New Jersey Turnpike

[roadman65]

I think the changeover of Exit-10 must have been part of the original dual-dual construction project in the early 1970's. Interchange-11 was expanded to include the G.S. Parkway along with US 9. The original Exit-10 (with the G.S. Pky) was eliminated and the newly built interchange with the new I-287 became the new Exit-10.

Historic Aerials don't have coverage from 1966 to 1969.  It shows the Turnpike with a wide median in 66 with the original 10 interchange where the current emergency u turn exists and the original 10 plaza in the west quadrant with a bridge over the parkway.  Three years later the original 10 ramps are gone and the turnpike is all under construction with the current 11 interchange built already.

[lstone19]

I think the changeover of Exit-10 must have been part of the original dual-dual construction project in the early 1970's. Interchange-11 was expanded to include the G.S. Parkway along with US 9. The original Exit-10 (with the G.S. Pky) was eliminated and the newly built interchange with the new I-287 became the new Exit-10.

Correct. And adding about 1.5 miles to the NB Tpk to NB GSP and vice versa moves.

[roadman65]

I think the changeover of Exit-10 must have been part of the original dual-dual construction project in the early 1970's. Interchange-11 was expanded to include the G.S. Parkway along with US 9. The original Exit-10 (with the G.S. Pky) was eliminated and the newly built interchange with the new I-287 became the new Exit-10.

Correct. And adding about 1.5 miles to the NB Tpk to NB GSP and vice versa moves.

I always thought that the current Exit 11 was built as part of the Parkway and Route 9 tangle that is now.

Historic aerials  does show that in 1969 that Route 9 was inside the Parkway with New Brunswick Avenue interchanging with The Parkway on the outside of Route 9 ( US 9 had no ramps to New Brunswick Ave then)at that time with modern 11 in use.

That explains why Exit 129 of the Parkway has NJ Turnpike bridge designs and piers with prime color girders at the stack crossing there instead of NJDOT designs of the early seventies at that location.

[SignBridge]

To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.

[roadman65]

To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.

Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.

[lstone19]

I always thought that the current Exit 11 was built as part of the Parkway and Route 9 tangle that is now.

Historic aerials  does show that in 1969 that Route 9 was inside the Parkway with New Brunswick Avenue interchanging with The Parkway on the outside of Route 9 ( US 9 had no ramps to New Brunswick Ave then)at that time with modern 11 in use.

That explains why Exit 129 of the Parkway has NJ Turnpike bridge designs and piers with prime color girders at the stack crossing there instead of NJDOT designs of the early seventies at that location.

Wow! That originally 9 was inside the GSP was something I did not know. I grew up in Berkeley Heights (moved there in 1967 from out of state) but we usually went north on the GSP (from Exit 140 U.S. 22 as I-78 did not exist yet) so trips south on the GSP were very rare and probably never occurred until after it was all rebuilt into what's more or less its current configuration. That said, I think the whole rebuild of that triangle (Turnpike / GSP / NJ440) was one massive co-ordinated project including the turnpike dual-dual, the new Exits 10 and 11, building 440 (not completed until 1974 per Wikipedia), and flipping 9 and the GSP although it took several years (looking at that 1969 Historic Aerials view, it appears I-287 ended at U.S. 1 and Turnpike new Exit 10 only provided access to Woodbridge Ave.; even in the 1972 aerial, it appears 440 did not make it all the way to the GSP or 9).

[lstone19]

To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.

Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.

I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.

[roadman65]

To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.

Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.

I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.

To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.

Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.

I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.

To further clarify: the original Exit-11 which was called Woodbridge-The Amboys was a much smaller interchange just between the Turnpike and US 9. The GSP was not part of it.

Yes it existed where the maintenance facility is along Route 9 is now.

I think what SignBridge means is the GSP was not part of Turnpike Exit 11. 11 connected only to US 9. Other than NB TPK to NB GSP and SB GSP to SB TPK via original TPK Exit 10, moves between the Turnpike and GSP required using US 9 and for some moves, city streets.

I'm aware what he said. I lived in NJ most of my child and some of my adult life and are aware of where the original 10 and 11 were.  Both original exchanges are still visible if you know where to look.

The original 11 was a small trumpet to trumpet and I remember seeing the Exit 11 plaza for ages where the salt pile is located where the salt for many years was dumped on the toll booths.

Exit 10 was partial and NB parkway had to left exit onto US 9 and do a breezwood, which would never work today with the amount of traffic going NB from the Shore to I-95 NB for New York that has Exit 11 plaza one of the widest plazas on the Turnpike. The original 11 toll could not handle the ADT counts of today if they never modified 10 and 11 into one mega interchange.

[lstone19]

I'm aware what he said. I lived in NJ most of my child and some of my adult life and are aware of where the original 10 and 11 were.  Both original exchanges are still visible if you know where to look.

The original 11 was a small trumpet to trumpet and I remember seeing the Exit 11 plaza for ages where the salt pile is located where the salt for many years was dumped on the toll booths.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Anyway, I'm finding this interesting and trying to match it to some childhood memories. Looking at the 1966 Historic Aerials view of the old Exit 11, the current ramps to/from the turnpike north are right where the entire old Exit 11 was. I'd go far as to say that the US 9 bridge over the current Exit 11 ramps is in the same place (same bridge?) as the bridge over the old Exit 11 ramp leading to the far side trumpet. And perhaps most interesting, in 1966, the southbound turnpike went over US9 just as today's southbound outer lanes do (everything else goes under US 9) suggesting that today's southbound outer lanes are the original southbound lanes little changed.

[roadman65]

I’m aware what he said. I lived in NJ most of my child and some of my adult life and are aware of where the original 10 and 11 were.  Both original exchanges are still visible if you know where to look.

The original 11 was a small trumpet to trumpet and I remember seeing the Exit 11 plaza for ages where the salt pile is located where the salt for many years was dumped on the toll booths.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Anyway, I'm finding this interesting and trying to match it to some childhood memories. Looking at the 1966 Historic Aerials view of the old Exit 11, the current ramps to/from the turnpike north are right where the entire old Exit 11 was. I'd go far as to say that the US 9 bridge over the current Exit 11 ramps is in the same place (same bridge?) as the bridge over the old Exit 11 ramp leading to the far side trumpet. And perhaps most interesting, in 1966, the southbound turnpike went over US9 just as today's southbound outer lanes do (everything else goes under US 9) suggesting that today's southbound outer lanes are the original southbound lanes little changed.

No worries.

Yes if you look at the piers supporting the outer roadway over Route 9 it has the same design as many bridges along the eastern spur and south of Exit 6. Green beams and the pier caps end at the outer pier where the late sixties and later era bridges have prime color beams with the pier caps hanging over the ends of the last piers.

So the bridge over US 9 is original Turnpike bridge over 70 years old.

The aerials do show the NB lanes go under Route 9 and so does old Rand McNally maps of the sixties show it.

https://goo.gl/maps/hRm9LmtkRW9Kr5vY7

The entrance to the yard was where the NB US 9 ramp was. Alps caught it on camera when the ramp was the yard driveway and of concrete. Don’t know if he still has the photo  or not as I haven’t been on his site in decades since we had words over another user’s preaching.

https://goo.gl/maps/Acsd3g5tA8RuApXx9

Original design with the original parapet changed to modern jersey wall. So the NJTA, had renovated the bridge as seventy years would have made it functionally obsolete

[bluecountry]

In part, yes. It's also much harder to convey to motorists, when both roadways are open, that they must use a specific roadway if the exit exists on only one roadway. Motorists will invariably miss the signage and will be on the wrong roadway, unable to access the ramp.

I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added?  Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?

That idea is even worse.  Answer below...

That would not be the case here.
Coming from the south it would be one roadway until exit 6 merges.
Coming from the north, BOTH the inner and outer would have access to exit 6 but as soon as exit 6 traffic leaves the NJTP, the merge would begin as opposed to now where the roadway stay split for a few more miles.

Any reason why the NJTP NB divides into 3+3 just before exit 6, and SB the divide ends just after?

Usually the road would continue as 3 lanes then when the PATP/95 enters at exit 6 it would become 3+3.

It's so that the mainline is continuous, rather than have people make multiple decisions at the interchange (exit or stay on 95, then deal with merge). They wanted to separate the decision points by a mile for safety.

That is less an issue going SB, since the lanes merge so you have but one choice, merge.

You're not understanding the reason to separate decision points.  Merging is still multiple decision points, especially when going from 6 lanes to 3.  Even if you try to do 'Exit Only' lanes at Exit 6, you still have to make a decision to merge.  With the Turnpike, they also have numerous signs in advance of the merge.  If you try doing it within the Interchange 6 area, you'll have either overlapping signs with the exit, or fewer signs in advance of the merge. 

A huge source of confusion and congestion is when these exits, on ramps, and adding/subtracting lanes occur in a small area.  The Turnpike built this widening, and especially the parts from below Exit 6 to Exit 7A, to avoid as much confusion and congestion as possible.  It works.  Traffic flows freely. It seems odd that anyone would want to take away from what has proven to be a very successful project.

I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added?  Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?

Perhaps, because the initial dual-dual was extended south, then extended south again, and yet again(? - I've lost track), the Turnpike decided to build Exit 6 as a full dual-dual interchange expecting that eventually, the dual-dual will be extended south even further. Why build it one way only to need to tear it apart and redo it in a few years? Their first belief that it was only needed to Exit 10 proved to be wrong so why believe that Exit 6 is as far as it will ever be needed.

Exit 10 was first, then quickly Exit 9.  Then Exit 8A.  Then Exit 6.

Early on, highways were in their infancy.  The Interstate highway system was being built.  Early on, it was drastically underestimated how much traffic would use these highways, which were built primarily to get traffic from city to city.   Suburban life, and sprawl, took over much faster and to a much greater extent than anyone in the 1950's imagined. 

The major fault of the dual-dual widening to Exit 8A was creating a 2-3-3-2 traffic pattern between Interchange 8A - 9. 

As suburban sprawl continued, congestion increased.  As more people traveled further for vacations, congestion increased south of 8A.  As the plans for the Somerset Freeway were officially cancelled, the Turnpike knew extending the duals down one more interchange wasn't going to suffice.  So thus the massive 25 mile widening occurred. 

The new duals from 6-9 have been open for 10 years now, and they appear to be flowing better than expected at this point in their lives.  Traffic from 4 - 6 is moving with rare congestion, unlike how 6 - 8A was moving 10 years after the duals from 8A - 9 opened.  It's going to take about 10 years from now to fully widen Interchanges 1 - 4.  After that, then we'll get a sense of what widening, if any, needs to occur between 4 - 6, but I can't imagine a need for anything more than 8 lanes there in the next 30 - 40 years, and the Turnpike won't build a 2-2-2-2 dual, which would mean narrowing down the total lanes available from 3 to 2 Northbound, and 6 to 2 southbound, if a roadway was closed.

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

[jeffandnicole]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

[lstone19]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

Not only does bluecountry's idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says "In one mile ...,"  they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.

[tmoore952]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

Not only does bluecountry's idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says "In one mile ...,"  they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.

Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.

[bzakharin]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

Not only does bluecountry's idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says "In one mile ...,"  they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.

Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.

I usually make sure I'm in the correct lane about a mile before the decision point, two miles if the traffic is heavy (I wouldn't say my lane changes are "panicked" but I don't know what they look like to other drivers). What's wrong with that?

[lstone19]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

Not only does bluecountry's idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says "In one mile ...,"  they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.

Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.

I usually make sure I'm in the correct lane about a mile before the decision point, two miles if the traffic is heavy (I wouldn't say my lane changes are "panicked" but I don't know what they look like to other drivers). What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with making a controlled lane change. I'm referring to the people who are normally stapled to the left lane but it then appears as soon as they realize their exit is coming up in a mile (whether that's due to a sign or their nav device lets them know) must get to the right lane immediately and launch themselves across two or three lanes of traffic with little regard to what other traffic is there and with no or minimal signaling. Those people have no idea of where they are going and are just blindly following what their nav device tells them to do.

[jeffandnicole]

Interesting, I never notice drivers like that (who change with one mile to go). I'm always next to the ones who realize they are in an exit only lane --- 50 feet before the exit -- and then they realize they don't want to exit. I don't know if they are being inattentive or they are just trying to pass people on the right. Probably a little bit of both.

I usually make sure I'm in the correct lane about a mile before the decision point, two miles if the traffic is heavy (I wouldn't say my lane changes are "panicked" but I don't know what they look like to other drivers). What's wrong with that?

There's two other guys in my carpool. One will get in the right lane upwards of 10 miles before the exit on 295, with several intechamges to go. Doesn't matter if it's a slow moving truck in front of us or a gigantic alien swallowing up cars in the right lane. He will not move from that lane.

The other guy will stay in the center lane until the last moment, then get pissed that people are right beside him and won't let him in, even when he doesn't use a turn signal. He'll bypass several gaps within a mile of the interchange just to squeeze in with no time to spare.

[roadman65]

I think you missed my point, coming from the south on the NJTP north, why not have it where it continues as three lanes, then has exit 6, and then after exit 6 motorists decide if they are in the inner or outer as PATP/95 traffic is added?  Why split them, then have exits on both roadways vs keep them as one roadway, exit 6, then split?

Perhaps, because the initial dual-dual was extended south, then extended south again, and yet again(? - I've lost track), the Turnpike decided to build Exit 6 as a full dual-dual interchange expecting that eventually, the dual-dual will be extended south even further. Why build it one way only to need to tear it apart and redo it in a few years? Their first belief that it was only needed to Exit 10 proved to be wrong so why believe that Exit 6 is as far as it will ever be needed.

Coming from the south it would be one roadway until exit 6 merges.

Seriously, you want one roadway until after the the 6 on-ramp merges? That would be a major CF of a weaving section. If 6 has so much traffic to/from the north that extending the dual-dual south of 6 will never be needed, then a weaving section is the last thing you need. And if 6 does not have so much traffic that a weaving section is OK, then the dual-dual will need to be extended further south. You can't have it both ways.

Hey you forgot Exit 14 from the north? It never had a ramp from the Inner Roadway. You have had all Exit 14 traffic ( as well as 14A-B-C) depart solely from the outer roadway with no issues. If they're were it never got noticed and the driver, if he did, get into the inner roadway and then noticed that there is no exit from his roadway, he would learn that he should pay attention to the road and comprehend signage.

As far as narrowing down to two lanes through 6 causing back ups when one roadway is closed is just as likely as it happening in Newark when the ramps between the inner/ outer to eastern and western spurs are two lanes each. If the outer roadway was closed, for example, that would narrow the turnpike down to two lanes from three  as you head from the western or eastern spurs into the remaining open roadway.

I think the one who suggested that Exit 6 not remain fully three lanes and have one ramp from the south to Exit 6 saw how the very other end operates and is suggesting that.

I agree that the NJ Turnpike and Pearl Harbor split should mirror the eastern and western split.

Also, the western spur is only four lanes north of Route 3 in a heavy populated area, yet it don't create bottlenecks at either end like at 16W or at the split in Ridgefield Park.

[ran4sh]

"No issues"?

The SB exit 14 configuration means, if closing the outer roadway is needed, they must either still have a lane open for exit 14, or must close exit 14. I'm not sure how either of those can be regarded as "no issues"

[vdeane]

Also, the Turnpike actually is planning to widen the western spur to be three lanes each direction on its entire length, so I guess they do see the two lane section as a bottleneck.

[lstone19]

Hey you forgot Exit 14 from the north? It never had a ramp from the Inner Roadway. You have had all Exit 14 traffic ( as well as 14A-B-C) depart solely from the outer roadway with no issues. If they're were it never got noticed and the driver, if he did, get into the inner roadway and then noticed that there is no exit from his roadway, he would learn that he should pay attention to the road and comprehend signage.

I'm not sure how relevant it is the NJTA did that with 14 over 50 years ago. I assume they realized it was a mistake given that the subsequently changed it at 14 and did not repeat it as they extended the dual-dual progressively south.

While I was too young to drive when the dual-dual started, I was a passenger in my parents car and when we used the Turnpike, it was always 14 to/from the north (we lived out along US 22 in those pre I-78 days). And having the 14 autos mixed with the outer roadway trucks was a pain, even 50+ years ago. The current extended ramps for 14 are a vast improvement.

[roadman65]

Hey you forgot Exit 14 from the north? It never had a ramp from the Inner Roadway. You have had all Exit 14 traffic ( as well as 14A-B-C) depart solely from the outer roadway with no issues. If they're were it never got noticed and the driver, if he did, get into the inner roadway and then noticed that there is no exit from his roadway, he would learn that he should pay attention to the road and comprehend signage.

I'm not sure how relevant it is the NJTA did that with 14 over 50 years ago. I assume they realized it was a mistake given that the subsequently changed it at 14 and did not repeat it as they extended the dual-dual progressively south.

While I was too young to drive when the dual-dual started, I was a passenger in my parents car and when we used the Turnpike, it was always 14 to/from the north (we lived out along US 22 in those pre I-78 days). And having the 14 autos mixed with the outer roadway trucks was a pain, even 50+ years ago. The current extended ramps for 14 are a vast improvement.

The recent 14 change came about so they can close the outer roadway completely and to address potential mistakes from those who miss 14 on the inner roadway due to latest mentality of the general population these days. I wouldn't think there are back ups at the inner/ outer splits on ether spur when they close one side due to the two lane narrow crossovers from each spur. Then again I left New Jersey some time ago to see the latest.

[bluecountry]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

How do you figure either??????

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

Not only does bluecountry's idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says "In one mile ...,"  they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.

So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?
I don't know, first, normally on highways, they expand or reduce the number of lanes/split coincident with a major exit, not a few miles beforehand.
Second, exit 6 NB is not a much exit.  Very few motorists going NB take exit 6, since it only goes WB.
Exit 6 overwhelming handles incoming traffic entering the TP to go up north and exiting traffic getting off SB.
So this of all exits would seem to not need decision points being separated.

Simply have it where NB, there is exit 6 for exiting traffic (minimal use), then split into car-car/truck then incoming traffic from exit 6 would separate into car-car/truck and merge.
SB, the car-car/truck would have the exit for 6, then the car/car-truck would merge with the minimal exit 6 SB traffic coming.

[Alps]

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

How do you figure either??????

No, there would not need to be multiple decisions as you feared.
If the NJTP had it so it was 3+3 until exit then 3+3+3+3, this is how it would be:

NB from the south:
-3 lanes, then exit lanes for exit 6, then before PATP merges the NB would already be 2+2 with the the 3rd lane being added from exit 6 to each of the roadways.

Which creates the situation where NB would go from 3 lanes to 2 lanes if a roadway was closed, inducing congestion.

Or, in your preferred situation if the roadway between Interchanges 4 - 6 was widened to 4 lanes in each direction, if a roadway was closed NB traffic would be forced to go from 4 lanes to 2 lanes prior to the entry ramp from Interchange 6.

Not only does bluecountry's idea not work when full capacity is not available, as previously mentioned, multiple decision point in a short decision is a problem. All you have to do is look at all the idiot drivers who as soon as their nav device says "In one mile ...,"  they make a panic lane change. With multiple decision points in that distance, many will take the wrong one since they clearly cannot judge distance.

So the reason the NJTP splits from 3-3 to 3-3-3-3 south of exit 6 is to space out the decision to be in the car or car/truck and exit 6?
I don't know, first, normally on highways, they expand or reduce the number of lanes/split coincident with a major exit, not a few miles beforehand.
Second, exit 6 NB is not a much exit.  Very few motorists going NB take exit 6, since it only goes WB.
Exit 6 overwhelming handles incoming traffic entering the TP to go up north and exiting traffic getting off SB.
So this of all exits would seem to not need decision points being separated.

Simply have it where NB, there is exit 6 for exiting traffic (minimal use), then split into car-car/truck then incoming traffic from exit 6 would separate into car-car/truck and merge.
SB, the car-car/truck would have the exit for 6, then the car/car-truck would merge with the minimal exit 6 SB traffic coming.

You are not familiar with the operations of the NJ Turnpike Authority. We are. So instead of questioning us, acknowledge we know better than you.

[Tonytone]

Why would anyone want a highway to be exactly uniform just for the heck of it?

The NJTP Runs extremely well, and they do a good job at maintaining & constructing it.