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

[NE2]

what the fuck

(this one directed at HB's kneejerking, as opposed to the first one, which was bloody obviously in reply to the post immediately above it)

[EricJV95]

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

In Keyshawn Johnson's words , "C'MON MAN"!!!!!

[EricJV95]

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

Looks like EXIT 15E (TRUCK RT 1-9) from the N.J. Turnpike along with the Turnpike Extension (I-78 EAST to the Holland Tunnel) is about to get a major workout. But then again to avoid this 2 year MESS going into Manhattan, Here's 2 alternate routes you can use via the N.J. Turnpike from Newark. You can just take either the Lincoln Tunnel or the G. Washington Br. to Manhattan. Or, Just take EXIT 13 (I-278 EAST) and cut through Staten Isl. and cross the Verrazano Bridge into Brooklyn and take the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel into Lower Manhattan. And if all else fails; TAKE THE TRAIN!!!

[jeffandnicole]

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

Typically, in NJ, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government. 

One good example near me: Before the NJ 70/NJ 73 Marlton Circle was replaced with an overpass, the local paper (Courier Post) printed many, many stories from a small group of people that wanted a traditional intersection using some "new technology"...which actually was sensors detecting traffic - you know, the stuff that has been around for 50+ years and used at nearly every intersection.  NJDOT, to their credit, even held meetings with them to get their point of view, although their suggestions were ultimately ignored.

The overpass was installed, and traffic gets thru congestion free.  The Courier Post has NEVER printed a story announcing the completed construction, nor the fact that congestion has been eliminated.  My only guess is because it would actually be an article which compliments NJDOT.

[jeffandnicole]

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

NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.

NJDOT doesn't have enough money to keep up with the projects to reduce congestion or maintain their own roadways.  They certainly don't have enough to pay the NJ Turnpike lost toll money revenue.

[hbelkins]

Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government. 

FIFY.

[roadman65]

Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government. 

FIFY.

Not necessary true. When Clinton was President everything defended him, even when "he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski" and was totally against anyone (especially Limbaugh) saying that he was a troublemaker, and being disrespectful to the Office of President.

In fact Clinton was a hero, for cheating on his wife in that regard. 

It all depends who you are and what consumer or advocate group you represent will the papers support you.

[hbelkins]

Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government. 

FIFY.

Not necessary true. When Clinton was President everything defended him, even when "he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski" and was totally against anyone (especially Limbaugh) saying that he was a troublemaker, and being disrespectful to the Office of President.

In fact Clinton was a hero, for cheating on his wife in that regard. 

It all depends who you are and what consumer or advocate group you represent will the papers support you.

I wasn't making a political statement, just an observation that the press always seems to seek out loud angry voices whenever there is a controversy. I've seen it several times, even with small community newspapers on road projects in rural or small-town Kentucky.

It's not good copy to run a story with people saying, "Oh yes, we really need that road/bridge/bypass." It makes a better story to quote people saying, "I hate that project and the SOBs who thought of it."

[cpzilliacus]

It's not good copy to run a story with people saying, "Oh yes, we really need that road/bridge/bypass." It makes a better story to quote people saying, "I hate that project and the SOBs who thought of it."

[Emphasis added above]

That is absolutely correct.

[signalman]

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.

I agree with Kacie Jane.  I know after I atempted to to read that mess by Interstatefan78 I said it to myself. 

[roadman65]

Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government. 

FIFY.

Not necessary true. When Clinton was President everything defended him, even when "he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski" and was totally against anyone (especially Limbaugh) saying that he was a troublemaker, and being disrespectful to the Office of President.

In fact Clinton was a hero, for cheating on his wife in that regard. 

It all depends who you are and what consumer or advocate group you represent will the papers support you.

I wasn't making a political statement, just an observation that the press always seems to seek out loud angry voices whenever there is a controversy. I've seen it several times, even with small community newspapers on road projects in rural or small-town Kentucky.

It's not good copy to run a story with people saying, "Oh yes, we really need that road/bridge/bypass." It makes a better story to quote people saying, "I hate that project and the SOBs who thought of it."

I was not making a political statement either.  Just to make a point, that it does depend on the cause, the group, and the liking to get either your story followed  or hounded by the press. 

The simple fact is what stirs the people up is what media outlets like to do.  Its called ratings!  To be in broadcasting, it is not as simple as printing what you want.  You have advertisers who pay the bills for you to find a story and to have it published.  If the editor feels that piece will not sell, he sure is not going to print it!  Everyone is out to make money as without it the paper, newsroom, etc. will go out of business.

If you were a business owner, what radio station would you want your advertisement to air on?  The one that has the poorest ratings, or the one that has the highest?  I think you would take the latter over the former.  You are not going to invest your hard earned money to make a commercial for hardly anyone to see.

Plus, you have to know the demographics of who are your listeners too as well!  That is why laundry detergent commercials are aired mostly during daytime, because most housewives are home watching TV then.  They are the ones that buy the stuff, so the soap companies are not going to advertise full force prime time or on Saturdays, because the demographics change to men, children, sports fans, etc.

[seicer]

So anyways.

What work will be conducted on the bridge? Other than it is a rehabilitation.

[SteveG1988]

So anyways.

What work will be conducted on the bridge? Other than it is a rehabilitation.

I think that's it...there is not much you can do other than rehab it.

[Roadsguy]

Maybe "accidentally" collapse it and say "Oops. Well, let's six-lane it!"

It is historic, isn't it?

[Alps]

Maybe "accidentally" collapse it and say "Oops. Well, let's six-lane it!"

It is historic, isn't it?

They were looking into a twin span and keeping this either as one roadway direction or just a ped/bike structure. Keep in mind that original US 1/9 through Newark was converted to express/local lanes in the same direction, but the Skyway would require a total rebuild to have no more than three through lanes in one direction without center ramps.

[Duke87]

Those center ramps are what make the Skyway fun. You haven't experienced the best of it unless you've tried to enter from one of them.

[roadman]

Maybe "accidentally" collapse it and say "Oops. Well, let's six-lane it!"

It is historic, isn't it?

Only because of its age (although some would argue the fact that the Pulaski Skyway played a role in the 1939 Orson Welles War of the Worlds broadcast should be taken into consideration).

Not sure which category the Skyway presently falls under, but it's most likely (a) already on the National Register; (b) is considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register; or (c) is considered potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

[NE2]

It's a symbol of manliness like none other.

[cpzilliacus]

Not sure which category the Skyway presently falls under, but it's most likely (a) already on the National Register; (b) is considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register; or (c) is considered potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

I think you are correct. 

Now, to stir the pot, is it possible that some segments of the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes or the Garden State Parkway might qualify for inclusion?

[roadman]

Now, to stir the pot, is it possible that some segments of the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes or the Garden State Parkway might qualify for inclusion?

For Federally-funded transportation projects, the general rule is that most everything over 50 years old, if it's not already on the National Register or is already considered eligible for inclusion on the Register, is automatically considered to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

Because the GSP, NJ Turnpike, and PA Turnpike are maintained and upgraded primarily with toll revenues and other private funding sources, "historic" significance is less of an issue than with Federally funded roadways.  However, as National Register eligibilty is determined by the states, and not the Federal Government, the arguments regarding "historic" signficance of these roads might still be subject to review by the State of New Jersey (or Pennsylvania).  And, like with most public environmental processes, it remains incumbent upon the project proponent to disprove any "historic" claims that may arise during the review, instead of having the objectors reasonably prove their claims.

Bear in mind that falling into one of the National Register categories doesn't automatically mean that something can't be significantally rebuilt or demolished.  It's just one more hurdle that the NIMBYs can use to delay the design and construction of the project.

As far as the Interstate system (which is now over 50 years old) goes, FHWA actually considers the majority of the system to be exempt from the National Register "50 year" rule.  Those elements of the system that are considered to be of historical or environmental significance can be found at:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp

For the record, Roadman supports the basic concept of historic preservation when such preservation is truly justified by the legitimate history of whatever is being preserved.  Roadman does not support arguments like "it's over 50 years old, therefore, it's automatically considered to be of historic significance" or "we shouldn't build this because it will be visible from a 200 year old church."

[Roadsguy]

Many bridges offer lessons: never make a road (or part of one) historic, because if something's old enough, it's almost always not wide enough for the traffic load it gets.

Or just mandate that the new bridge has to at least look like the old bridge, or the local area has to approve it or something. Like replacing the Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh with a similar-looking bridge that's six lanes and true freeway.

[Alps]

The NJ Historic Preservation Office does consider the Parkway to be a historic resource, FWIW. Not so the Turnpike because of all the modifications over the years.

[cpzilliacus]

The NJ Historic Preservation Office does consider the Parkway to be a historic resource, FWIW. Not so the Turnpike because of all the modifications over the years.

Between Interchanges 1 and 4, the N.J. Turnpike is little changed from its earliest days, with the exception of the mainline barrier at 1 (which represents a huge improvement from the old barrier).  I was not around in 1951 when the original Turnpike was completed, but that's what I have been told by people who were.

But most of the rest of the Turnpike has not been widened, though some of the bridges over and under the Pike have obviously been rebuilt in anticipation of widening from four to six lanes.

[cpzilliacus]

Now, to stir the pot, is it possible that some segments of the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes or the Garden State Parkway might qualify for inclusion?

For Federally-funded transportation projects, the general rule is that most everything over 50 years old, if it's not already on the National Register or is already considered eligible for inclusion on the Register, is automatically considered to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

Because the GSP, NJ Turnpike, and PA Turnpike are maintained and upgraded primarily with toll revenues and other private funding sources, "historic" significance is less of an issue than with Federally funded roadways.  However, as National Register eligibilty is determined by the states, and not the Federal Government, the arguments regarding "historic" signficance of these roads might still be subject to review by the State of New Jersey (or Pennsylvania).  And, like with most public environmental processes, it remains incumbent upon the project proponent to disprove any "historic" claims that may arise during the review, instead of having the objectors reasonably prove their claims.

Seems backward, doesn't it?

I did not think that source of funding mattered in making these determinations mattered.  And besides, most the funding to construct the "original" Pennsylvania Turnpike was a loan from the federal government.

I read someplace that the service plazas along the "original" Pennsylvania Turnpike (e.g. Midway and Somerset) are either eligible or listed.

Bear in mind that falling into one of the National Register categories doesn't automatically mean that something can't be significantally rebuilt or demolished.  It's just one more hurdle that the NIMBYs can use to delay the design and construction of the project.

Like claims about species covered by the Endangered Species Act being present near a proposed project.

As far as the Interstate system (which is now over 50 years old) goes, FHWA actually considers the majority of the system to be exempt from the National Register "50 year" rule.  Those elements of the system that are considered to be of historical or environmental significance can be found at:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp

For the record, Roadman supports the basic concept of historic preservation when such preservation is truly justified by the legitimate history of whatever is being preserved.  Roadman does not support arguments like "it's over 50 years old, therefore, it's automatically considered to be of historic significance" or "we shouldn't build this because it will be visible from a 200 year old church."

That is an interesting link.

The entries for Maryland seem to make sense to me.

Curious that there were no entries on it for Virginia (I would propose all of I-66 between Front Royal and Gainesville for inclusion as a good example of beautiful, almost parkway-like highway engineering and design). 

Agreed with you regarding preservation criteria.

[Mr_Northside]

I read someplace that the service plazas along the "original" Pennsylvania Turnpike (e.g. Midway and Somerset) are either eligible or listed.

I think you might be right about Midway (though I'm not 100% sure).  I don't know if Somerset was, but it seems a moot point now since both Eastbound & Westbound plazas have been replaced recently with modern facilities.
I'm not sure what their plans are for any upgrades (or possible rebuilds) @ Midway.

Or just mandate that the new bridge has to at least look like the old bridge, or the local area has to approve it or something. Like replacing the Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh with a similar-looking bridge that's six lanes and true freeway.

I've never thought of the Liberty Bridge as that special.  Though I guess in just the downtown area, one might think so.  A six lane replacement might be useful when it's time, though the downtown connections & the McArdle Rd. intersection & Liberty Tunnels might negate any "true freeway" improvements.

*On Topic - I had the "pleasure" once of driving the Skyway on my way from the Holland Tunnel to I-78.  (and have been on it a couple more times as a passenger).  Living in Pittsburgh, I'm used to old, sub-standard roads, so it was nothing too out-of-the-ordinary.