News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Garden State Parkway

Started by Roadrunner75, July 30, 2014, 09:53:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Roadrunner75

The 83-100 widening project is nearing completion.  Other than some top course repaving, final striping and reflectors, it's essentially down to just the new ramps at the 91 interchange and the bridge construction across the Manasquan River.  I'll have to take some photos.  From roughly 90 south to 83 the improvements are complete.  North of this, there are some spot areas with nighttime lane closures for final striping.  Final paving is basically done except for the area immediately around the bridge construction and the southbound lanes leading into it from around 98.  It feels pretty much complete regardless.  Looking forward to the new 91 ramps, but the new ramps at 89 are already a huge improvement for the area.


Don'tKnowYet

They renumbered southbound Exit 91 to Exits 91 B-A for the impending C-D road. The new northbound exit must be Exit 91 since i had seen no other new ramp being built earlier this summer.

J Route Z

What about all the way to exit 30? I heard they may be widening to the Ocean City exit, or just to the ACE?

Alps

Quote from: J Route Z on October 04, 2015, 10:34:18 PM
What about all the way to exit 30? I heard they may be widening to the Ocean City exit, or just to the ACE?
Right now, the widening ends at the bottom of Interchange 36, tied in with the ACE improvements. From 30 to 36 is not currently part of construction.

NJRoadfan

They did widen the Patcong Creek bridge to 3 lanes when they rebuilt it. Don't see much of a need to widen south of 36 until they decide to replace the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge. Whats interesting is that bridge is now starting to backup during the summer, although the construction isn't helping.

Are there any plans to convert the New Gretna and Great Egg plazas to express E-ZPass? I would have thought the widening project would have taken care of New Gretna, but nope.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: NJRoadfan on October 04, 2015, 11:58:31 PM
They did widen the Patcong Creek bridge to 3 lanes when they rebuilt it. Don't see much of a need to widen south of 36 until they decide to replace the northbound Great Egg Harbor Bridge. Whats interesting is that bridge is now starting to backup during the summer, although the construction isn't helping.

Are there any plans to convert the New Gretna and Great Egg plazas to express E-ZPass? I would have thought the widening project would have taken care of New Gretna, but nope.

There's a need to widen the GSP to Exit 30, for Ocean City, which was part of the original widening plans.  There is a significant amount of summertime congestion from the ACE to the OCNJ exit. 

While the new SB Great Egg Harbor Bridge will be 2 lanes wide, it is being built to accommodate a 3rd lane in the future if ever needed.  The NB Great Egg Harbor Bridge will remain 2 lanes wide.

As for the toll plazas, don't expect it anytime soon. 

The Great Egg Plaza was understandable, due to the 2 lane, 45 mph overpass just afterwards. They wouldn't want traffic going thru the plaza too quickly, so at least slowing traffic under 40 mph thru the plaza to 15 mph allows for a semi-natural buffer.

The New Gretna plaza was a mistake.  There should've been express lanes built there.  Maybe they would justify the lack of it due to the overpass about 3/4 mile ahead, but that would be a fairly weak argument, since in most cases the express/cash lanes would merge together within 1/2 mile.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have a clue what they wouldn't have implemented the express lanes here.

J Route Z


roadman65

Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

storm2k

Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:43:44 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.

I just drove through there and it looks like there was a new SB overpass from 36 done with new signage that mentions Woodbridge and Toms River, but other work is still in progress.

Roadrunner75

Quote from: storm2k on November 07, 2015, 02:41:56 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 05, 2015, 10:43:44 PM
Is the Exit 105 improvement near completion yet?  The one where the NB ramp will intersect Hope Road at grade and then cross it to merge east of there along with new jughandles at NJ 36 and Hope Road as well.
I just drove through there and it looks like there was a new SB overpass from 36 done with new signage that mentions Woodbridge and Toms River, but other work is still in progress.
This project is now complete, or at least mostly complete with possibly a little work to go on the north side of 36 at the third new signal on Hope Road if anything (WB 36 ramp to Hope Road signal).  I've driven the NB exit from the GSP a few times through the new signal across Hope Road and it works pretty well.  Big improvement, and as usual major improvements are always made once my job moves to a new location so I can't benefit from it on a daily basis.  Hope Road south of 36 still needs a widening to 4 lanes past Wyckoff Road.  The proposed new NB GSP offramp at 105 to Wayside Road has not started - not sure where that stands.

The 83-100 project is nearly complete with just the bridge widening over the Manasquan River getting close to completion and the new ramps at 91 coming along nicely.  The majority of the stretch has final pavement and they're finishing up with the final striping and reflectors now.  It feels complete, with the exception of the short stretch at the bridge work.  The 91 NB exit to Burrsville Road is paved and waiting for final striping, guardrails and the activation of the signal at the end of the ramp.  The NB on-ramp here is also close, but probably will stay closed until the relocation of the existing NB onramp from its current location to the park and ride lot a little to the north.  The new SB onramp needs some work, but the C/D lanes along the side of the GSP are basically complete.

I'm a little surprised with the somewhat tight geometry down at the new 89 ramps.  The ramps from Route 70 are a little abrupt, and the NB exits to 70 and Cedar Bridge Ave. are going to have a rollover or two.

storm2k

Question I was curious about: I noticed (due to sitting in heavy traffic) that some of the bridge structures on the former NJ-4 section of the Parkway in the Woodbridge/Clark area still have NJDOT structure identification signs on them (with the XXXX-XXX structure ID and the milage) rather than NJTA ones (just the mileage). I know the Highway Authority took over that stretch of road some 20 years ago from the state. Does the state still have a hand in maintaining some of these structures? Just curious because some of the signs don't look that old.

Mr. Matté

Doing some spot checks on readable GSV signs and this 2007 document (PDF), the Parkway bridges in this area appear to be maintained by the Turnpike Authority.

SignBridge

I keep seeing references on this board to the GSP being NJ Route-4. How can the GSP have that number when there is already a NJ-4 that goes west from the George Washington Bridge and has been there since the 1930's, twenty years before any of the Parkway was built?

noelbotevera

Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 07:42:05 PM
I keep seeing references on this board to the GSP being NJ Route-4. How can the GSP have that number when there is already a NJ-4 that goes west from the George Washington Bridge and has been there since the 1930's, twenty years before any of the Parkway was built?
The parkway was NJ Parkway 4 before 1957. After NJ Parkway 4 was deleted, the state maintained (free section) section had become the Highway Authority and called the Garden State Parkway until the Highway and Turnpike Authority merged in 2000.

SignBridge

You're saying NJ Parkway-4 is different than NJ-4?

noelbotevera

Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:06:28 PM
You're saying NJ Parkway-4 is different than NJ-4?
Yup. It was signed as NJ Parkway 4 for a short time after the state built the 11 mile free section until the Highway Authority took over construction.

SignBridge

So were there also 3 other numbered Parkways?

roadman65

The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Alps

Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 09, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Doing some spot checks on readable GSV signs and this 2007 document (PDF), the Parkway bridges in this area appear to be maintained by the Turnpike Authority.
They definitely are. These are holdovers, possibly from when the NJTA took over the NJHA. For all I know the NJHA kept the state's bridge numbering. No way to check now.

Alps

Quote from: SignBridge on November 09, 2015, 08:25:44 PM
So were there also 3 other numbered Parkways?
No.

NJ State Highway 4 followed what's now US 9 all the way up the state from Cape May to NJ 88. 4 followed original US 9 across 88 to 35, then up 35 all the way into 27. This original highway was intended to connect to the northern segment of NJ 4 that leaves Paterson.

NJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 AMNJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Somewhat true on the Paterson bank of the Passaic, too, but is there really something to this, or is this just the general style of a state highway built in that era that hasn't outgrown it?  I read decades ago that the park-like setting immediately east of Hackensack is a direct result of Teaneck prohibiting development along 4 in that town (or any road expansion) either by zoning or outright ownership of the abutting land.  It's worth noting that as soon as one enters Englewood, the road is fully lined with commercial property.

akotchi

Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 09:20:16 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
U.S. 9 was once aligned separately from the GSP Mullica River Bridge (48-50 overlap), on what is now known as Route 167.  Route 167 is now in two small pieces at either end of the former alignment, because the old bridges along the alignment were removed and never replaced.  At that time, U.S. 9 was moved to the Parkway.  Almost an earlier parallel to the Beesley's Point circumstance now.
Opinions here attributed to me are mine alone and do not reflect those of my employer or the agencies for which I am contracted to do work.

Alps

Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 10, 2015, 10:43:31 AM

Quote from: Alps on November 10, 2015, 12:11:06 AMNJ Parkway 4 was built as the freeway bypass of State Highway 4. It was supposed to follow what's now NJ 19, head through Paterson, and link up with NJ 4. Notice how, when driving NJ 4, parts of it are very parkway-like, notably east of Hackensack.

Somewhat true on the Paterson bank of the Passaic, too, but is there really something to this, or is this just the general style of a state highway built in that era that hasn't outgrown it?  I read decades ago that the park-like setting immediately east of Hackensack is a direct result of Teaneck prohibiting development along 4 in that town (or any road expansion) either by zoning or outright ownership of the abutting land.  It's worth noting that as soon as one enters Englewood, the road is fully lined with commercial property.
No, NJ 4 to the bridge was built as part of regular 4, not Parkway 4, but I just find it interesting that the character of the road would have fit with the extension of the Parkway.

roadman65

Quote from: akotchi on November 10, 2015, 01:13:00 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on November 09, 2015, 09:20:16 PM
The former at grade Parkway of Cape May County and the US 9 overlap in Toms River were two other state maintained sections as well.

The New Gretna overlap between Exits 48 and 50 were always NJ Highway Authority even know US 9 was aligned on it. That's because it was built with the toll bond revenue later on with the rest of the Parkway.    Toms River from 80 to 83 was built early on by the state on tax revenue, hence the CR 527 overpass not being original green railing GSP design and the reason why Exits 9-10-11 were never interchanged either as it was built by New Jersey tax dollars for a not so grand roadway.
U.S. 9 was once aligned separately from the GSP Mullica River Bridge (48-50 overlap), on what is now known as Route 167.  Route 167 is now in two small pieces at either end of the former alignment, because the old bridges along the alignment were removed and never replaced.  At that time, U.S. 9 was moved to the Parkway.  Almost an earlier parallel to the Beesley's Point circumstance now.
I heard from my cousin, as my Uncle Al used to own the home at the northern terminus of NJ 167 in New Gretna and he was his son, told me a camper fire from a fisherman destroyed the original US 9 Bridge across the Mullica.  I do not know how accurate that is as he told me back when we were kids, but my dad who was around for years confirmed it.  He said NJDOT or its former agency at the time decided that having two river crossings, the Parkway and US 9, was redundant so they opted to have the Parkway bridge carry both routes rather than rebuild.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

noelbotevera

I just thought of this, the parkway has strange exit numbers at some places. I believe there is three examples:

Exits 38-38A rather than Exits 38A-B
Exits 82-82A rather than Exits 82A-B
Exits 100-100A-100B rather than Exits 100A-100B-100C

Why haven't these been fixed yet?



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.