New Jersey Turnpike

[odditude]

I still maintain:

1.  I see expanding the NJTP from 2 to 3 lanes from the DE Mem Bridge to exit 4 is not needed.
-Exit 4 to exit 3/2 yes, but 2 south I don't see it, traffic is free flowing.

welp, the rest of the world maintains otherwise.

and yes, i've sat in traffic between 2 and the bridge before.

[Tonytone]

I still maintain:

1.  I see expanding the NJTP from 2 to 3 lanes from the DE Mem Bridge to exit 4 is not needed.
-Exit 4 to exit 3/2 yes, but 2 south I don't see it, traffic is free flowing.

welp, the rest of the world maintains otherwise.

and yes, i've sat in traffic between 2 and the bridge before.

Expand the 3-3 configuration to the Del Mem bridge & make it merge into the 4 lanes per bridge.


iPhone

[famartin]

The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.

Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:

[Tonytone]

The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.

Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:

The bottle neck is from the lack of Express lanes.

The construction project on 295 pass the toll fixed the traffic issue.

Also where is that picture. Im glad they are finally respecting the city of philly.


iPhone

[ilpt4u]

^^^^ It appears to be on the Garden State Pkwy South @ the I-95/NJTP Exit

[Tonytone]

^^^^ It appears to be on the Garden State Pkwy South @ the I-95/NJTP Exit

Thank you. Ive drove pass this before & couldn't remember. Now I do.


iPhone

[jeffandnicole]

The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.

The bottleneck exists northbound also.

[bluecountry]

The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.

Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:

1.  YES!  The Trenton control city is stupid, not only does 95 not go there, but it's not a major city.  Philadelphia needs to be the control city.  So they have changed it now at the GSP interchange?

2.  YES!  We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there.  Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area.  Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing.  Hardly a priority.

[sprjus4]

2.  YES!  We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there.  Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area.  Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing.  Hardly a priority.

The bottleneck exists through the whole corridor, and needs widening to 6 lanes.

I've encountered stop-and-go on that segment, both directions, and moving from 70 mph to 35 - 45 mph and back for miles on end in bumper to bumper traffic is not "free flowing". North of Exit 3, I've rarely encountered any issues. You may not personally have encountered issues the times you drive it, but that does not automatically dismiss the reality it does exist perhaps times you chose to not drive it.

I predict by 2030 that 6 lane widening will be complete.

[akotchi]

The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.

Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:

Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129.  Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.

StreetView (October 2019) shows Trenton as the control city NB, and entering the Turnpike at the Exit 11 tolls, the control city was Trenton as of September 2019.  Were these also changed?  There is no direct access to U.S. 1 from NB.

[famartin]

The bottleneck is the plaza plus the bridge and the mess in DE. Absolutely no reason to widen the southern NJTP without widening further downstream and adding another span.

Changing the topic... this change in control cities a welcome change, though its the only place I've seen it thus far:

Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129.  Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.

StreetView (October 2019) shows Trenton as the control city NB, and entering the Turnpike at the Exit 11 tolls, the control city was Trenton as of September 2019.  Were these also changed?  There is no direct access to U.S. 1 from NB.

I want to say no, but honestly I'd have to go back thru the pics I took, and I'm not doing that right now. They're all posted at the link in the NJ thread so do feel free to check first. They were taken Saturday 7/11

[jeffandnicole]

2.  YES!  We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there.  Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area.  Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing.  Hardly a priority.

Dude...knock this shit off.  You're simply not driving the times when congestion occurs.  No need to repeat yourself 20 times.

[storm2k]

Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.

NJTA doesn't like posting county routes, even for the 5xx routes which serve as a secondary state highway system more or less. Although thinking about it, there aren't a ton of places where Turnpike interchanges are with county roads. Maybe Exit 12 and possibly 15X? Exit 12 flows out to 602 which is a minor county road. 15X is by CR657 in Hudson, but I'm not sure if it empties out directly onto it. The only instance of a county shield I can think of is at Exit 10 post toll plaza since there are direct ramps to 514.

[jeffandnicole]

Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.

NJTA doesn't like posting county routes, even for the 5xx routes which serve as a secondary state highway system more or less. Although thinking about it, there aren't a ton of places where Turnpike interchanges are with county roads. Maybe Exit 12 and possibly 15X? Exit 12 flows out to 602 which is a minor county road. 15X is by CR657 in Hudson, but I'm not sure if it empties out directly onto it. The only instance of a county shield I can think of is at Exit 10 post toll plaza since there are direct ramps to 514.

They interestingly do have it posted at the Southbound exit just below the Interchange 1 toll plaza.  https://goo.gl/maps/2mLpii9ipuL8vZ6r7  Besides being on the bottom of the sign rather than the top:

A) The exit doesn't directly lead you to CR 540.  You would need to make a left, go about 1/4 mile, then continue thru the traffic light to finally be on CR 540. 
B) The corresponding northbound exit only mentions US 40; no mention of NJ 140 or CR 540.
C) The Southbound exit ends at a traffic-lighted intersection which includes CR 551. No mention on the Turnpike of it though.

[famartin]

Would be nice if they posted CR-541 after all these years.

NJTA doesn't like posting county routes, even for the 5xx routes which serve as a secondary state highway system more or less. Although thinking about it, there aren't a ton of places where Turnpike interchanges are with county roads. Maybe Exit 12 and possibly 15X? Exit 12 flows out to 602 which is a minor county road. 15X is by CR657 in Hudson, but I'm not sure if it empties out directly onto it. The only instance of a county shield I can think of is at Exit 10 post toll plaza since there are direct ramps to 514.

They interestingly do have it posted at the Southbound exit just below the Interchange 1 toll plaza.  https://goo.gl/maps/2mLpii9ipuL8vZ6r7  Besides being on the bottom of the sign rather than the top:

A) The exit doesn't directly lead you to CR 540.  You would need to make a left, go about 1/4 mile, then continue thru the traffic light to finally be on CR 540. 
B) The corresponding northbound exit only mentions US 40; no mention of NJ 140 or CR 540.
C) The Southbound exit ends at a traffic-lighted intersection which includes CR 551. No mention on the Turnpike of it though.

Technically it does connect directly to 540, as the SLD for 540 indicates that 140 is concurrent with 540.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/pdf/00000540__-.pdf

[famartin]

Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129.  Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.

As a side note, it has never made sense for US 1 to be signed as either Trenton or Newark from the parkway (or 287 for that matter) since the turnpike is a better route. It makes more sense to sign US 1 as Elizabeth (or Linden or another closer city to the north) and New Brunswick. Its particularly odd that US 1 is signed northbound as New Brunswick at 295, but never southbound to my recollection (I haven't driven all of US 1 in NJ recently, but that's something I intend to remedy in the near future).

[NJRoadfan]

There is a supplementary sign at Exit 130 for New Brunswick.

[roadman65]

Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129.  Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.

As a side note, it has never made sense for US 1 to be signed as either Trenton or Newark from the parkway (or 287 for that matter) since the turnpike is a better route. It makes more sense to sign US 1 as Elizabeth (or Linden or another closer city to the north) and New Brunswick. Its particularly odd that US 1 is signed northbound as New Brunswick at 295, but never southbound to my recollection (I haven't driven all of US 1 in NJ recently, but that's something I intend to remedy in the near future).

Yes that stinks to have Newark when the Parkway just came from there.  Rahway or Woodbridge would be the better pick and yes New Brunswick should be SB being that many side roads use that city already.

I-287 has NJ 27 S Bound as New Brunswick, but US 1 is the faster route and should be signed as such with Highland Park being NJ 27's control city S Bound.  Also NJ 18 still uses Middlesex and Highland Park copied over from the old days.  NJ 18 should be signed Middlesex and New Brunswick and being that nearby River Road is the direct route there, leave it off of the now Route 18 exits.

Plus, New York is still used for Route 22 E Bound (left over from before I-78 of course) and should use more local destinations such as Green Brook, North Plainfield, or even Union.  For the longest time I-78 was signed Newark with US 22 as New York.  Go figure, the local road gets the big city and the freeway got the other big city.   IMO both Newark and New York should be used for I-78 E Bound from I-287 and drop Easton going for I-78 W Bound as Allentown is more appropriate now that I-78 continues beyond Still Valley.  Both Clinton and now Easton were used because of US 22 as those are that roads destinations west of Somerville on guide signs.

[famartin]

Trenton is used for the previous exit (130) for U.S. 1 SB, so it would not be repeated for 129.  Camden had been there before changed to Philadelphia -- was done prior to March 2020, which is Streetview date.

As a side note, it has never made sense for US 1 to be signed as either Trenton or Newark from the parkway (or 287 for that matter) since the turnpike is a better route. It makes more sense to sign US 1 as Elizabeth (or Linden or another closer city to the north) and New Brunswick. Its particularly odd that US 1 is signed northbound as New Brunswick at 295, but never southbound to my recollection (I haven't driven all of US 1 in NJ recently, but that's something I intend to remedy in the near future).

Yes that stinks to have Newark when the Parkway just came from there.  Rahway or Woodbridge would be the better pick and yes New Brunswick should be SB being that many side roads use that city already.

I-287 has NJ 27 S Bound as New Brunswick, but US 1 is the faster route and should be signed as such with Highland Park being NJ 27's control city S Bound.  Also NJ 18 still uses Middlesex and Highland Park copied over from the old days.  NJ 18 should be signed Middlesex and New Brunswick and being that nearby River Road is the direct route there, leave it off of the now Route 18 exits.

Plus, New York is still used for Route 22 E Bound (left over from before I-78 of course) and should use more local destinations such as Green Brook, North Plainfield, or even Union.  For the longest time I-78 was signed Newark with US 22 as New York.  Go figure, the local road gets the big city and the freeway got the other big city.   IMO both Newark and New York should be used for I-78 E Bound from I-287 and drop Easton going for I-78 W Bound as Allentown is more appropriate now that I-78 continues beyond Still Valley.  Both Clinton and now Easton were used because of US 22 as those are that roads destinations west of Somerville on guide signs.

Having recently toured all the interstates and toll roads, I think a complete re-evaluation of control cities state-wide is in order. Many are either out-of-date or inadequate.

[bluecountry]

2.  YES!  We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there.  Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area.  Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing.  Hardly a priority.

Dude...knock this shit off.  You're simply not driving the times when congestion occurs.  No need to repeat yourself 20 times.

When, when is it congested aside from the day before Thanksgiving?

[Tonytone]

2.  YES!  We don't need 3 lanes south of Exit 3, what we need more than anything is a bigger merge between the NJTP and I-295; any bottleneck is there.  Otherwise, in my hundreds of times on the NJTP I never get issues on the NJTP in that area.  Yeh, I can't go as fast as on other segments but I am still free flowing.  Hardly a priority.

Dude...knock this shit off.  You're simply not driving the times when congestion occurs.  No need to repeat yourself 20 times.

When, when is it congested aside from the day before Thanksgiving?

Rush hour.

During the summer

During Thanksgiving/Winter

During normal conditions.


iPhone

[bluecountry]

Sorry I drive there all the time and haven't experienced it.
Whereas I experienced this ALL the time between exits 6-9 prior to it being doubled.
I'm not seeing the need.

[jeffandnicole]

Sorry I drive there all the time and haven't experienced it.
Whereas I experienced this ALL the time between exits 6-9 prior to it being doubled.
I'm not seeing the need.

Well, according to this https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.msg2486666#msg2486666 , your response 3134 states you made 28.5 trips in a 3 year period, or about 9 trips per year. Fairly easy to miss the congestion if you're not on it during evening rush hours or busy weekends. You further say that you're barely able to maintain the speed limit or 5 over, which even in normal traffic, indicates that traffic is barely moving above congested levels.

For some reason, you think that construction should only happen after a road not only is congested on a regular basis, but that you experienced such congestion. The turnpike wouldn't be considering widening the roadway if such congestion didn't exist already. Plus the turnpike has been widening overpasses for over 20 years now in anticipation of an eventual widening, indicating its future traffic levels will only increase, and congestion is expected..

What you should have done you feel so strongly, is provided the Turnpike Authority written testimony that you don't believe the southern portion of the turnpike has been widened during the recent public comment period.

Oh well.

[bluecountry]

Sorry I drive there all the time and haven't experienced it.
Whereas I experienced this ALL the time between exits 6-9 prior to it being doubled.
I'm not seeing the need.

Well, according to this https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11190.msg2486666#msg2486666 , your response 3134 states you made 28.5 trips in a 3 year period, or about 9 trips per year. Fairly easy to miss the congestion if you're not on it during evening rush hours or busy weekends. You further say that you're barely able to maintain the speed limit or 5 over, which even in normal traffic, indicates that traffic is barely moving above congested levels.

For some reason, you think that construction should only happen after a road not only is congested on a regular basis, but that you experienced such congestion. The turnpike wouldn't be considering widening the roadway if such congestion didn't exist already. Plus the turnpike has been widening overpasses for over 20 years now in anticipation of an eventual widening, indicating its future traffic levels will only increase, and congestion is expected..

What you should have done you feel so strongly, is provided the Turnpike Authority written testimony that you don't believe the southern portion of the turnpike has been widened during the recent public comment period.

Oh well.

Drive it at least 1 month, it is nothing like exit 6-9 pre 2014.
Also if I can go 70 mph, that is free flowing and that is the case.

[sprjus4]

The Turnpike is at or near capacity as it is today on the 4 lane segment, and is congested during peak times, including rush hour, summers, holidays, etc. mentioned above, and looking at a 20 year future growth period, the Turnpike will most certainly require 6 lanes in order to not having a failing LOS by 2040.

I'm not a frequent traveler of the Turnpike, but when I drove it last summer during a summer weekday, traffic moved between 35 and 80+ mph and was always fluctuating, random stop-and-go, trucks micropassing, etc. Is this acceptable for 2020, and will this be expected with traffic growth and future volumes by 2040?

For a more local example, I could argue I-64 does not need widening between Richmond and Williamsburg because I can drive it off-peak and be flowing at 60 - 70 mph the whole way (despite a 70 mph speed limit that nobody seems to be able to maintain), but I try it during a peak weekend or during the summer, and you could be moving 55-60 mph, then finally get up to the speed limit (70 mph), then have to slam the brakes down to 30 mph, and even occasionally to a complete stop, for what appears to be absolutely nothing. The highway is rural, interchanges are spaced out 5-10 miles apart, yet the traffic volumes are so heavy that it clogs. And rightfully so, by 2021, 21 miles from Newport News to Williamsburg will have been expanded to 6 lanes, 5 miles near Richmond expanded in 2019, and remaining 28 mile segment simply waiting for funding. An environmental impact statement has been completed on the whole corridor, recommended full 6 lane widening, and is getting completed in phases as funding is enabled.

As much as I've complained about it, I must admit the 12 miles completed in 2017 and 2019 from Newport News to Williamsburg have drastically improved that segment, and the 2019 widening of 5 miles east of I-295 removed what was for the longest time a major bottleneck, both far worse than the remaining rural segments. They get tight during peak weekends and rush hour, but easily move 75 - 80 mph (all complete segments are posted 65 mph, which they previously were prior to widening). No more exiting at Exit 211 or 205 to take US-60 to I-295 to avoid the 5 mile backup east of I-295, or slogging up Jefferson Ave in Newport News to avoid the constant stop-and-go up to Williamsburg during rush hour and holidays, plus the awful 4 to 2 lane drop heading north / westbound. Those segments will eventually require 8 lane widening, and is planned in the future, but 6 lanes made a huge difference over 4 lanes for this interim widening. The rural areas that are planned for 6 lanes should be adequate as they do not also carry local rush hour traffic alongside through traffic, but rather mostly through traffic.