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

Alps

Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
a) Keep in mind that the "widening" happened under the NJ Highway Authority.
b) I think only the lanes on the old Driscoll Bridge were 10'. I think Union is closer to 11'. But again, don't quote me on that unless you want to wander out there with a ruler yourself.*
*Don't do this


storm2k

Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2020, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
a) Keep in mind that the "widening" happened under the NJ Highway Authority.
b) I think only the lanes on the old Driscoll Bridge were 10'. I think Union is closer to 11'. But again, don't quote me on that unless you want to wander out there with a ruler yourself.*
*Don't do this

Steve Anderson's page for the Parkway on nycroads.com claims that the NJ4Pkwy section has 12 foot lanes, which doesn't seem possible. I really thought I remember reading how they were shrunk to 11 foot lanes in the early 80s to fit that fifth lane thru there. In fact, I thought that was the old Highway Authority's MO, to eliminate shoulders and squeeze lanes down in order to fit extra lanes in without having to acquire more ROW.

Alps

Quote from: storm2k on March 10, 2020, 12:18:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on March 10, 2020, 12:03:01 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 09, 2020, 09:30:51 PM
Thanks Alps. I assume the lanes are 9 to 10 feet wide in the five-lane area? I suppose it's marginally acceptable being as there are no heavy trucks on the Parkway that far north. Surprising though that the Authority was desperate enough for another lane that they would go narrower than 12 feet on an otherwise modern road.
a) Keep in mind that the "widening" happened under the NJ Highway Authority.
b) I think only the lanes on the old Driscoll Bridge were 10'. I think Union is closer to 11'. But again, don't quote me on that unless you want to wander out there with a ruler yourself.*
*Don't do this

Steve Anderson's page for the Parkway on nycroads.com claims that the NJ4Pkwy section has 12 foot lanes, which doesn't seem possible. I really thought I remember reading how they were shrunk to 11 foot lanes in the early 80s to fit that fifth lane thru there. In fact, I thought that was the old Highway Authority's MO, to eliminate shoulders and squeeze lanes down in order to fit extra lanes in without having to acquire more ROW.
We have Google Earth to help us. I measured between 135-136 and got 55 feet across.

AcE_Wolf_287

Why don't they extend I-87 along the GSP. the northern part of the GSP north of I-95/NJ Tpke can be I-987 all the way to I-87/I-287 NY Thruway.

storm2k

Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 10, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
Why don't they extend I-87 along the GSP. the northern part of the GSP north of I-95/NJ Tpke can be I-987 all the way to I-87/I-287 NY Thruway.

GSP is not up to interstate standards and it would be quite a feat to get it there in a lot of places. Plus, another interstate shield in NJ would not accomplish much that's an improvement over what we have now, to be honest.

Alps

Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 10, 2020, 05:23:57 PM
Why don't they extend I-87 along the GSP. the northern part of the GSP north of I-95/NJ Tpke can be I-987 all the way to I-87/I-287 NY Thruway.
Stop posting Fictional ideas outside the Fictional Highways forum.

storm2k

(mostly copied from the Turnpike thread)

NJ.com has an article about the proposed rates for the toll increases by the Turnpike Authority. Parkway increase is going to be around 27%, for both cash and EZ-Pass transactions. Bus discounts are changing as well and will be a flat 40% discount. Toll increases are expected to raise 500MM revenue for the next capital plan.

storm2k

Turnpike Authority has now published the proposed toll schedules for the Parkway post increase. Essentially looking at .95 each way for mainline plazas, so 1.90 for the one way barriers. Most ramp tolls to move to .65 with the main exception being the East Orange plaza going to 1.25 (I believe it's 1.00 now) and any ramp barriers that charge the same 1 or 2 way tolls as the mainline barriers will move up accordingly.

NJRoadfan

I won't be able to get to the public hearings, but has anyone floated the managed lane idea for widening the GSP between Exits 129 and 145? That $2.5billon price tag and extensive ROW impacts in East Orange/Irvington/Newark seems very conservative. Further south thru Union County has the room for the most part, but the highway would lose the tree buffer and the stone faced overpasses would have to be replaced. A managed lane proposal would likely get around the toll free restriction on the old NJDOT portion as well.

I don't see how a 6 continuous lane wide roadway from 129 to 142 is going to help. If anything it might be more accident prone.

storm2k

Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2020, 02:26:50 PM
I won't be able to get to the public hearings, but has anyone floated the managed lane idea for widening the GSP between Exits 129 and 145? That $2.5billon price tag and extensive ROW impacts in East Orange/Irvington/Newark seems very conservative. Further south thru Union County has the room for the most part, but the highway would lose the tree buffer and the stone faced overpasses would have to be replaced. A managed lane proposal would likely get around the toll free restriction on the old NJDOT portion as well.

I don't see how a 6 continuous lane wide roadway from 129 to 142 is going to help. If anything it might be more accident prone.

I'm pretty sure the conditions of the toll free thing were that they weren't allowed to charge any kinds of tolls, and it's not a far jump from calling managed lane fees tolls, so I think that's a non-starter. It's not the Turnpike Authority's MO, either. They're already charging tolls overall to pay for this sort of stuff. I'm betting they'll look to make this work with toll revenue from the existing toll system. I'm just curious how they'll work around the cemetary between 144 and 145. The rest of it might be managed, but that is going to be a sticky point if there ever was one.

Alps

Quote from: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2020, 02:26:50 PM
I won't be able to get to the public hearings, but has anyone floated the managed lane idea for widening the GSP between Exits 129 and 145? That $2.5billon price tag and extensive ROW impacts in East Orange/Irvington/Newark seems very conservative. Further south thru Union County has the room for the most part, but the highway would lose the tree buffer and the stone faced overpasses would have to be replaced. A managed lane proposal would likely get around the toll free restriction on the old NJDOT portion as well.

I don't see how a 6 continuous lane wide roadway from 129 to 142 is going to help. If anything it might be more accident prone.
Managed lanes still involve widening. All of these ideas will have to be studied during planning and design phases. Rest assured that the engineers at the Turnpike have thought of these things.

NJRoadfan

Looks like the Express E-ZPass lanes at New Gretna are very close to opening. Sign for traffic pattern change on 4/27 is up. Also the complete lack of traffic has led to a paving binge. Most of the northbound GSP from Exit 58 to around 80 has been repaved.

storm2k

Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Looks like the Express E-ZPass lanes at New Gretna are very close to opening. Sign for traffic pattern change on 4/27 is up. Also the complete lack of traffic has led to a paving binge. Most of the northbound GSP from Exit 58 to around 80 has been repaved.

Might as well take advantage of the lull in traffic from commuters before the shore traffic starts, assuming there can be a shore season this year.

Roadrunner75

Quote from: storm2k on April 20, 2020, 09:15:44 AM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on April 18, 2020, 08:05:02 PM
Looks like the Express E-ZPass lanes at New Gretna are very close to opening. Sign for traffic pattern change on 4/27 is up. Also the complete lack of traffic has led to a paving binge. Most of the northbound GSP from Exit 58 to around 80 has been repaved.

Might as well take advantage of the lull in traffic from commuters before the shore traffic starts, assuming there can be a shore season this year.
They just started repaving southbound at 80.  They have it coned down to one travel lane, which would be unheard of in normal conditions.  It seems like just a short while ago they widened (and repaved) that section from 80 on down.

NJRoadfan

High speed E-ZPass lanes are finally open at the New Gretna Toll Plaza. The next Exit 109 ramps are complete and open as well.

storm2k

Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 16, 2020, 05:31:31 PM
High speed E-ZPass lanes are finally open at the New Gretna Toll Plaza. The next Exit 109 ramps are complete and open as well.

What work is left as part of 109? Also, are they finally replacing the signage at that exit? It was the only place on that strech of the Parkway that kept it's classic NJHA signage when it was all replaced a couple of years ago, and I always figured it would be replaced with this project instead.

storm2k

(cross post from the Turnpike thread)

NJ.com: New toll hike, $24B construction plan approved by Turnpike board despite calls to delay

QuoteDespite calls from drivers and a leading state senator to delay action during a telephone public hearing, the board voted 7 to 0 to approve the toll increase and the $24 billion capital plan that included $16 billion to widen sections of the Turnpike and Garden State Parkway, permanently implement cashless toll payment and to replace a bridge between New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The rest is the usual mix of nonsense, including calls from clueless people to spend money on other infrastructure and transit projects, even though the tolls keep the state from having to use gas tax money to maintain one of its most important highways.

storm2k

Was digging through some of famartin's photos, and saw that they finally replaced signage at 109 on logs that look precariously perched, no less. Interesting that the shield on this new sign has a yellow backplate when classic NJHA signage did not use them, and the backplate isn't the standard anymore. The most recent GSV from that area is Oct 2019 and still shows the old vintage NJHA signage. Any idea when this was completed?

NJRoadfan

For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.

roadman65

Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Rahway and Iselin both were used in the NJDOT days.   Anyway, Rahway is an incorporated city as supposed to Iselin which is an unincorporated part of Woodbridge.  Rahway should be used and Iselin on a supplemental sign. Plus someone on here did mention that there is an Iselin Next 3 Exits sign on the Parkway North someplace between the NJ Turnpike and South Wood Avenue.

I would like to know why, though, Roselle is used at 136 S Bound when NJ 28 at Exit 137 should be signed for that going SB.  N Bound it is the best way via Raritan Road ( I lived near there so Union County roads are as the back of my hand) but NJ 28 E Bound to Locust Street is the most direct coming from Newark and Paterson rather than loop back on Raritan Road from Union County Road 615 which requires a U Turn as the SB 136 ramp does not allow left turns.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

NJRoadfan


storm2k

Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2020, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Rahway and Iselin both were used in the NJDOT days.   Anyway, Rahway is an incorporated city as supposed to Iselin which is an unincorporated part of Woodbridge.  Rahway should be used and Iselin on a supplemental sign. Plus someone on here did mention that there is an Iselin Next 3 Exits sign on the Parkway North someplace between the NJ Turnpike and South Wood Avenue.

I would like to know why, though, Roselle is used at 136 S Bound when NJ 28 at Exit 137 should be signed for that going SB.  N Bound it is the best way via Raritan Road ( I lived near there so Union County roads are as the back of my hand) but NJ 28 E Bound to Locust Street is the most direct coming from Newark and Paterson rather than loop back on Raritan Road from Union County Road 615 which requires a U Turn as the SB 136 ramp does not allow left turns.

A lot of that is from the days of NJDOT's ownership of that stretch of the Parkway, I think. As we discussed in other threads, a lot of control cities used in a lot of places in this state need to be reviewed and realigned.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 19, 2020, 01:51:32 PM
The bike/ped path over the new Great Egg Harbor Bay bridge is finally open.

https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/new-parkway-bridge-bike-path-opened-quietly-but-safety-still-concern-in-somers-point/article_739d655d-207a-5d89-bdd6-7c1dd2446e6a.html

"The bike and pedestrian path along the new Garden State Parkway bridge connecting Atlantic and Cape May counties opened July 8 with no fanfare from the state"

What the reporter meant: We actually had to get out of bed to do some research since the state or its authority didn't do it for us.

Also, the road in question is a county road, so the town is barking up the wrong tree.

roadman65

#1348
Quote from: storm2k on July 19, 2020, 02:03:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2020, 11:11:29 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 18, 2020, 08:01:47 PM
For some reason Exit 132's control city was changed from Rahway to Iselin (which the old NJDOT era sign featured). I'm guessing it was an error from the beginning since there are signs that say "Rahway Next 2 Exits" nearby.
Rahway and Iselin both were used in the NJDOT days.   Anyway, Rahway is an incorporated city as supposed to Iselin which is an unincorporated part of Woodbridge.  Rahway should be used and Iselin on a supplemental sign. Plus someone on here did mention that there is an Iselin Next 3 Exits sign on the Parkway North someplace between the NJ Turnpike and South Wood Avenue.

I would like to know why, though, Roselle is used at 136 S Bound when NJ 28 at Exit 137 should be signed for that going SB.  N Bound it is the best way via Raritan Road ( I lived near there so Union County roads are as the back of my hand) but NJ 28 E Bound to Locust Street is the most direct coming from Newark and Paterson rather than loop back on Raritan Road from Union County Road 615 which requires a U Turn as the SB 136 ramp does not allow left turns.

A lot of that is from the days of NJDOT's ownership of that stretch of the Parkway, I think. As we discussed in other threads, a lot of control cities used in a lot of places in this state need to be reviewed and realigned.


Like Springfield should be replaced for 142 signs in favor of Easton or Allentown. The current was copied over from when I-78 ended at Springfield. 

Yes many cities do need review in even former NJHA places too. Then Camden should return for Exit 63 as more people heading west on NJ 72 go further on NJ 70 then go to Pemberton.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

storm2k

Not that this applies here, but the continued use of Metuchen on Exit 10 of the Turnpike drives me up a wall. Morristown has been the first control city on 287 northbound since the mid 90s. if you want something closer, then Somerville, which probably should be a control city on both 287 and 22. Even if you wanted to use a local destination, Edison seems more important, and that's relegated to secondary signage. Sometimes obstinence just keeps things in place way longer than it should be.



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.