New Jersey Turnpike

[Mr. Matté]

Looks like residents of Secaucus and some other nearby towns will be getting a special discount where they pay the 16E rate at the reconfigured 16E/18E toll booth if they have EZ-Pass (assuming the NJTA approves it): https://hudsoncountyview.com/stack-sacco-negotiate-n-j-turnpike-toll-relief-for-north-hudson-secaucus-and-fairview-residents/

[ilpt4u]

Looks like residents of Secaucus and some other nearby towns will be getting a special discount where they pay the 16E rate at the reconfigured 16E/18E toll booth if they have EZ-Pass (assuming the NJTA approves it): https://hudsoncountyview.com/stack-sacco-negotiate-n-j-turnpike-toll-relief-for-north-hudson-secaucus-and-fairview-residents/

Would not a better solution simply be to place an EZ-Pass gantry at this exit that used to charge the lower toll, and then use the EZ-Pass record to credit back the higher toll?

Sure, the discount is good, but it will also discount trips that should be at the higher toll

Building out another gantry and the telecom equipment to communicate costs a little more, but it would be a better solution

[jeffandnicole]

Looks like residents of Secaucus and some other nearby towns will be getting a special discount where they pay the 16E rate at the reconfigured 16E/18E toll booth if they have EZ-Pass (assuming the NJTA approves it): https://hudsoncountyview.com/stack-sacco-negotiate-n-j-turnpike-toll-relief-for-north-hudson-secaucus-and-fairview-residents/

Would not a better solution simply be to place an EZ-Pass gantry at these other exits that used to charge the lower toll, and then use the EZ-Pass record to credit back the higher toll?

Sure, the discount is good, but it will also discount trips that should be at the higher toll

Building out another gantry and the telecom equipment to communicate costs a little more, but it would be a better solution

It would cost a few million to build another EZ Pass interchange. It jnvolves much more infrastructure than you mentioned.

[vdeane]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

Exactly! But people want to play dumb about it.

[storm2k]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.

[roadman65]

The Turnpike always gouged at Exit 13A too. The toll SB is the same as Exit 13 and NB both 13A and 14 pay the same. That, though, was done in 1981 when the ramp opened so it wasn't a drastic measure to an existing situation.

Then again SB Exit 5 pays less than SB Exit 6, although that has to do with the Extension mileage.

Anyway these both have been always standing issues, but this is a drastic change..  I bet you will see a surge in users at Exits 15X and 16W now with this crap.

[NJRoadfan]

Are southbound entries at the County Ave. ramp still considered 16E? That would be a bit weird.

[roadman65]

I think so. No weaving involved.  Maybe the Town Council will hold a public meeting on the issue. We can only hope.

[vdeane]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.

Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.

[jeffandnicole]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.

Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.

It appears they wanted to have the XBL toll booth be thru the left-most toll lane for the 16E side, rather than placing it within the interior of the 16E portion of the plaza. 

I'm going to say the Turnpike is probably well aware of people going thru the 16E lanes, then quickly merging left into the 95 North lanes where they should've paid the 18E toll, avoiding the additional toll.  It's probably been enough of an issue where crashes have occurred due to short, quick merges.

So to prevent this, they came up with the solution presented.

[kernals12]

Does anyone have traffic counts for different Turnpike interchanges?

[famartin]

Does anyone have traffic counts for different Turnpike interchanges?

A great question. Are there any publicly available traffic counts for the turnpike, or do they keep that all to themselves?

[storm2k]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.

Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.

It appears they wanted to have the XBL toll booth be thru the left-most toll lane for the 16E side, rather than placing it within the interior of the 16E portion of the plaza. 

I'm going to say the Turnpike is probably well aware of people going thru the 16E lanes, then quickly merging left into the 95 North lanes where they should've paid the 18E toll, avoiding the additional toll.  It's probably been enough of an issue where crashes have occurred due to short, quick merges.

So to prevent this, they came up with the solution presented.

I think this will all be moot in about five years anyway. NJTA has conversion to AET in their 10 year plan right now. Every agency around them is doing it. Once they do that, they can truly segregate the 16E ramp to be more in line with what it was when the Turnpike was originally built and that will be that. I'm pretty sure that paying the 18E toll for PPR/Rt 3 is here to stay.

[vdeane]

Or they could have put the barrier on the correct side of the ramp.  What was even the point of moving that ramp to the 18E side, other than to price gouge people?

Presumably to stop the bobbing and weaving that was very frequent at this area as people went through the toll on one side of the plaza only to try to dart over to the other. Fairly treacherous during rush hours there, especially in the mornings with the buses all lined up to get into the XBL. The buses now have basically a dedicated lane to get them into the XBL entrance and keeps the normal traffic for 495 to Weehawken and the tunnel over to the right. From a safety design standpoint, it makes sense, but yeah, it does suck if you use that Rt 3 ramp a lot because you're now paying more.

Seems like the best way to handle this would have been to find a way to squeeze out another lane where the I-95 cash lanes merge back in so they could put a barrier down and charge the 16E toll for the NJ 3 ramp, rather than have everything there briefly squeeze into one lane.

It appears they wanted to have the XBL toll booth be thru the left-most toll lane for the 16E side, rather than placing it within the interior of the 16E portion of the plaza. 

I'm going to say the Turnpike is probably well aware of people going thru the 16E lanes, then quickly merging left into the 95 North lanes where they should've paid the 18E toll, avoiding the additional toll.  It's probably been enough of an issue where crashes have occurred due to short, quick merges.

So to prevent this, they came up with the solution presented.

What I was suggesting was to have an additional barrier with a booth or two being set aside for only NJ 3 traffic.  That way, you still fix the weave with the bus lane, but don't force NJ 3 traffic to arbitrarily pay a higher toll.  The toll booths are already signed this way, so why they didn't go ahead and do it is beyond me.

[fwydriver405]

I think this will all be moot in about five years anyway. NJTA has conversion to AET in their 10 year plan right now. Every agency around them is doing it.

Not every agency in the Northeast yet (I'm looking at you, Maine Turnpike...)

Once they do that, they can truly segregate the 16E ramp to be more in line with what it was when the Turnpike was originally built and that will be that. I'm pretty sure that paying the 18E toll for PPR/Rt 3 is here to stay.

In all seriousness, I wonder if the AET gantries would look like this, as shown here*. Then again, I think the placement of the AET gantries could be simplified once the 16 E / 18 E interchange is reconfigured to just 2, one for 18 E and one for the entirety of the 16 E exits.
*Typo in the image, I meant XBL not XNL.

When the NJTP goes AET, will they retain the distance based tolling like they do today, by put the gantries on the interchange entrances/exits (like parts of the NY Thruway, correct me if I'm wrong), or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by put gantries on the mainline instead and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion? I imagine the latter may be difficult to do with the Newark Bay and Pennsylvania Turnpike Extensions in play here.

EDIT 2022-01-08: Corrected the fact the Mass Pike is still a distance based system just in a different way.

[Alps]

Does anyone have traffic counts for different Turnpike interchanges?

A great question. Are there any publicly available traffic counts for the turnpike, or do they keep that all to themselves?

I don't think there is anything publicly available. Google gave me one study that at least has some info:
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pdf/njtrstudypart2.pdf

[Jim]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

[jeffandnicole]

I think this will all be moot in about five years anyway. NJTA has conversion to AET in their 10 year plan right now. Every agency around them is doing it. Once they do that, they can truly segregate the 16E ramp to be more in line with what it was when the Turnpike was originally built and that will be that. I'm pretty sure that paying the 18E toll for PPR/Rt 3 is here to stay.

*Some* agencies are doing it. The DRJTPC, DRPA, DRBA and others are not.

It's probably going to be longer than you think. While it's in the 10-year program, it is not in their current five-year construction schedule. Once it appears, the project timeline is scheduled to be about five years, so we won't see it any sooner than the latter part of the 2020's, approaching the 2030's.

The Turnpike Authority may take a step back and see how other agencies are dealing with the issue of missing funds. While the PTC has been trying to downplay their AET losses by claiming percentage-wise it's in line with other toll losses, that's still $100 million dollars that was never collected.

The PA Turnpike annual toll revenue is over $1.2 Billion. The NJ Turnpike Authority's toll revenue is over $2 Billion. Playing the percentage game, that would be over $200 million that could go uncollected. No doubt the NJTA will see how other toll agencies can ultimately recoup a satisfactory portion of that lost revenue.

E-ZPass usage on the NJTA toll roads is about 89%-90%, versus PA Turnpike usage reported to be about 86%, and it's estimated that have of the toll-by-plate travelers never paid.  If about half of the NJTA toll-by-plate travelers didn't pay, the losses, percentage-wise, wouldn't be as bad as the PA Turnpike, but would be higher in dollar value. It's a significant issue that needs to be looked into.

[fwydriver405]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that. 

[jeffandnicole]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that. 

As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.

A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.

[Alps]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that. 

As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.

A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.

My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.

[jeffandnicole]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that. 

As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.

A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.

My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.

I was surprised how far away Maryland put their open road tolling system from the existing plazas. On 95, it's about a mile away, closer to the river. On 50, it's several miles away, on the other fricking side of the river!

[DrSmith]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that. 

As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.

A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.

My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.

A lot of the new toll gantries on the Mass Pike are next to some facility they already have such as state police barracks, DOT garages, service areas. There was thought as to the locations along the highway. At the interchanges, the buildings were torn down in the process. The only building I think that still remains is the one for the toll plaza from the Mass Pike Eastbound to Rt 128 (old exit 14). It must have been repurposed as everything was torn down and cleaned up.

Besides not being flat rate, there is now no tolls from West Springfield to Ludlow and again between Routes 290 and 122. Tolls were added in for the Newton exits. Previously you could go between Route 16 and Newton Corner without a toll and now there is one with the overhead tolling. As for EZ Pass it is treated as a ticket system with reporting your first and last gantries and the toll between them.

As for paying for it all, if I remember correctly back in the late 90s Governor Whitman said that the toll evaders would pay for the EZ pass installation and system when it was first being rolled out. Then it turned out that every man, woman, child, and newborn baby in the state had to cheat on a toll 20 times each or something ridiculous. Its been a few years, although I think it was something along those lines. There were a few different "scams" back then along with the emissions inspection disaster when they switched the whole testing routine and the equipment didn't work right. I mean not that there are other scams before and since in NJ. Taking a short detour down Memory Lane

[famartin]

or will the NJTP convert to a flat fee system by putting gantries on the mainline and charging a fixed rate per gantry passed, similar to what the Massachusetts Turnpike did with its AET conversion?

The Mass Pike does work with gantries on the mainline, but it's not a fixed rate per gantry.  Each one has a separate toll amount based on distance between exits, meaning toll rates are similar if not the same as what they were in the ticket system at exits.

Got it. I thought it was similar how express/HOT lanes work with each specific zone being its own fixed rate (with it changing based on volumes) and/or how Maine has a fixed toll system for cash and out of state E-ZPass users. I've since corrected the original post to reflect that. 

As for the actual answer, its unknown which way they'll go, and that'll be part of the study. They could even convert the Turnpike to a mainline system, and the Parkway to a ramp system, especially as there's numerous ways one can currently avoid paying a toll on the Parkway. The extensions on the Turnpike can easily tie in to the mainline, as a mainline system just adds up each gantry you passed under, then assumes you left the toll road after a certain period of time, or when you start hitting tolls in the other direction.

A mainline system is probably more beneficial to the traveler as a driver can exit the toll road, get gas or food, and then re-enter a short period of time without the system knowing, and not have to pay more as a result of exiting and entering.

My complete guess is that the Turnpike will replace gantries in-location when all is said and done. I would imagine a study would be done first, but consider that they have all the infrastructure set up at each interchange to power the gantries and handle the information transfer. Why spend more to set all that up at new locations and abandon what you've got set up already? Parkway may or may not go the same route, as there is some opportunity to rethink which ramps are still free given one-way tolling.

I was surprised how far away Maryland put their open road tolling system from the existing plazas. On 95, it's about a mile away, closer to the river. On 50, it's several miles away, on the other fricking side of the river!

Since they are single location tolls, instead of entry/exit points for ticket systems, perhaps they found it cheaper to build the completely separate gantry in a new location, then demolish the entire plaza. Or, possibly, it was better for traffic flow during the project?  Dunno...