New Jersey Turnpike

[jeffandnicole]

This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.

I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced.  Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.

The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced.  It is a disaster.  Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long.  Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4..  Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?

What will Route 70 be like?  Then there is the North-South Freeway.  "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts.  What a mess that will be.

And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.

So, just let traffic continue to build and congest daily because we're afraid of replacing some bridges...bridges that are over 70 years old?

Not that I'm always looking, but I'm not seeing any evidence of congestion on the Turnpike in this area all the time.  If there's congestion, it's probably directly related to active road work, and for relatively short periods of time.

BTW, the North-South Freeway's overpass was already widened around 1997 as part of the Route 42 widening from 295 to 55, so that doesn't need to be replaced.  The NJ 73 overpass was widened; the NJ 45 & 48 overpasses were widened, among others.  By the time this project gets to construction, approximately 25% of the overpasses would've already been widened.

The biggest headache will probably be the NJ 70 overpass.  But, we will all manage, and we'll be better off for it in a few years.

I'm a little surprised that the Turnpike needs widening south of Exit 4 given that you have the closely parallel 6-lane I-295. You'd think between those two roads, there would be enough capacity. Or is the problem that too many Turnpike drivers are not even aware of I-295's existence and aren't wise enough to take the alternate route.

I myself have switched over from one to the other many times at Exit 4 though I haven't driven that far south in several years now.

During normal times, between NJ 42 and NJ 70, there are backups during both rush hours in both directions fairly often.  And I-295 backs up from NJ 38 to NJ 42 during many afternoon rush hours.  That's 14 miles.

Even though there's currently 10 lanes total between the two roads, it's a heavily travelled corridor.  Not only does the Turnpike need an extra lane, I-295 could easily use an extra lane in the area as well.

[Alps]

This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.

I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced.  Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.

The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced.  It is a disaster.  Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long.  Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4..  Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?

What will Route 70 be like?  Then there is the North-South Freeway.  "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts.  What a mess that will be.

And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.

You do realize that these bridges are at the ends of their lifespans whether or not you widen them? If you're going to widen at all in the future, you would build the bridge wider now.

[bluecountry]

I still contend, making the NJTP 6 lanes from exit 4 to the DEMB is a mistake.
It would be better to:

-Be 8 lanes from exit 6 to exit 4
-6 lanes from exit 4 to 3
-4 lanes from 3 onward

That would be a better investment.

You don't say. 

Maybe you should've stood over the Turnpike between 2 & 3 yesterday around lunchtime and watched traffic creep along around 35 - 45 mph and tell us that there's no reason to widen the Turnpike there.

Wow, so 35-45 mph warrants widening?
I drive this road all the time, as I do 95.
I can tell you it is FINE aside from the peak of peak.
I mean, can I cruise at 80?
No, but I am usually around 70 mph which is free flowing.

bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity.  Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.

You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.

bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity.  Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.

...or Wednesdays before Thanksgiving.

By that logic the road should be 20 lanes wide, and Wegmans should have 1 square miles of parking spots.

I've gotten stuck in the backup at Exit 4 a few times, its really annoying and reduces the utility of using the NJTP as an express bypass of I-295. It just goes to show that the 6-9 widening really did uncork a pretty big bottleneck in the system. Now its moving the choke points further south and west. Has the PA Turnpike had similar increases in traffic congestion westbound from NJ?

Of course once Exits 1-4 is widened, it only going to put more pressure on the mess at the Christina Marsh interchange in Delaware.

Disagree completely.
The 6-9 widening has been a godsend, and it most definitely has not put a choke point in SJ.
You people should drive I-95 in MD/VA, you are complaining about nothing.

Traffic volume drops so much at exit 6.

I'm a little surprised that the Turnpike needs widening south of Exit 4 given that you have the closely parallel 6-lane I-295. You'd think between those two roads, there would be enough capacity. Or is the problem that too many Turnpike drivers are not even aware of I-295's existence and aren't wise enough to take the alternate route.

I myself have switched over from one to the other many times at Exit 4 though I haven't driven that far south in several years now.

So am I, I think it is the wrong move.
It should 4 lanes from exit 4 to 6
3 lanes from 3-2.

[bluecountry]

This Turnpike widening will be a disaster for South Jersey.

I say this because of the number of bridges over the Turnpike which will have to be replaced.  Here in Cherry Hill we are currently enduring what to expect.

The bridge on Kresson Road over the Turnpike is being replaced.  It is a disaster.  Traffic is backed up on Kresson Road in both directions all day long.  Additionally, Google Maps frequently shows the Turnpike itself to be slowed down by this work, sometimes with it even being the cause of the back-up at Exit 4..  Now can you imagine what it will be like when every road which crosses over the Turnpike for 35 miles here is like this?

What will Route 70 be like?  Then there is the North-South Freeway.  "Direct Connections" probably will not be finished when this widening starts.  What a mess that will be.

And to think that the Turnpike raised its tolls 36% so that they could inflict this upon us.

You do realize that these bridges are at the ends of their lifespans whether or not you widen them? If you're going to widen at all in the future, you would build the bridge wider now.

Yea, so you rehab them.

[bluecountry]

Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed
(slightly less vaguery: I have access to Turnpike volumes and need them for what I do. NJDOT volumes are all published on their "TMS2Go" site. put them together and you can figure out all of NJ. but since you don't see Turnpike volumes, you can't see what I see in terms of congestion hot spots now and in the future.)

Can you PLEASE tell me the traffic volumes and the choke points?

[sprjus4]

^

Downside of my job: I could tell all of you exactly what is needed and why, but I'm not allowed
(slightly less vaguery: I have access to Turnpike volumes and need them for what I do. NJDOT volumes are all published on their "TMS2Go" site. put them together and you can figure out all of NJ. but since you don't see Turnpike volumes, you can't see what I see in terms of congestion hot spots now and in the future.)

To quote a post of mine from back in 2020 with relatively up-to-date volumes (from 2017). There is a definite need for widening here.

https://www.njta.com/media/4280/os-2019a.pdf

PDF Page 231

2017 Traffic Volumes

Exits 1 to 2 - 48,800 - 12.4% truck
Exits 2 to 3 - 53,400 - 12.4% truck
Exits 3 to 4 - 63,300 - 12.3% truck

Warrants 6-lanes, especially when you consider peak travel period volumes that could easily bring these numbers to 70,000 or greater.

Actually, the report indicates between Exits 1 and 2, July volumes were 21% higher than the average month, meaning Exits 1 and 2 see up to 59,048 AADT during peak season, and this doesn't even factor weekends alone will see even more traffic than during the week. Using this 21% figure on the other exits too, assuming it's similar...

July Traffic Volumes 2017 (AADT x 1.21) -

Exits 1 to 2 - 59,048
Exits 2 to 3 - 64,614
Exits 3 to 4 - 76,593

Most certainly warrants 6-lanes throughout.

As for the rest of the Turnpike south of Exit 9...

Exits 4 to 5 - 84,000 - 12.3% truck
Exits 5 to 6 (I-95) - 89,900 - 12.2% truck

Should eventually be expanded to 8-lanes, especially as volumes will continue to rise.

Exits 6 (I-95) to 7 - 119,000 - 13.1% truck
Exits 7 to 7A - 132,300 - 14.1% truck
Exits 7A to 8 - 150,200 - 15.1% truck
Exits 8 to 8A - 155,600 - 14.7% truck
Exits 8A to 9 - 175,700 - 14.4% truck

The recent 12-lane expansion should be able to handle traffic volumes south of Exit 9 for years, if not decades, to come.

And as for the I-95 comparisons... I drove I-95 south of DC all the time in the past... it warrants widening just as much as the NJTP does.

The volumes on the NJTP warrant at least 3 lanes in each direction.

[Rothman]

bluecontry should be cursed to drive that road on Friday afternoons for all eternity.  Last I was driving down, it was stop and go much of the way.

...or Wednesdays before Thanksgiving.

By that logic the road should be 20 lanes wide, and Wegmans should have 1 square miles of parking spots.

Not sure about why Wegmans would need a huge lot.  Parking's never a problem, Wednesday before Thanksgiving or not.

[famartin]

Anecdotally, I haven't seen backups at the merge south of 6, so that widening was correct... a lot exits onto 95 south. However, it does backup at 4 often enough, so additional lanes would help. Curious how they will handle merging 3 turnpike and two 295 lanes down to 4 for the bridge.

[vdeane]

You should drive I-95 from the beltway to Fredericksburg, VA.  THAT is where a road needs widened.
The South Jersey traffic is nothing.

I have, and it's torture.  It also doesn't mean that the traffic on the southern piece of the NJ Turnpike is something we should just leave be because bluecountry wants it to "look rural" and can find a more congested road elsewhere.  By that logic, no roads anywhere should be widened because of the congestion on the Cross-Bronx and Brooklyn-Queens Expressways.

[roadman65]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

However, progress too is a thing that we have to deal with more cars on the road as well.  The main reason.  The Turnpike is long overdue for widening even back in the 80's though not a standstill back then I believe.  However, before the  Great Piece of Sh@t (GPS) people would have figured out to switch to I-295 at Exit 4 as a result of being frustrated to sit in traffic.  Nowadays, the GPS is right, and if you get stuck in traffic it brings awareness to the two party system and people just blame the opposing party for their predictiment or worse yet blame Obama or Trump or Murphy/ Christie etc.  So people consider traffic as a norm and no longer realize that there are other options.

Anyhow, if the road warrants widening then so be it.  I have seen plenty in Florida where it takes decades to widen the road to what it is.  Meanwhile, greedy developers  build and county commissioners allow for them to do it despite them knowing damn well the roads cannot handle it at the present time and both NJ and NY should be a muse for them to see what development does. 

I-4 in Orlando needed the Ultimate Project back in 1985!  Then it started in 2015 some 30 years after.  Now what is needed today will have to wait till 2065 to get done.  Plus simple fixes could remedy some of this.  I-4 in Champions Gate and Celebration should have ramp meters like in California plus just one auxillary lane between SR 417 and CR 532 would help some.

So, yes build the six lane and be proactive for future widening too by widening bridges for future expansion now.  Just as the PATCO Woodcrest Station when building their underpass beneath the NJ Turnpike left a widened bridge for when the 1-4 widening does ever take place.

[hotdogPi]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.

[cpzilliacus]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.

Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings).  These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion  is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

[famartin]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.

Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings).  These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion  is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

Are there really that many people still doing that? Surely by now, the smart GPS reigns supreme. It is, in fact, the main reason I use it most of the time.

[hotdogPi]

and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

If you're referring to a route that the GPS tells cars to follow when it's congested, those cars are being taken off the main road, making the main road less congested.

[jeffandnicole]

Anecdotally, I haven't seen backups at the merge south of 6, so that widening was correct... a lot exits onto 95 south. However, it does backup at 4 often enough, so additional lanes would help. Curious how they will handle merging 3 turnpike and two 295 lanes down to 4 for the bridge.

Waiting to see this also.  My opinions:

Easiest:

Southbound:  Merge it down from 3 lanes to 2 between the existing toll plaza and NJ 140.
Northbound:  Add in a 3rd lane starting at the US 40 to NJ Tpk Ramp North of NJ 140.

In this scenario, everything south of NJ 140 will remain as is.


What they could do:

Southbound - same as above.
Northbound - Knock out the ramp from Old Pennsville-Auburn Road to the NJ Turnpike Northbound.  (If I were to take a guess, this is probably the least used ramp on the Turnpike).   And widen the NJ 140 Overpass.  This will allow for a continuous 3 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge 295/NJ Tpk split by utilizing the existing auxiliary lane just prior to the exit for US 40, and add a new decel lane for the US 40 exit. 


What they could do at a much greater expense...

It's a fairly involved cluster of highways, roads and waterways around where I-295 North crosses over the NJ Turnpike.  https://goo.gl/maps/psnRN7bgDQD5dbVy5  (Google Maps has an error there - 551 isn't duplexed with 295 South).  In order to widen the Turnpike to 3 lanes each way, with full shoulders, and leaving the ramp mentioned above in place, they would need to rebuild the I-295 North Overpass, along with the CR 551 South Overpass.  Here's a view from GSV... https://goo.gl/maps/UyC6W4RC7pFXHrRV7 .  It's actually quite an involved project just in this area alone - that's a long overpass over the water and Turnpike there.  If that were to happen, on the Southbound side there would be 5 lanes just south of here - 3 NJ Turnpike SB lanes, and 2, 295 SB lanes.   Less than 1/4 mile away to the south is the interchange for 130/49.  The Turnpike could eliminate the 49 WB to 295 SB ramp by creating a left turn from 49 WB onto the existing 130 SB to 295 SB ramp.  But...that overpass would need to be replaced as well, as there wouldn't be sufficient room to properly lose a lane in that area.  At some point, either the left or right lane will need to end before the Del. Mem. Bridge.  And if they're doing all of this, they should take the opportunity to increase the radii and rebuild the 295 South curve just before it meets up with the Turnpike.  Not as notorious as the 35 mph Aljo curve at the 25/76/42 interchange, it's still an advisory-signed 35 mph that has taken out many a truck.  And for good measure, redo 295 Northbound here too.  It's unsigned at 55 mph without a posted advisory speed, but it's almost impossible to drive at 55 due to the sharpness of the curve.

Why I think this expensive option will happen:  As we've mentioned above, many of the bridges in this area are already 70 years old.  They are going to need to be replaced at some point.  And it will allow the Turnpike to be 3 lanes all the way to its end.

Why I think this expensive option won't happen: It's more complicated than the complex description I described above.  NJDOT just replaced the deck on 295 North going over the NJ Turnpike; by the time they get around to working in this area the new deck will probably be 10 years old so not a total waste of money, but I would be a little surprised NJDOT would've taken that project on if the overpass's lifespan was limited.

[DrSmith]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.

Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings).  These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion  is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

Millions sounds like too many..... that seems like it is the same crowd that is still using flip phones

[Alps]

Anecdotally, I haven't seen backups at the merge south of 6, so that widening was correct... a lot exits onto 95 south. However, it does backup at 4 often enough, so additional lanes would help. Curious how they will handle merging 3 turnpike and two 295 lanes down to 4 for the bridge.

Waiting to see this also.  My opinions:

Easiest:

Southbound:  Merge it down from 3 lanes to 2 between the existing toll plaza and NJ 140.
Northbound:  Add in a 3rd lane starting at the US 40 to NJ Tpk Ramp North of NJ 140.

In this scenario, everything south of NJ 140 will remain as is.


What they could do:

Southbound - same as above.
Northbound - Knock out the ramp from Old Pennsville-Auburn Road to the NJ Turnpike Northbound.  (If I were to take a guess, this is probably the least used ramp on the Turnpike).   And widen the NJ 140 Overpass.  This will allow for a continuous 3 lanes from the Delaware Memorial Bridge 295/NJ Tpk split by utilizing the existing auxiliary lane just prior to the exit for US 40, and add a new decel lane for the US 40 exit. 


What they could do at a much greater expense...

It's a fairly involved cluster of highways, roads and waterways around where I-295 North crosses over the NJ Turnpike.  https://goo.gl/maps/psnRN7bgDQD5dbVy5  (Google Maps has an error there - 551 isn't duplexed with 295 South).  In order to widen the Turnpike to 3 lanes each way, with full shoulders, and leaving the ramp mentioned above in place, they would need to rebuild the I-295 North Overpass, along with the CR 551 South Overpass.  Here's a view from GSV... https://goo.gl/maps/UyC6W4RC7pFXHrRV7 .  It's actually quite an involved project just in this area alone - that's a long overpass over the water and Turnpike there.  If that were to happen, on the Southbound side there would be 5 lanes just south of here - 3 NJ Turnpike SB lanes, and 2, 295 SB lanes.   Less than 1/4 mile away to the south is the interchange for 130/49.  The Turnpike could eliminate the 49 WB to 295 SB ramp by creating a left turn from 49 WB onto the existing 130 SB to 295 SB ramp.  But...that overpass would need to be replaced as well, as there wouldn't be sufficient room to properly lose a lane in that area.  At some point, either the left or right lane will need to end before the Del. Mem. Bridge.  And if they're doing all of this, they should take the opportunity to increase the radii and rebuild the 295 South curve just before it meets up with the Turnpike.  Not as notorious as the 35 mph Aljo curve at the 25/76/42 interchange, it's still an advisory-signed 35 mph that has taken out many a truck.  And for good measure, redo 295 Northbound here too.  It's unsigned at 55 mph without a posted advisory speed, but it's almost impossible to drive at 55 due to the sharpness of the curve.

Why I think this expensive option will happen:  As we've mentioned above, many of the bridges in this area are already 70 years old.  They are going to need to be replaced at some point.  And it will allow the Turnpike to be 3 lanes all the way to its end.

Why I think this expensive option won't happen: It's more complicated than the complex description I described above.  NJDOT just replaced the deck on 295 North going over the NJ Turnpike; by the time they get around to working in this area the new deck will probably be 10 years old so not a total waste of money, but I would be a little surprised NJDOT would've taken that project on if the overpass's lifespan was limited.

Why I think it won't happen: Too many agencies involved that will need to agree. It hasn't been designed yet, but my completely uninformed guess (I'm not saying that ironically, I mean it) is that NJTA will want to end improvements within their jurisdiction to avoid that complication. (As much as having to rebuild various overpasses still involves other jurisdictions anyway.)

[vdeane]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.

Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings).  These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion  is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

Millions sounds like too many..... that seems like it is the same crowd that is still using flip phones

It's also worth noting that even "smart" GPS services will sometimes default to a shorter but more time-consuming route.  There have been times when I've dragged the path of Google directions off of whatever local route it wants to take onto the interstate and had the drive time shorten by a couple minutes.

And also worth noting that, in the map era, people might encounter congestion and divert, even if the diversion was longer than sitting in the congestion, either because they didn't know that the congestion was still shorter, or because the increased time was considered worth it to not sit in traffic.

[famartin]

I am only imagining that the GPS has a lot to do with the added traffic.  Before people used their imagination and plotted routes from looking at a map.  Nowadays if it were not for us road enthusiusts, the maps would be all in download forms.

GPS likely reduced traffic. People are taking more efficient routes, and when it's congested, cars are more spread out on different roads rather than all doing the same thing.

Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings).  These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion  is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

Millions sounds like too many..... that seems like it is the same crowd that is still using flip phones

It's also worth noting that even "smart" GPS services will sometimes default to a shorter but more time-consuming route.  There have been times when I've dragged the path of Google directions off of whatever local route it wants to take onto the interstate and had the drive time shorten by a couple minutes.

And also worth noting that, in the map era, people might encounter congestion and divert, even if the diversion was longer than sitting in the congestion, either because they didn't know that the congestion was still shorter, or because the increased time was considered worth it to not sit in traffic.

I use the preinstalled maps ap on my cell. For the most part it does ok. Occasionally I'll divert, like when it tells me to take the car lanes at rush hour in the peak direction... truck lanes usually work better at those times, but it doesn't know that.

It does routinely advise me to take the outer tubes on the Ft McHenry Tunnel, which I also generally ignore.

[hotdogPi]

It's also worth noting that even "smart" GPS services will sometimes default to a shorter but more time-consuming route.  There have been times when I've dragged the path of Google directions off of whatever local route it wants to take onto the interstate and had the drive time shorten by a couple minutes.

Favoring the shorter route is good for overall traffic flow. A road that is one lane in a specific direction can get about 2200 vehicles per hour; if it takes you along roads with less than 10000 AADT and no signals, it's taking cars off the Interstate and even sometimes major arterials and putting it on roads that won't back up, clearing out the congested roads.

[jeffandnicole]

Why I think it won't happen: Too many agencies involved that will need to agree. It hasn't been designed yet, but my completely uninformed guess (I'm not saying that ironically, I mean it) is that NJTA will want to end improvements within their jurisdiction to avoid that complication. (As much as having to rebuild various overpasses still involves other jurisdictions anyway.)

As I was writing my comment, and looking around with Google, and looking around some more, and looking around again, I started wondering if rebuilding this 1 mile stretch of highway would be more pricey than the entire remaining 10 miles from 1 to 2. There really is a lot going on there.

Except that there are millions of drivers that use "dumb" GPS units that do not include congestion in making suggested routings, and always route the shortest path (sometimes avoiding things like ferries, toll roads and toll crossings).  These units provide what is the shortest path, but not always the best path when congestion  is considered, and I can think of one routing in my area that is shorter but has congestion seven days per week.

If you notice this a few times, check your settings.  I had set mine one time to default to shortest route, and it saved me about 1,500 feet but cost me 15 minutes of time.

And also worth noting that, in the map era, people might encounter congestion and divert, even if the diversion was longer than sitting in the congestion, either because they didn't know that the congestion was still shorter, or because the increased time was considered worth it to not sit in traffic.

I've known people that want to keep moving, so they'll get off the highway to take side roads.  Not only does it take them longer, but even with congestion on the highway they're generally moving 30 mph.  On the side roads, they're moving 25 mph...when they're not stopped at stop signs and traffic lights.  Their "moving" cost them quite a bit of time.

[lstone19]

I've sometimes wondered when a nav app takes me on some bizarre back street route if it's because it's determined that on average, it's a couple of seconds faster. But, even though it's faster on average, it's far more variable so it could well take me longer. I frequently want to arrive at a certain time - early is almost as bad as late so I'd rather have the very slightly slower but much less variable route.


iPad

[cpzilliacus]

Are there really that many people still doing that? Surely by now, the smart GPS reigns supreme. It is, in fact, the main reason I use it most of the time.

Apparently not.  I have done some informal observations of drivers on DC-295 southbound (a routing that these "dumb" GPS units route people over instead of I-95) that is normally severely congested (so traffic is moving nowhere near the posted limit of 50 MPH), and most of the out-of-state cars (not D.C., not Maryland, not Virginia) appear to have "dumb" GPS units on the dashboards.

[jeffandnicole]

I've sometimes wondered when a nav app takes me on some bizarre back street route if it's because it's determined that on average, it's a couple of seconds faster. But, even though it's faster on average, it's far more variable so it could well take me longer. I frequently want to arrive at a certain time - early is almost as bad as late so I'd rather have the very slightly slower but much less variable route.
iPad

Or is the GPS doing what it's supposed to be doing...taking you away from a bad jam that you're not aware of. 

Last time I came up 95 in the Carolinas, my GPS wanted to put me on some small 2 lane road. Turned out there was a crash several miles up.  And I knew that because the alternative route it put me on took me parallel to 95 where I could see the crash...and the people standing outside their cars because the highway was closed!

So, it's important to know how the GPS works.  If it's working correctly, it'll put you on those odd roadways.  The Interstate may be the faster route...normally...but most people won't know the difference unless they ignore the GPS.

[Rothman]

GPS discussion needs its own thread.