-95 in northern NJ earlier in the 60s.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3761 on: January 26, 2022, 12:37:11 AM »

Interesting question. Why are trucks prohibited on the left exit ramp on NJ 3 EB at NJ 495 EB?  I noticed they are directed through the loop ramp from the service road instead along with JFK Blvd. traffic.

Now I know the latter is done to minimize weaving as the NJ 3 ramp into Route 495 merges from the left and JFK traffic soon exits on the right. Plus with early AM traffic some aggressive maneuvering would be required as well, but I doubt there is any weight restriction on that particular ramp to prohibit trucks. The only feasible reason would be to keep trucks out of the left two lanes as the viaduct grade over Tonnelle Avenue and Paterson Plank Road exceeds 6 percent to cause slow movement in the fast lanes.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 10:58:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3762 on: January 26, 2022, 01:06:08 AM »

Interesting question. Why are trucks prohibited on the left exit ramp on NJ 3 EB at NJ 495 EB?  I noticed they are directed through the loop ramp from the service road instead along with JFK Blvd. traffic.

Now I know the latter is done to minimize weaving as the NJ 3 ramp into Route 495 merges from the left and JFK traffic soon exits on the right. Plus with early AM traffic some aggressive maneuvering would be required as well, but I doubt there is any weight restriction on that particular ramp to prohibit trucks. The only feasible reason would be to keep trucks out of the left two lanes as the viaduct grade over Tonnelle Avenue and Paterson Plank Road exceeds 6 percent to cause slow movement in the fast lanes.

Probably just what you describe, to keep slower trucks out of the left lanes.

It may well be related to a general NJDOT policy in this regard. I noticed that the ramp from I-78 EB to I-287 NB, which had been a right exit to left entrance semi-directional, is now a right exit to right entrance loop. The lack of wisdom regarding left entrances, I definitely get, but replacing a semi-directional ramp with a loop on a freeway-to-freeway interchange is definitely a "very NJDOT-like" thing to do. Most states would go the other direction (loop to semi-directional), just moving the ramp to having a right entrance. Maybe it was cost-prohibitive here.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3763 on: January 26, 2022, 07:14:17 AM »

Yes, the Exit 29 ramp EB on I-78 was done to avoid building a long flyover across both I-78 and I-287 and the WB I78 to I-287 ramp.  Remember other states would gladly consider a three level stack, although NJ does have some in Elizabeth at US 1 & 9 and NJ 81 and in Woodbridge at the Tangle, they generally don’t consider that option here.

Other states would have the much needed widenings such as US 9 in Ocean County between Forked River and Lakewood (( FDOT would have US 9 as a six lane arterial from NJ 166 to NJ 88), NJ 31 from Flemington to Washington, and US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong done already.  Not in New Jersey.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

storm2k

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: NJ
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 09:15:26 PM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3764 on: January 26, 2022, 10:44:27 AM »

Yes, the Exit 29 ramp EB on I-78 was done to avoid building a long flyover across both I-78 and I-287 and the WB I78 to I-287 ramp.  Remember other states would gladly consider a three level stack, although NJ does have some in Elizabeth at US 1 & 9 and NJ 81 and in Woodbridge at the Tangle, they generally donít consider that option here.

Other states would have the much needed widenings such as US 9 in Ocean County between Forked River and Lakewood (( FDOT would have US 9 as a six lane arterial from NJ 166 to NJ 88), NJ 31 from Flemington to Washington, and US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong done already.  Not in New Jersey.

Well if they had built a long flyover to land on the right side, you have the ramp from westbound 78 to contend with combined with the fact that the exit for 202-206 is very close beyond that. Not a lot of room to land all that and have sufficient room for the exit, especially since the exit for 202-206SB requires a fairly tight curve so traffic is already slowing in that rightmost lane. This is why their solution to eliminate that lefthand entrance (which was never great) involved a loop ramp, which has worked out pretty well.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13243
  • Age: 47
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 10:31:06 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3765 on: January 26, 2022, 05:24:25 PM »

Yes, the Exit 29 ramp EB on I-78 was done to avoid building a long flyover across both I-78 and I-287 and the WB I78 to I-287 ramp.  Remember other states would gladly consider a three level stack, although NJ does have some in Elizabeth at US 1 & 9 and NJ 81 and in Woodbridge at the Tangle, they generally donít consider that option here.

Other states would have the much needed widenings such as US 9 in Ocean County between Forked River and Lakewood (( FDOT would have US 9 as a six lane arterial from NJ 166 to NJ 88), NJ 31 from Flemington to Washington, and US 206 from Bedminster to Netcong done already.  Not in New Jersey.

Well if they had built a long flyover to land on the right side, you have the ramp from westbound 78 to contend with combined with the fact that the exit for 202-206 is very close beyond that. Not a lot of room to land all that and have sufficient room for the exit, especially since the exit for 202-206SB requires a fairly tight curve so traffic is already slowing in that rightmost lane. This is why their solution to eliminate that lefthand entrance (which was never great) involved a loop ramp, which has worked out pretty well.

Agreed - I think the bigger picture is what is missing here.  Granted, in other states, they would've taken that bigger picture and reconstructed 287 for a mile in either direction to braid ramps and fit in a flyover, and probably redo the next interchanges as well.  If NJDOT can get away with a cloverleaf ramp that requires a slower speed for a few moments, and doesn't impact the buildings and properties north along 287 north of 78, they'll go for the simpler option that would be less controversial overall.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3766 on: January 26, 2022, 06:40:56 PM »

Plus they had the loop ramp already from a 1988 project that redone bridge decks of the Eastbound Exit 29 ramp.  It was used when the two bridges that carried EB to NB were closed for deck replacement and never removed.  The ramp had a guard rail across it.

Yes, other states would have used this as an excuse to modify Exit 22 in Bedminster and build a new Burn Store Road Overpass as well replace other ramps at the 78-287 interchange and very well create a stack interchange.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14935
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 11:56:11 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3767 on: January 26, 2022, 07:04:00 PM »

re: I-287 loop ramp: most definitely this was designed to maximize the NB weave distance and minimize the number of lanes anyone needs to cross to get to or from the ramps here and 202/206.

re: 3 to 495: There are some clearance issues on the direct left ramp, though that itself wouldn't be a dealbreaker, so I might buy the argument of reducing weave severity on 495.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3768 on: January 26, 2022, 10:03:47 PM »

I did see though one project in particular back in the early aughts did prove effective. In Rahway, NJ, the US 1& 9 Rahway River Bridge replacement made things actually better. It not only added lanes to US 1 & 9 ( as previously it narrowed to four lanes between the Hazelwood Avenue Half Diamond and CR 514) but extended Randolph Avenue to intersect US 1& 9 for better connection into Carteret.  Before it was a hassle using Hazelwood and CR 514 or the SB CR 514 Jughandle to reach Randolph Avenue East. Now a direct turn ( or reverse Jughandle SB) does the trick. Not to mention the grade separation with CR 514 is an added bonus and the elimination of the Turner Street signal for a pair of Right Ins and Right Outs, as Turner Street was just a local residential street with no real need to have it signalized with the highway.

The minor sacrifice was eliminating the interchange with Hazelwood Avenue, but Turner Street did prove effective as now it serves  as a reverse Jughandle to Milton Avenue. So motorists to Downtown Rahway can use WB Milton to reach it instead of Hazelwood Avenue like previously. Plus the Randolph Avenue Extension could help for other needs on Hazelwood lost by the NB ramp removal.

Did great planning on that one I must say.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 10:58:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3769 on: January 26, 2022, 11:34:59 PM »

I did see though one project in particular back in the early aughts did prove effective. In Rahway, NJ, the US 1& 9 Rahway River Bridge replacement made things actually better. It not only added lanes to US 1 & 9 ( as previously it narrowed to four lanes between the Hazelwood Avenue Half Diamond and CR 514) but extended Randolph Avenue to intersect US 1& 9 for better connection into Carteret.  Before it was a hassle using Hazelwood and CR 514 or the SB CR 514 Jughandle to reach Randolph Avenue East. Now a direct turn ( or reverse Jughandle SB) does the trick. Not to mention the grade separation with CR 514 is an added bonus and the elimination of the Turner Street signal for a pair of Right Ins and Right Outs, as Turner Street was just a local residential street with no real need to have it signalized with the highway.

The minor sacrifice was eliminating the interchange with Hazelwood Avenue, but Turner Street did prove effective as now it serves  as a reverse Jughandle to Milton Avenue. So motorists to Downtown Rahway can use WB Milton to reach it instead of Hazelwood Avenue like previously. Plus the Randolph Avenue Extension could help for other needs on Hazelwood lost by the NB ramp removal.

Did great planning on that one I must say.

I've found most if not all the improvements that NJDOT has done along 1&9 south of Newark to be improvements of note.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12340
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:49:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3770 on: January 27, 2022, 09:55:24 AM »

Yeah but US 1 in the vicinity of Menlo Park Mall took decades way too long to complete.  Now itís adequate but IMO the intersection with Parsonage Road should be a trumpet, the Ford Avenue intersection a SPUI, and Grandview Avenue a Parclo.

Oh yeah and the US 1 at Gill Lane/ Woodbridge Center Drive could be a DDI.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

J Route Z

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 332
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Northeast
  • Last Login: February 27, 2022, 08:51:03 PM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3771 on: January 27, 2022, 11:33:53 AM »

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html


Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 10:58:22 AM
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3772 on: January 27, 2022, 11:36:11 AM »

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html


Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.

Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway"  :-D
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Washington DC suburbs
  • Last Login: May 27, 2022, 10:58:22 AM
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14935
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 11:56:11 AM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: New Jersey
« Reply #3774 on: January 27, 2022, 06:27:23 PM »

https://www.nj.com/news/2022/01/permanent-cashless-tolls-are-finally-coming-to-nj-starting-with-a-small-highway.html


Permanent cashless tolls are coming to N.J. starting with the AC Expressway. Could be operational by 2025.

Only a north Jersey source would term the ACE a "small highway"  :-D
Compared to the other ones that aren't cashless yet it's small potatoes.

 


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.