AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is now open! See this thread for more information.

Author Topic: New Jersey Turnpike  (Read 1152092 times)

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4825 on: March 13, 2023, 08:53:09 PM »

I think the real issue was that Federal funding couldn't be used for such interchanges, but they could be built by the toll authorities using their own funding which is probably what New York did. I'm guessing that NJTA and PTC wouldn't use their own funding to connect to free Interstates only because they wanted drivers to stay on their toll road instead of using free roads. And who suffered for that? The general public who couldn't conveniently transit from the Pennsy Pike to I-95 or from the NJT to NJ 42/A.C. Expwy.

The NJTP has no direct connection to I-76/NJ-42/ACE (I count these as the same road because I've long thought the I-76 designation ought to extend down the ACE to Atlantic City), but it does have direct connections to I-195 (7A), I-287 (10), I-278 (13), I-78(14), and I-280 (15W).  I think this was more about not wanting drivers to take the parallel and toll-free I-295 through south Jersey (recall I-195 and I-295 did not have a direct connection between them until a few years ago).

The whole "no direct connection between the PA Turnpike and I-95/I-176/I-81/I-70/etc" thing appears to be uniquely a PTC thing.  Not sure why there are direct connections to I-83, I-283, and I-76 though.

(Also, I haven't been up that way in YEARS, but IIRC the NY Thruway does not have a direct connection to I-84.  I'd argue that the I-87/I-90 split up by Albany isn't REALLY a direct connection either, but you don't have to use surface streets.)

NYSTA improved the connections to 84 some years ago, so it's better than it used to be. PTC wouldn't do it because they would have had to foot the costs of the builds thanks to federal law, so they were content for all connections to be indirect. NJTA built their interchanges in the 50s, and 295 came later and NJTA saw no real need to change things.

Ohio too. There was no I-80/90 connection to I-75 for years.  Ditto for I-77 too.  Then they finally connected both to their Turnpike.

IL, kind of with I-294 to I-57. For years no connection, but now a partial one anyway.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14381
  • Age: 48
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:29:47 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4826 on: March 13, 2023, 10:06:38 PM »

I think this was more about not wanting drivers to take the parallel and toll-free I-295 through south Jersey (recall I-195 and I-295 did not have a direct connection between them until a few years ago).

"A few years ago" = 1994.  That interchange is now nearly 30 years old.

For what it's worth, NJDOT hasn't wanted travelers taking Rt. 42 to I-295 South, and I-295 North to Rt. 42 south either.  They are only now working on that connection.  There's no signage on either highway's mainline that even hints at what path to take to get around the missing connections.

The NJ Turnpike at least shows the travel times for both 295 and the NJ Turnpike on their mainline VMS boards approaching Interchange 4.  It's almost always going to be longer via 295 because of the time on Rt. 73, plus the lower speed limit on 295 for 9 of those miles, but I have seen it on my limited travels on the Turnpike where it shows the same time for either option when there's issues on the Turnpike.

While the NJ Turnpike has never signed I-295 specifically on the mainline, it's never hidden its identity either. Whenver there's a significant issue on the Turnpike, 295 is the main detour.  When the SB Turnpike used to suffer from 10+ mile long traffic jams at the old, undersized Interchange 1, the Turnpike consistently closed its roadway at Interchange 4 to force traffic over to 295 South.  Rarely did travelers repeat that route on their own to save themselves money.

And of course, the Turnpike and 295 goes both ways.  Travelers crossing into NJ could easily take 295 North saving themselves money until they decide to switch over to the Turnpike.  Whatever excuses anyway wants to come up with for why travelers don't use 295 North are just as valid going Southbound as well.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4827 on: March 13, 2023, 11:22:41 PM »

Years ago, NJDOT did have TO RT. 42 circles on I-295 north where it exited I-76 and another one at NJ 168. So it once was marked at least one way.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Ted$8roadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1454
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:17 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4828 on: March 14, 2023, 05:23:53 AM »

(Also, I haven't been up that way in YEARS, but IIRC the NY Thruway does not have a direct connection to I-84)

Now there is a direct connection.  I don't understand why I-87/I-90 is so weird though.

There is a now a direct connection between the NY Thruway and I-87, although it is relatively recent (2009). Not sure about why I-87 and I-90 are the way they are.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4829 on: March 14, 2023, 06:36:12 AM »

I-87 NB to Free I-90 east and through I-87 to the Northway transition is a substandard ramp.  The extension of the Northway to US 20 should be extended into ramps to the Thruway south of US 20 and the Thruway crossing and become seam less I-87.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4830 on: March 14, 2023, 06:47:34 AM »

What was the original plan for Route 90?  Wasn’t it to exchange with Exit 4 of the Turnpike? Or was it to end at I-295 north of the NJ 73 cloverleaf?

If the former been built, Central Philly would have had a direct freeway from the Turnpike.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13343
  • Last Login: Today at 04:32:36 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4831 on: March 14, 2023, 06:53:25 AM »

I-87 NB to Free I-90 east and through I-87 to the Northway transition is a substandard ramp.  The extension of the Northway to US 20 should be extended into ramps to the Thruway south of US 20 and the Thruway crossing and become seam less I-87.

There's no reason for that extension and the ROW takings would be prohibitive.

The only improvements mulled by NYSDOT I can think of are somehow widening the ramp from I-87 SB to the Thruway (probably some major environmental concerns due to its location) and NY 85 being extended north to Central Ave.  Neither have gotten past jist mulling, though, insofar as I know.

ETA: This discussion should be moved out of the NJT thread and put into the Thruway thread.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4832 on: March 14, 2023, 06:57:16 AM »

The extension has plenty of merit as it also was a grander plan to once be proposed to Exit 23. However the redundant side by side freeways and Thruway revenue loss got that cancelled.

Now we can continue on the Thruway thread as weíre being MMM here.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Ted$8roadFan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1454
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:17 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4833 on: March 14, 2023, 07:25:51 AM »

« Last Edit: March 14, 2023, 09:27:10 AM by Ted$8roadFan »
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1928
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:52:50 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4834 on: March 14, 2023, 09:04:53 AM »

An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/
If you want fewer single-vehicle trips on the Turnpike, then build a HSR line. I don't know what to tell you.
Logged

BrianP

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 559
  • Location: Maryland
  • Last Login: Today at 04:17:34 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4835 on: March 14, 2023, 10:54:24 AM »

Years ago, NJDOT did have TO RT. 42 circles on I-295 north where it exited I-76 and another one at NJ 168. So it once was marked at least one way.
I'm not as familiar with I-295 as I was with NJ 42.

The routing was that exit 1C on I-76 was signed as TO I-295 and NJ 42.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8802111,-75.1028447,3a,75y,356.8h,98.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9GXN3nWx_O0LlLjC8V6hMQ!2e0!5s20121101T000000!7i13312!8i6656

So the NJ 42 north to I-295 south movement was go past I-295 then U turn at exit 1C and then exit at I-295 south. Of course after they closed the right side exit to I-295 south then you had to get over 4 lanes in a mile to get to that exit. Or use US 130 as a go between.
Logged

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: August 29, 2023, 03:45:42 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4836 on: March 14, 2023, 11:47:47 AM »

An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements (not mine):

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/

Isn't a boondoggle something that won't pay for itself? Pretty sure the turnpike widenings do exactly that.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14381
  • Age: 48
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 03:29:47 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4837 on: March 14, 2023, 05:41:42 PM »

Years ago, NJDOT did have TO RT. 42 circles on I-295 north where it exited I-76 and another one at NJ 168. So it once was marked at least one way.
I'm not as familiar with I-295 as I was with NJ 42.

The routing was that exit 1C on I-76 was signed as TO I-295 and NJ 42.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.8802111,-75.1028447,3a,75y,356.8h,98.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9GXN3nWx_O0LlLjC8V6hMQ!2e0!5s20121101T000000!7i13312!8i6656

So the NJ 42 north to I-295 south movement was go past I-295 then U turn at exit 1C and then exit at I-295 south. Of course after they closed the right side exit to I-295 south then you had to get over 4 lanes in a mile to get to that exit. Or use US 130 as a go between.


So this sign existed, but there was never signage on 295 itself.  NJDOT at one point discussed putting signage on 295, and discussed whether to direct traffic using via I-76, US 130, or even CR 534 thru Woodbury, but they ultimately decided not to sign anything (which is such a NJDOT thing to do - spend thousands of hours of time and countless designs to ultimately never putting up several hundred dollars worth of signs).

The signs on the I-76 WB ramp for Exit 1C and the onramp from Market Street WB to I-76 EB still exist to guide motorists, but that's the only signage that still exists for the missing moves.

An opposing view of the coming NJTP improvements (not mine):

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/09/15/highway-boondoggles-part-iii-two-big-garden-state-mistakes/

They will disapprove of any widening project, even though they try very hard to not point out that the projects do seem very likely they will reduce congestion for quite some time.  The group also doesn't really have much in the way of alternatives - especially for the Turnpike's Interchange 1 - 4 widening.  It's one thing to be against a project that would benefit commuting traffic where mass transit alternatives may assist in taking traffic off the road.  But in the Turnpike's case, there's already a well-known train line called Amtrak that is in the very close vicinity of the general traffic movement that has already improved service in the area. And there's a cheaper alternative of SEPTA and NJ Transit that also duplicates that very same movement.  If they were to build another train line very close to the NJ Turnpike Corridor, it won't assist in any way with the normal traffic movement and be way, way costlier than a roadway expansion.  So whatever group this is, they're kinda stuck in that they don't have a great alternative to fight the project with.
Logged

Mergingtraffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2062
  • Location: NYC-CT
  • Last Login: Today at 11:59:28 AM
    • My Flickr alias: MergingTraffic
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4838 on: March 14, 2023, 08:54:42 PM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road.  (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)

While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx. 
Logged
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: August 29, 2023, 03:45:42 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4839 on: March 14, 2023, 11:00:13 PM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road.  (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)

While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.

The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3656
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 04:04:48 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4840 on: March 15, 2023, 12:39:26 AM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road.  (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)

While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.

The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 13343
  • Last Login: Today at 04:32:36 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4841 on: March 15, 2023, 06:53:55 AM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road.  (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)

While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.

The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.
I suppose sometimes we wait too long and the added capacity doesn't match the level of development and demand that is already in place.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

famartin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1101
  • Location: Trenton NJ area
  • Last Login: August 29, 2023, 03:45:42 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4842 on: March 15, 2023, 10:27:06 AM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

So going by their logic, the roadway should never have been widened at all and kept at 4-lanes forever b/c traffic keeps coming and it's still congested.
Could you imagine the traffic if it wasn't widened? Traffic still comes even if you don't widen the road.  (Look at US-7 in Southwest Connecticut)

While you can't build your way out of congestion, you can definitely smooth it out.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.

The only reason you can't build your way out of congestion is because people decide to develop the area more heavily when congestion is low.
This is hardly true in all scenarios.
I suppose sometimes we wait too long and the added capacity doesn't match the level of development and demand that is already in place.
Bingo.
Logged

RobbieL2415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1928
  • Location: Hartford County, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:52:50 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4843 on: March 15, 2023, 01:24:26 PM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
I feel like this logic is a bit flawed. People do complain about highways, but they use them because they don't have any other option. If I wanted to get to work using just surface streets, I'd have to cross the Connecticut River at a bridge that is either 10 miles north or 10 miles south of Hartford. There is no commuter rail from my town to Hartford. NIMBYs will readily accept that they have to use cars to get around, and also believe we need better mass transit (which we do.).

I'll bet you there were plenty of people who complained when the elevated lines were built in Manhattan and the Bronx, but their benefit over the alternatives far outweighed the need to keep the street aesthetically pleasing.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4844 on: March 15, 2023, 01:55:06 PM »

I agree. Driving to work is become a chore over a luxury it once was. Many people donít have the option of mass transit.  The Turnpike users are the same. Many are on it cause they have to and ongoing growth makes commuting even more dreadful each day.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

tckma

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 615
  • I only came for the Appelflappen!

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Manayunk, Philadelphia, PA
  • Last Login: September 18, 2023, 10:24:27 AM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4845 on: March 15, 2023, 03:45:52 PM »

I agree. Driving to work is become a chore over a luxury it once was. Many people donít have the option of mass transit.  The Turnpike users are the same. Many are on it cause they have to and ongoing growth makes commuting even more dreadful each day.

For those who DO have the option of mass transit, it's not great.

When I worked in Boston, I drove 20 minutes to the Commuter Rail station for a 1h15m train ride to South Station, followed by a 5-10 minute walk to work.  But the MBTA Worcester Line is actually owned by CSX, which means freight trains get priority, and often we would sit on a siding for up to a half hour if a freight train came through.  Fortunately, about 80% of the company employees took the same train, so if I was late, so was my boss, my scrum master, the CEO, et cetera.

Currently I live in the Manayunk neighborhood of Philadelphia and work in King of Prussia.  I usually drive to work (1) over the Green Lane Bridge, constructed in 1929 and woefully inadequate to today's traffic demands -- traffic is often backed up almost all the way to my house, and (2) using the Schuylkill Expressway, 'nuff said.

At the moment my car is being repaired, so I have two mass transit options:

The better option is SEPTA busses, specifically Route 61 to Route 125.  There's often a long wait at the transfer station, plus the busses get stuck in the same rush hour traffic on the Schuylkill that I do as an individual driver.  I can't take the 124 as it doesn't have a stop close enough to my work.  The 125 comes about every 45 minutes during rush hour and is usually jam-packed.  Often, busses are cancelled for no discernable reason (gorgeous weather with no traffic?  Bus still cancelled).  Returning home, the 125 is often cancelled, and the 61 often does not show up at Wissahickon Transfer Center, forcing me to take the #27 bus, which means a longer walk home from the bus stop.

Another option is taking the SEPTA Manayunk/Norristown line train from Manayunk Station to Norristown Transfer Center, then hopping on the SEPTA Route 99 bus.  Although I like the train a lot better, this option is more expensive fare-wise, plus it still involves a bus, and the closest 99 stop to my work is about a 25 minute walk (almost a mile).

While I'm happy that mass transit is an option (where I used to live, it wasn't), I still thank my lucky stars that I am finally having my car repaired by Tuesday of next week.

wanderer2575

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2083
  • Location: Farmington Hills, MI
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4846 on: March 15, 2023, 04:34:40 PM »

From Streesblog's very first paragraph:

Quote
Since it opened in 1951, the New Jersey Turnpike has undergone a seemingly endless series of expansion projects, beginning just four years into its existence when unanticipated traffic volumes prompted the New Jersey Turnpike Authority to add a raft of new lanes along an 83-mile stretch of the roadway. Seven decades on, with the Turnpike now among the most traveled highways in the country, various sections have been widened to six, 12, and even as many as 14 lanes.

These people complain about highways but use highways.  But nobody complains about the eyesores or elevated train lines in the Bronx.
I feel like this logic is a bit flawed. People do complain about highways, but they use them because they don't have any other option. If I wanted to get to work using just surface streets, I'd have to cross the Connecticut River at a bridge that is either 10 miles north or 10 miles south of Hartford. There is no commuter rail from my town to Hartford. NIMBYs will readily accept that they have to use cars to get around, and also believe we need better mass transit (which we do.).

I'll bet you there were plenty of people who complained when the elevated lines were built in Manhattan and the Bronx, but their benefit over the alternatives far outweighed the need to keep the street aesthetically pleasing.

Also, however much one opposed the construction of a highway/rail/whatever, there is nothing to be gained by being a martyr and refusing to use it once it exists.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4847 on: March 15, 2023, 05:15:07 PM »

Sprawl control is the best but we know that won't happen. $$$ is from careless development from not carefully considering building homes where there is adequate work for the demographics that will purchase your homes or even build it near light rail access. Cut back on strip malls and fast food  as we have too much of that.

Won't happen.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3656
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 04:04:48 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4848 on: March 15, 2023, 05:24:54 PM »

^^^^ Iím sure glad you arenít in control
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15195
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:14:55 PM
Re: New Jersey Turnpike
« Reply #4849 on: March 15, 2023, 05:43:59 PM »

It is what brings traffic and makes people most miserable.^^^^
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

 


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.