News:

Am able to again make updates to the Shield Gallery!
- Alex

Main Menu

New Jersey Turnpike

Started by hotdogPi, December 22, 2013, 09:04:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wildcat7176

Quote from: roadman65 on March 11, 2025, 11:27:04 AMhttps://www.nj.com/news/2025/03/this-i-95-bridge-connecting-nj-and-pennsylvania-could-be-replaced-soon.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwY2xjawI9NNRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHanwXiJdde3EdMw1pN2x54hku3hR6_a5G_WS8N71vHKniTsHV1YLTQtUOQ_aem_jQJGjMJAl6jMe5up8sjXXA

The bridge is finally being considered for replacement.
Interesting article. I always thought that bridge carried a lot more than 42,000 vehicles per day, but I guess there are other bridges in the area that carry the weight. I would assume they will build the new bridge parallel to the old one so that there is little disruption to normal traffic flow during construction.


jeffandnicole

Quote from: wildcat7176 on March 11, 2025, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 11, 2025, 11:27:04 AMhttps://www.nj.com/news/2025/03/this-i-95-bridge-connecting-nj-and-pennsylvania-could-be-replaced-soon.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwY2xjawI9NNRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHanwXiJdde3EdMw1pN2x54hku3hR6_a5G_WS8N71vHKniTsHV1YLTQtUOQ_aem_jQJGjMJAl6jMe5up8sjXXA

The bridge is finally being considered for replacement.
Interesting article. I always thought that bridge carried a lot more than 42,000 vehicles per day, but I guess there are other bridges in the area that carry the weight. I would assume they will build the new bridge parallel to the old one so that there is little disruption to normal traffic flow during construction.

A brief history: Back in 2003 they decided to build a new bridge just south of the existing bridge for EB/NB traffic, and rehab the current bridge for WB/SB traffic. Nothing was done. When a crsck was discovered in 2017 in the bridge it was assumed that bridge would need to be replaced, but it appears they're walking back on that assumption. Because of the 20 year time lapse on the original decision, they're reviewing the area again to determine if they'll add a 2nd bridge and rehab the original, or replace with 1 or 2 new bridges.

Either way, they're not going to shut down traffic. Traffic will continue to have access across the river here, and construction will be done in stages to ensure traffic has a bridge to cross.

storm2k

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2025, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: wildcat7176 on March 11, 2025, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 11, 2025, 11:27:04 AMhttps://www.nj.com/news/2025/03/this-i-95-bridge-connecting-nj-and-pennsylvania-could-be-replaced-soon.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwY2xjawI9NNRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHanwXiJdde3EdMw1pN2x54hku3hR6_a5G_WS8N71vHKniTsHV1YLTQtUOQ_aem_jQJGjMJAl6jMe5up8sjXXA

The bridge is finally being considered for replacement.
Interesting article. I always thought that bridge carried a lot more than 42,000 vehicles per day, but I guess there are other bridges in the area that carry the weight. I would assume they will build the new bridge parallel to the old one so that there is little disruption to normal traffic flow during construction.

A brief history: Back in 2003 they decided to build a new bridge just south of the existing bridge for EB/NB traffic, and rehab the current bridge for WB/SB traffic. Nothing was done. When a crsck was discovered in 2017 in the bridge it was assumed that bridge would need to be replaced, but it appears they're walking back on that assumption. Because of the 20 year time lapse on the original decision, they're reviewing the area again to determine if they'll add a 2nd bridge and rehab the original, or replace with 1 or 2 new bridges.

Either way, they're not going to shut down traffic. Traffic will continue to have access across the river here, and construction will be done in stages to ensure traffic has a bridge to cross.

At this point, it would make a lot more sense for P0.0 to be fully replaced. The repairs got the current bridge to a safe state but it's ~70 years old at this point and likely beyond its actual useful service life at this point. I would imagine the best way would be to build the second brige first and then have all traffic use it while the original is torn down and replaced. We'll see what comes of it all.

roadman65

Quote from: storm2k on March 14, 2025, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2025, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: wildcat7176 on March 11, 2025, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 11, 2025, 11:27:04 AMhttps://www.nj.com/news/2025/03/this-i-95-bridge-connecting-nj-and-pennsylvania-could-be-replaced-soon.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwY2xjawI9NNRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHanwXiJdde3EdMw1pN2x54hku3hR6_a5G_WS8N71vHKniTsHV1YLTQtUOQ_aem_jQJGjMJAl6jMe5up8sjXXA

The bridge is finally being considered for replacement.
Interesting article. I always thought that bridge carried a lot more than 42,000 vehicles per day, but I guess there are other bridges in the area that carry the weight. I would assume they will build the new bridge parallel to the old one so that there is little disruption to normal traffic flow during construction.

A brief history: Back in 2003 they decided to build a new bridge just south of the existing bridge for EB/NB traffic, and rehab the current bridge for WB/SB traffic. Nothing was done. When a crsck was discovered in 2017 in the bridge it was assumed that bridge would need to be replaced, but it appears they're walking back on that assumption. Because of the 20 year time lapse on the original decision, they're reviewing the area again to determine if they'll add a 2nd bridge and rehab the original, or replace with 1 or 2 new bridges.

Either way, they're not going to shut down traffic. Traffic will continue to have access across the river here, and construction will be done in stages to ensure traffic has a bridge to cross.

At this point, it would make a lot more sense for P0.0 to be fully replaced. The repairs got the current bridge to a safe state but it's ~70 years old at this point and likely beyond its actual useful service life at this point. I would imagine the best way would be to build the second brige first and then have all traffic use it while the original is torn down and replaced. We'll see what comes of it all.



I'm interested in seeing the design of the new structure. 
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

jeffandnicole

Quote from: roadman65 on March 14, 2025, 02:21:27 PM
Quote from: storm2k on March 14, 2025, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 14, 2025, 08:58:39 AM
Quote from: wildcat7176 on March 11, 2025, 01:08:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 11, 2025, 11:27:04 AMhttps://www.nj.com/news/2025/03/this-i-95-bridge-connecting-nj-and-pennsylvania-could-be-replaced-soon.html?outputType=amp&fbclid=IwY2xjawI9NNRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHanwXiJdde3EdMw1pN2x54hku3hR6_a5G_WS8N71vHKniTsHV1YLTQtUOQ_aem_jQJGjMJAl6jMe5up8sjXXA

The bridge is finally being considered for replacement.
Interesting article. I always thought that bridge carried a lot more than 42,000 vehicles per day, but I guess there are other bridges in the area that carry the weight. I would assume they will build the new bridge parallel to the old one so that there is little disruption to normal traffic flow during construction.

A brief history: Back in 2003 they decided to build a new bridge just south of the existing bridge for EB/NB traffic, and rehab the current bridge for WB/SB traffic. Nothing was done. When a crsck was discovered in 2017 in the bridge it was assumed that bridge would need to be replaced, but it appears they're walking back on that assumption. Because of the 20 year time lapse on the original decision, they're reviewing the area again to determine if they'll add a 2nd bridge and rehab the original, or replace with 1 or 2 new bridges.

Either way, they're not going to shut down traffic. Traffic will continue to have access across the river here, and construction will be done in stages to ensure traffic has a bridge to cross.

At this point, it would make a lot more sense for P0.0 to be fully replaced. The repairs got the current bridge to a safe state but it's ~70 years old at this point and likely beyond its actual useful service life at this point. I would imagine the best way would be to build the second brige first and then have all traffic use it while the original is torn down and replaced. We'll see what comes of it all.



I'm interested in seeing the design of the new structure. 

I'd guess it'll be similar to most recent bridge structures needing wide spans and high clearances.  They could match the design of the original bridge if the 2nd bridge will only carry EB traffic, but based on recent history that'll probably be at a significantly higher price tag.

jeffandnicole

#5455
The NJ Turnpike had their monthly board meeting this week. An agenda item in that meeting was to document properties that they would need full or partial buys, or permanent or temporary easements, for part of the Interchange 1-4 widening and improvement project from Interchanges 3 to 4. Some properties are in Bellmawr near Interchange 3. When I started looking up tax maps, the properties included a few low-end hotels on 168 such as the Red Roof Inn across from Benigno Blvd and the Royal Inn that sits far back off 168, and the property that was known as the Coral Reef Restaurant & Lounge before it burnt down 20 years ago.

A high level view of this says to me they're planning on relocating the toll plaza to come out to the traffic light with Benigo Blvd!

Check out Page 5 & Page 20 of https://www.njta.com/media/8830/njta-agenda-items-for-internet-bm-4-22-2025.pdf, the look at tax maps to see the properties they appear to want. There are some wetlands in the area and I'm a little confused about how the Coral Reef spot works into my theory, but it all points to a full ramp and tolling relocation (either a plaza or just a tolling point with the future plans to eliminate toll booths).

Location is https://maps.app.goo.gl/qN1Sd41TmuVWiCj79



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.