hey everyone, i'm Tom, new here...
just wondering if there is ANY chance NJ will ever build a new freeway/tollway for northwest NJ? specially connecting I-95 (future 195) to I-80? this state is so crippled by lack of highways. (Rt 31, US 206, etc are worthless and are backed up always) the turnpike isn't practical for alot of us who don't live close enough to it to use it.
Welcome to the board tom, i do beleive the reason that there are not many freeways and tollways in northwest new jersey is due to the era most of the NJ freeways were built, there was not that much demand for roads that far north west, then suburbia happened, bedroom communities, etc. I know NJ Transit is working on restoring some more rail lines up in that section over the Delaware river near I80 on a old alignment called the Lackawanna Cut-Off. It's proposed end would be Scranton PA via a bridge at the delaware water gap.
http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=Project019To
It will probably serve some use to commuters in your area, as it will allow connections to philly,trenton,new york city, and anywhere amtrak goes as well.
Steve, thanks for the post...do you happen to know how well mass transit is working in the state so far? i just don't see it as a solution realistic solution personally. the biggest concern for the northwest to trenton area traffic i have is trucks and inevitable growth...you have 18 wheelers constantly having to take 206 or 31, which in alot of areas (princeton, lawrence, i'm sure many more) are just two lane main streets.
this state really made a huge mistake when they didn't build the somerset freeway, and i think it's starting to get more attention. I hear traffic in Flemington near 31/202 is a nightmare. i know 206 during rush hour is just a disaster. these roads that were built 50 years ago haven't changed much and the people in charge continue to think that just adjusting traffic lights and whatnot will make these obsolete roads sufficient for 2011 and future traffic.
i know alot of people are concerned for farms and wetlands, but NJ should have thought about that years ago, i think it is just too late preserve some of these areas, we let all these businesses and homes go up, but then there are no roads to handle the new influx of traffic
In my region mass transit seems to work pretty decently, if you work in NYC it is a 15 buck train ride on NJ transit from trenton, 1.50 to get to trenton from anywhere on the riverline route. Honestly it will releive a lot of congestion on I80 with commuters if they extend to scranton PA. Since there will be a faster alternative to take you into newark for transfers elsewhere. From trenton you can take SEPTA into philly, Amtrak to Virginia,or Boston (same if you go to New York via NJ Transit) connect to the riverline (light rail) and go to atlantic city once the connector opens up near the betsy ross bridge where you transfer trains.
NJ will not be building any new road miles. You'll get the occasional bypass (Hillsborough on US 206) or realignment (NJ 31, if it ever happens), that's about it.
what about a I-195 widening? the traffic is bad from 295 to like exit 7 or 8...the whole thing should have been widened to 3 lanes years ago.
If you have ideas for things you would like to see, post them to Fictional Highways. If you're asking about actual plans, there are none.
Somerset Freeway wasn't a mistake...its travelshed is largely covered by US 1. The mistake was not getting a true north-south route from Trenton north (i.e. NJ 31).
I am sure I have a NJ map somewhere that once showed plans for more NJ Freeways and expressways.I know NJ PA CT and NY had them along with dome of us in the Midwest(IL,IA and MO) I will try to find them
Quote from: Steve on November 20, 2011, 02:03:21 AM
If you have ideas for things you would like to see, post them to Fictional Highways. If you're asking about actual plans, there are none.
yeah i was asking if there are any official plans or studies whatnot. thanks for the info. I did post my ideas in the fictional section as well.
I guess US 1-9 Truck is a new freeway...
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2011, 01:41:14 AM
NJ will not be building any new road miles. You'll get the occasional bypass (Hillsborough on US 206) or realignment (NJ 31, if it ever happens), that's about it.
NJ is all about mass transit. I read a study about widening US9 from Lakewood to The GSP at exit 83. The road goes to 2 lanes and is really congested. It was 25 years ago and I am sure it is only getting worse( I havent been to NJ since 1999) The official plans said to encourage more walking instead of widening the road. That sums up NJ Transportation plans.
NJ had plans for a big network of freeways in the 1960s. Only parts of it were ever built. (even the "completed" freeways such as Route 18 and 55 end before their original planned ends) I remember looking a the Exxon Map of NJ and getting excited about Route 74, the Driscoll expressway, I-695 and I-895. None ever came to pass
I am no transportation planner or engineer but it seems to me that a few completed freeways would have gone a long way in preventing some of the current problems (ie truck traffic on 31 and 206... wouldn't be a problem if Somerset Freeway were completed)
Quote from: NE2 on November 20, 2011, 03:58:06 PM
I guess US 1-9 Truck is a new freeway...
Not sure it counts. It'll tie right into NJ 7, but there would still be a drawbridge. If you allow that exception, you would have the beginning of the "freeway" at 1/9, an exit at 1/9T, the bridge, and the two existing exits at Fish House and 508, although there's an EB "exit" for the old Newark Tpk. that's more of a street intersection.
Quote from: jwolfer on November 21, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
NJ is all about mass transit. I read a study about widening US9 from Lakewood to The GSP at exit 83. The road goes to 2 lanes and is really congested. It was 25 years ago and I am sure it is only getting worse( I havent been to NJ since 1999) The official plans said to encourage more walking instead of widening the road. That sums up NJ Transportation plans.
I grew up in Lakewood and the intersection (NJ-88) where Madison Ave (4 lanes of US 9) became River Road (2 lanes) *sucked*. I had remembered reading about highway studies which suggested making 9 grade separated (and/or building a bypass) when I was younger, but that never happened, nor will it ever happen at this point. Land is too expensive to buy up nowadays. They've tweaked the intersection a bit (signal upgrade) and widened 9 to add another lane approaching the light going northbound, but it hasn't helped that much.
Unless something drastic happens, I don't think we'll ever see more freeways in NJ short of the occasional bypass. The state is too crowed, real estate is too expensive to buy up (thanks to being one large suburb of Philly and NYC), and there's just too much corruption in the upper echelons of the government to find the funding.
they could just consider a new freeway from I-80 to I-95 in Trenton a LONG bypass...a guy can dream...
Quote from: YankeesFan on May 10, 2012, 09:38:22 AM
they could just consider a new freeway from I-80 to I-95 in Trenton a LONG bypass...a guy can dream...
I grew up in New Jersey and lived for 3 of them at the US 1 and Ford Avenue intersection in Woodbridge Township. It took NJDOT years to finally upgrade that as it was bad back in the 80's. Look also how long it took for them to put the parking garage at Metro Park Station? It was needed decades before it was opened in the 90's.
One thing I credit New Jersey for is the amount of Jersey Freeways built. Most states have more signals on roads in the urban areas coming into larger cities, but look at the Garden State. US 22 has more signals away from Newark than near it, hence New Providence Road in Mountainside being the easternmost traffic light on the Newark to Cincinnati route. Then NJ 4 is almost all signal less and look what they did to NJ 17 north of US 46. That was something by eliminating all the signalized intersections in the latter there! The only bad thing about NJ 17 is the fact when the current NJ 3 and NJ 17 interchange was completed in the early 70's, it makes traveling straight through on NJ 17 more tedious as you have to manuver through the S turns to the south of NJ 3 that once had a straight road crossing NJ 3 to the west due to the never built NJ 17 freeway to I-280. It made traveling from WB to NB and SB to EB better for that is the most traffic through there, but more driving for NJ 17 straight through motorists as it makes the route slightly longer than it was previous.
Quote from: jwolfer on November 21, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2011, 01:41:14 AM
NJ will not be building any new road miles. You'll get the occasional bypass (Hillsborough on US 206) or realignment (NJ 31, if it ever happens), that's about it.
NJ is all about mass transit. I read a study about widening US9 from Lakewood to The GSP at exit 83. The road goes to 2 lanes and is really congested. It was 25 years ago and I am sure it is only getting worse( I havent been to NJ since 1999) The official plans said to encourage more walking instead of widening the road. That sums up NJ Transportation plans.
Many elected officials in many states (not just New Jersey) claim that the "future is transit" and "future improvements should be limited to transit." But those claims ignore the reality that transit works well to serve dense urban areas (like New York's Mid-Town Manhattan and Philadelphia's Center City (both served by N.J. Transit)) - but not especially well in a dispersed, suburban place like most of the Garden State.
Those elected officials are often pandering to the "anti-auto vanguard" (as Professor James Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers University at Camden wrote in his superb late 1990's book Driving Forces: The Automobile, Its Enemies, and the Politics of Mobility (http://www.amazon.com/Driving-Forces-Automobile-Politics-Mobility/dp/0815719639).
But no matter how much pandering is done, the private automobile remains the
overwhelming choice of a large percentage of North American persons needing to travel. Even in New Jersey.
QuoteNJ had plans for a big network of freeways in the 1960s. Only parts of it were ever built. (even the "completed" freeways such as Route 18 and 55 end before their original planned ends) I remember looking a the Exxon Map of NJ and getting excited about Route 74, the Driscoll expressway, I-695 and I-895. None ever came to pass
Don't forget the Route 92 extension proposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
QuoteI am no transportation planner or engineer but it seems to me that a few completed freeways would have gone a long way in preventing some of the current problems (ie truck traffic on 31 and 206... wouldn't be a problem if Somerset Freeway were completed)
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of its toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 21, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2011, 01:41:14 AM
NJ will not be building any new road miles. You'll get the occasional bypass (Hillsborough on US 206) or realignment (NJ 31, if it ever happens), that's about it.
NJ is all about mass transit. I read a study about widening US9 from Lakewood to The GSP at exit 83. The road goes to 2 lanes and is really congested. It was 25 years ago and I am sure it is only getting worse( I havent been to NJ since 1999) The official plans said to encourage more walking instead of widening the road. That sums up NJ Transportation plans.
Many elected officials in many states (not just New Jersey) claim that the "future is transit" and "future improvements should be limited to transit." But those claims ignore the reality that transit works well to serve dense urban areas (like New York's Mid-Town Manhattan and Philadelphia's Center City (both served by N.J. Transit)) - but not especially well in a dispersed, suburban place like most of the Garden State.
Those elected officials are often pandering to the "anti-auto vanguard" (as Professor James Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers University at Camden wrote in his superb late 1990's book Driving Forces: The Automobile, Its Enemies, and the Politics of Mobility (http://www.amazon.com/Driving-Forces-Automobile-Politics-Mobility/dp/0815719639).
But no matter how much pandering is done, the private automobile remains the overwhelming choice of a large percentage of North American persons needing to travel. Even in New Jersey.
As has been mentioned before, for the past 10-15 years now, the Dutch government has been laying out BILLIONS of Euros per year in a game of 'catch up' for the prior couple of decades where their previous governments religiously followed such a policy. They refused to upgrade their major roads - and the traffic came anyways.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
QuoteNJ had plans for a big network of freeways in the 1960s. Only parts of it were ever built. (even the "completed" freeways such as Route 18 and 55 end before their original planned ends) I remember looking a the Exxon Map of NJ and getting excited about Route 74, the Driscoll expressway, I-695 and I-895. None ever came to pass
Don't forget the Route 92 extension proposed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority.
QuoteI am no transportation planner or engineer but it seems to me that a few completed freeways would have gone a long way in preventing some of the current problems (ie truck traffic on 31 and 206... wouldn't be a problem if Somerset Freeway were completed)
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of it's toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
How long before all of US 1 between I-295 and I-287 might be fully interstate-compatible???
:spin:
:-D
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 20, 2012, 01:09:05 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 21, 2011, 11:10:35 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 19, 2011, 01:41:14 AM
NJ will not be building any new road miles. You'll get the occasional bypass (Hillsborough on US 206) or realignment (NJ 31, if it ever happens), that's about it.
NJ is all about mass transit. I read a study about widening US9 from Lakewood to The GSP at exit 83. The road goes to 2 lanes and is really congested. It was 25 years ago and I am sure it is only getting worse( I havent been to NJ since 1999) The official plans said to encourage more walking instead of widening the road. That sums up NJ Transportation plans.
Many elected officials in many states (not just New Jersey) claim that the "future is transit" and "future improvements should be limited to transit." But those claims ignore the reality that transit works well to serve dense urban areas (like New York's Mid-Town Manhattan and Philadelphia's Center City (both served by N.J. Transit)) - but not especially well in a dispersed, suburban place like most of the Garden State.
Those elected officials are often pandering to the "anti-auto vanguard" (as Professor James Dunn, Jr. of Rutgers University at Camden wrote in his superb late 1990's book Driving Forces: The Automobile, Its Enemies, and the Politics of Mobility (http://www.amazon.com/Driving-Forces-Automobile-Politics-Mobility/dp/0815719639).
But no matter how much pandering is done, the private automobile remains the overwhelming choice of a large percentage of North American persons needing to travel. Even in New Jersey.
As has been mentioned before, for the past 10-15 years now, the Dutch government has been laying out BILLIONS of Euros per year in a game of 'catch up' for the prior couple of decades where their previous governments religiously followed such a policy. They refused to upgrade their major roads - and the traffic came anyways.
Not just the Netherlands.
Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway have been investing
very large sums of money in motorway-standard highway projects. Within the past few years, Finland completed the E18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_route_E18) motorway between Helsinki and Turku, replacing a dangerous and deficient arterial highway. Sweden is building an underground small-circumference beltway around downtown Stockholm, and in 2000, the Øresund Bridge [Tunnel] (http://xn-- resund%20bridge-dnb709g) provided a fixed link for highway and railroad traffic for the first time since the Ice Age. A few years earlier, Denmark completed the Great Belt Fixed Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Belt_Fixed_Link), so that traffic from the island of Zealand (where Copenhagen is located) was finally able to get to "mainland" Denmark without having to take a ferry.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 20, 2012, 01:09:05 PM
How long before all of US 1 between I-295 and I-287 might be fully interstate-compatible???
:spin:
:-D
Mike
Never. But it may be a Jersey freeway some day. The Penns Neck bypass stalled but the plans are there, so ultimately something will happen there. I think the major issue that would get in the way is the two long stretches with no grade separation: South and North Brunswick, and north of the Raritan. It'll be a lot easier to clear out the other isolated lights.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of its toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of its toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer. But a reason
might be found in the (
relative) amount of lane capacity on the Turnpike south of Exit 4 (N.J. 73) - at least for now, and only two lanes (in each direction) from there south to Exit 1, about 35 miles.
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of its toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?
Valid point. I-295 was built as a series of US 130 upgrades, mostly after the Turnpike was already completed. I can't fathom why the Turnpike Authority would have accepted this, unless they simply didn't have enough power to object yet. Perhaps by 1970 they had acquired the necessary clout to influence the state. This is conjecture but seems to be the only reasonable idea.
Quote from: Steve on May 20, 2012, 10:38:46 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of its toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?
Valid point. I-295 was built as a series of US 130 upgrades, mostly after the Turnpike was already completed. I can't fathom why the Turnpike Authority would have accepted this, unless they simply didn't have enough power to object yet. Perhaps by 1970 they had acquired the necessary clout to influence the state. This is conjecture but seems to be the only reasonable idea.
Because NJTP knew that they would be crushed with traffic without I-295, or that they would have to widen it to 8 to 12 lanes? It does fine trafficwise and revenue-wise today with 4 to 6 lanes. Also that part of NJTP has very widely spaced interchanges, while I-295 has closely spaced interchanges which is good for local access.
Likewise the NJTP segment north of Trenton is being massively widened to 12 lanes, whereas if I-95 had been built that segment of NJTP would likely do fine trafficwise and revenue-wise today with 6 lanes.
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
The Somerset Freeway was killed by a combination of things (as I understand it): (1) NIMBYism among persons in Princeton who did not want I-95 spoiling their part of New Jersey; and (2) Opposition by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority - I think the Turnpike Authority correctly anticipated that a "free" Somerset Freeway would divert a lot of its toll-paying traffic to a nearby "free" road.
Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?
I was on the PATP/I-95 connection project community advisory committee for over 15 years. While objections by the NJTA probably did play a role, the biggest factor by far was wealthy and politially well-connected NIMBYs along the Somerset corridor.
In the 60s & 70s, the PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) and PennDOT planned and designed a simple double-trumpet connection between the two highways (in the NW quadrant of the point of crossing). In fact, there was even some initial construction of parts of a toll plaza.
In 1981 or so (I forget exactly when), then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) convinced Congress to delist the planned segment of I-95 between Trenton and New Brunswick. He did this in response to the aforemenioned NIMBYs. The legislation 1) prohibited NJDOT (or anyone else) from constructing I-95 through the Somerset Valley area, and 2) mandated construction of a high-speed connection between the PATP and I-95 in PA somewhere at or near the point of crossing, the exact configuration of which to be decided by the stakeholders, with I-95 being re-routed at the interchange along the PA & NJ Turnpikes.
This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans and start over again. (It has taken this long to get all the stakeholders to agree to a design, move the design through the various phases to construction, and simultaneously secure funding.)
Quote from: qguy on May 21, 2012, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 20, 2012, 09:23:18 PM
Then why didn't the Turnpike Authority object to 60 miles of toll-free I-295 and I-195 being built paralleling the Turnpike, with freeway connections at either end?
I was on the PATP/I-95 connection project community advisory committee for over 15 years. While objections by the NJTA probably did play a role, the biggest factor by far was wealthy and politially well-connected NIMBYs along the Somerset corridor.
In the 60s & 70s, the PA Turnpike Commission (PTC) and PennDOT planned and designed a simple double-trumpet connection between the two highways (in the NW quadrant of the point of crossing). In fact, there was even some initial construction of parts of a toll plaza.
With a completed I-95 as origininally planned, the amount of interchanging traffic at I-95 and the PA Turnpike likely would have been feasibly handled on a simple double-trumpet connection.
Quote
In 1981 or so (I forget exactly when), then-Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) convinced Congress to delist the planned segment of I-95 between Trenton and New Brunswick. He did this in response to the aforemenioned NIMBYs. The legislation 1) prohibited NJDOT (or anyone else) from constructing I-95 through the Somerset Valley area, and 2) mandated construction of a high-speed connection between the PATP and I-95 in PA somewhere at or near the point of crossing, the exact configuration of which to be decided by the stakeholders, with I-95 being re-routed at the interchange along the PA & NJ Turnpikes.
This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans and start over again. (It has taken this long to get all the stakeholders to agree to a design, move the design through the various phases to construction, and simultaneously secure funding.)
I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code. Could you please provide the URL and quote? Thanks!
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2012, 12:54:13 PMI would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code. Could you please provide the URL and quote? Thanks!
The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act 1982 had a provision written into it that directed I-95 to be re-routed down the NJ Turnpike to Exit 6, across the NJTP PA Spur to the PA Turnpike and along the PATP to the point at which it crosses current I-95. It also mandates a high-speed connection between the two.
My wording of "prohibiting" construction of the Somerset Freeway may be a little misleading. The legislation simply re-routed I-95. It effectively provided the nail in the coffin for the Somerset Freeway, after then-NJ-Governor Brendan Byrne (working in cooperation with Sen. Bradley) withdrew his support for constructing the freeway in 1980. Sen Bradley always took the lion's share of the credit for killing the project.
Cite the section of CFR? I can't even find the text of the law online and I know the name of the thing. Perhaps you can have better luck. I just don't have the time; maybe you know where to look.
One person who might know is Raymond Martin, webmaster of <www.njfreeways.com>. He's done a lot of primary research on the subject. Or perhaps try the crew at the project office. They can be reached at 215-355-3577. You can also try Christina Hampton, the Community Relations Coordinator for the eastern portion of the PATP. Her number is 610-292-3785. (If you PM me, I'll provide her e-mail address; she's a working aquaintance of mine and I don't want to attract spam to her work e-mail.)
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2012, 12:54:13 PM
I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code. Could you please provide the URL and quote? Thanks!
Moderator note: Please do not ask other people to do legwork for you.
Quote from: Steve on May 21, 2012, 08:43:04 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 21, 2012, 12:54:13 PM
I would like to see this federal law cite in the U.S. Code. Could you please provide the URL and quote? Thanks!
Moderator note: Please do not ask other people to do legwork for you.
Excuse me, but he made an exceptional claim that I have not heard in 40 years of studying roads issues. [his claim: federal law mandates I-95 routing on PA and NJ TPK]
It sounds fishy, and I consider it his job to post the URL and quote from the U.S. Code, or to retract the claim. The entire U.S. Code is on-line.
If it is not in the U.S. Code, then I certainly can't disprove a negative.
Thanks.
Does everything get codified, or only certain laws with broad application?
While I couldn't find the text of the 1982 law, the PATP/I-95 website summarizes it thusly (on its Project History page):
Quote1982: The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act specifies that I-95 be completed through a PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange which would connect to the NJ Turnpike using the Delaware River Bridge.
Quote from: qguy on May 22, 2012, 08:18:55 AM
While I couldn't find the text of the 1982 law, the PATP/I-95 website summarizes it thusly (on its Project History page):
Quote1982: The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act specifies that I-95 be completed through a PA Turnpike/I-95 interchange which would connect to the NJ Turnpike using the Delaware River Bridge.
With all due respect, the PTC has a poor track record of interpreting federal highway law (see I-80 tolling pilot proposal TEA-21).
Quote from: NE2 on May 22, 2012, 12:00:52 AMDoes everything get codified, or only certain laws with broad application?
I think it is the latter. I tried the US Code search engine here:
http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml
Search term {"Interstate 95"} turned up just one road-related hit, pertaining to the Cumberland Parkway. Search term {"Somerset Freeway"} returned no hits. Search term {Wichita AND 54} turned up no road-related hits although I know Kellogg Avenue has been mentioned in one of the recent transportation reauthorization bills.
The US Code is just a codification. The comprehensive compendium of all Congressional statutes (both public and private) is the Statutes At Large, which the GPO publishes and which NARA claims is not available in electronic format.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/publications/statutes.html
I don't think NARA is completely accurate anymore, however--there is apparently a digitization project in progress which has reached back to 1951. I am downloading the 1982 volume (430 MB!) and if I find any mention of I-95, I will report back.
Edit: Now found. The relevant provision is at § 162 of the STAA of 1982 (PL 97-424), vol. 96 page 2136 of the Statutes at Large (PDF page 2254 of 2948 in the copy available for download from the GPO website (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29&isCollapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&ycord=0)). In full, it is as follows:
QuoteSEC. 162. (a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2012, 08:35:18 AM
With all due respect, the PTC has a poor track record of interpreting federal highway law (see I-80 tolling pilot proposal TEA-21).
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's our lawmakers in Harrisburg that have a poor track record of interpreting federal highway law with their I-80 tolling schemes. The PTC were just doing what they were told [legislated to]. Though I'm sure they would have been glad to expand their "territory".
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 22, 2012, 10:21:40 AM
The relevant provision is at § 162 of the STAA of 1982 (PL 97-424), vol. 96 page 2136 of the Statutes at Large (PDF page 2254 of 2948 in the copy available for download from the GPO website (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=GPO&browsePath=United+States+Statutes+at+Large+%28Digitized%29&isCollapsed=false&leafLevelBrowse=false&ycord=0)). In full, it is as follows:
QuoteSEC. 162. (a) Notwithstanding the first sentence of section 103(e)(4) of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation shall, upon application of the State of New Jersey, withdraw under such section 103(e)(4) his approval of the designation on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways of the portion of Interstate Route 95 and Interstate Route 695 from the intersection with Interstate Route 295 in Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, to the proposed intersection with Interstate Route 287 in Franklin Township, Somerset County, New Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized and directed, pursuant to section 103 of such title, to designate as part of the Interstate Highway System the New Jersey Turnpike from exit 10 to the interchange with the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike from such interchange to and including the proposed interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
(c) The Secretary of Transportation is further authorized and directed to designate the highways described in subsection (b) as Interstate Route 95 and assure through proper sign designations the orderly connection of Interstate Route 95 pursuant to this section.
Thank you for finding this!! I wouldn't have thought that if this was authorized in 1982, that 30 years later we would still not see it even being yet under construction.
Especially since it is a gap in I-95.
I guess they are waiting for HTFO.
Thanks for the lookup, JNW. I've always wondered about the actual verbage myself. Looks like it really did prohibit (i.e.–"withdraw") any interstate designation for the Somerset section. And no interstate designation meant no (or very few) federal dollars. No federal dollars meant death by starvation, especially since Gov Byrne had already caved to the area NIMBYs.
Quote from: Beltway on May 22, 2012, 09:34:33 PMI wouldn't have thought that if this was authorized in 1982, that 30 years later we would still not see it even being yet under construction. Especially since it is a gap in I-95. I guess they are waiting for HTFO.
I agree that the lead time to construction has been outrageously long. Among the contributing factors have been legislative delay, the usual design time, stakeholder involvement, and funding. Let me explain each (and apologize ahead-of-time for the long post).
Legislative delay: After the 1982 Somerset dump, the PA legislature didn't authorize the PTC and PennDOT to work on a new interchange design until 1985 (with PA Act 61).
Design time/funding: It took from 1985 to around 1992 for the design team to secure design funding, design a complete set of screened alternative configuration, and recruit a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). (I was on the CAC from 1992 to 2005.)
Stakeholder involvement: When the 1982 federal legislation rerouted I-95, it necessitated a high-speed interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95 (because I-95 would be need a continuous routing through the new interchange). This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans (the aforementioned double trumpet configuration, which had seen some initial construction) and start over again. Drawing board, square one, scratch, clean sheet (and other clichés as appropriate).
Since the new configuration was now being designed in the era of increased environmental regulations, all that had to start from scratch as well. Because building a direct connection between the two highways would radically change driving patterns throughout the surrounding area, there turned out to be a huge number of stakeholders to consider and involve.
Since the local arterial system currently supports and filters the traffic which moves from one highway to the other, the direct connection would redistribute noise and emissions. Not to mention residential and business takes in whatever location was built upon. You had environmental considerations, housing considerations, neighborhood considerations, traffic pattern considerations, this, that, and the other considerations. You name it. All represented by multiple stakeholders, all of which needed to be satisfied in one way or another.
Having been on the CAC and having had an inside view of the process for this particular project, I think the design team actually did an admirable job of working with the locals to hammer out a configuration which satisfied the most number of stakeholders in the greatest possible way. They devised a configuation which nearly everyone agrees will be OK to live with (from a local liveability standpoint) for a long, long time.
But getting all those stakeholders in line through iteration after iteration of design (responding to this input and that input) is what took so long. It was like herding cats. Or what in the military we used to call a "goat rope."
Construction funding: It has been quite thechllenge securing funding for construction. That job still isn't done.
If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 11:45:40 AM
I agree that the lead time to construction has been outrageously long. Among the contributing factors have been legislative delay, the usual design time, stakeholder involvement, and funding. Let me explain each (and apologize ahead-of-time for the long post).
I appreciate your posting - this is what makes AAROADS interesting and useful.
QuoteLegislative delay: After the 1982 Somerset dump, the PA legislature didn't authorize the PTC and PennDOT to work on a new interchange design until 1985 (with PA Act 61).
Design time/funding: It took from 1985 to around 1992 for the design team to secure design funding, design a complete set of screened alternative configuration, and recruit a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). (I was on the CAC from 1992 to 2005.)
All of this is sadly familiar.
QuoteStakeholder involvement: When the 1982 federal legislation rerouted I-95, it necessitated a high-speed interchange between the PA Turnpike and I-95 (because I-95 would be need a continuous routing through the new interchange). This forced the PTC and PennDOT to scrap all plans (the aforementioned double trumpet configuration, which had seen some initial construction) and start over again. Drawing board, square one, scratch, clean sheet (and other clichés as appropriate).
Since the new configuration was now being designed in the era of increased environmental regulations, all that had to start from scratch as well. Because building a direct connection between the two highways would radically change driving patterns throughout the surrounding area, there turned out to be a huge number of stakeholders to consider and involve.
Presumably this meant a new Environmental Impact Statement (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), complete with the analysis required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and the Clean Water Act. And then whatever requirements are imposed by Pennsylvania state law.
QuoteSince the local arterial system currently supports and filters the traffic which moves from one highway to the other, the direct connection would redistribute noise and emissions. Not to mention residential and business takes in whatever location was built upon. You had environmental considerations, housing considerations, neighborhood considerations, traffic pattern considerations, this, that, and the other considerations. You name it. All represented by multiple stakeholders, all of which needed to be satisfied in one way or another.
Yep.
QuoteHaving been on the CAC and having had an inside view of the process for this particular project, I think the design team actually did an admirable job of working with the locals to hammer out a configuration which satisfied the most number of stakeholders in the greatest possible way. They devised a configuation which nearly everyone agrees will be OK to live with (from a local liveability standpoint) for a long, long time.
From the renderings I have seen on the PTC Web (http://www.paturnpikei95.com/home.htm) site for this project, I agree with you.
QuoteBut getting all those stakeholders in line through iteration after iteration of design (responding to this input and that input) is what took so long. It was like herding cats. Or what in the military we used to call a "goat rope."
Did you have to deal with persons and groups that were
absolutely opposed to
any alternative except the "no-build" alternative? That has been the theme with projects in and near D.C., including the Wilson Bridge, (especially) the ICC, the 11th Street Bridge and others.
QuoteConstruction funding: It has been quite thechllenge securing funding for construction. That job still isn't done.
If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.
Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 11:45:40 AM
If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.
Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?
If those were the reasons (funding and stakeholder involvement) how would we have ever gotten even part of the Interstate system built?
Look no further than the Philadelphia area for sensitive (post-NEPA) entire Interstate highways that were developed FAST in comparison to this I-95/TPK connection --- I-476 and I-676. The PTC was also onboard with the high-speed I-476/TPK connection.
If the original double trumpet was built when that segment of I-95 was opened in 1972, at least we would have the connection albeit underpowered. Plus, that could have been upgraded later with two semi-directional ramps.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Presumably this meant a new Environmental Impact Statement (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), complete with the analysis required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and the Clean Water Act. And then whatever requirements are imposed by Pennsylvania state law.
Yes. And there are regulations that prohibit taking park land and even playgrounds and such unless you can prove every which way from Sunday that there is absotively posilutely no other alternative. These factors actually nixed two major configurations and all their sub-variations. (These involved routing the connection along the corridor of the PA 413 exit, continuing to a directional (or semidirectional) Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline in two different locations to the east of the point of crossing with current I-95.)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Did you have to deal with persons and groups that were absolutely opposed to any alternative except the "no-build" alternative? That has been the theme with projects in and near D.C., including the Wilson Bridge, (especially) the ICC, the 11th Street Bridge and others.
There was only one gentleman who came close. He lives near the point of crossing and served on the CAC. His attitude was actually, in fact, that the high-speed connection should be built elsewhere altogether. As in, "How dare NJ fob this off on us! The interchange and its attendant emissions should be somewhere over there." He really did (and still does) have a point. (I actually agree with him.) But once that 1982 legislation became law, it became awfully hard, nigh impossible, to change. So his involvement became one of "If it's a foregone conclusion, then dammit I'm going to hold everyone's feet to the fire and fight to make the configuration the best possible outcome." He was actually a great guy to work with.
There was some skepticism from some participants early on, but the reason I think that there wasn't more opposition is that the barking lunacy of having two major interstates crossing with no connection at all, not even nearby, is readily apparent to all. The skepticism really represented more of an initial distrust that the design team would come up with a configuration that wouldn't take too many homes and businesses, or affect park land. When the stakeholders saw that the design team was "on their side," so to speak and was working hard to come up with something everyone could live with, it became more a matter of stakeholder input, design iteration, stakeholder input, design iteration, etc.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?
Yes. Securing funding has been quite the challenge. The total cost is/will be immense ($553 million in 1999 dollars; not sure if that includes the twinning of the Delaware River bridge). And they always try to stage these things so that costs are spread out realatively evenly each year and don't spike too much in any particular year.
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 11:45:40 AM
If I had to identify the single biggest factor in the long lead time, I would say the stakeholder involvement, with funding a close second. Other perspectives may be just as valid, though.
Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?
If those were the reasons (funding and stakeholder involvement) how would we have ever gotten even part of the Interstate system built?
Look no further than the Philadelphia area for sensitive (post-NEPA) entire Interstate highways that were developed FAST in comparison to this I-95/TPK connection --- I-476 and I-676. The PTC was also onboard with the high-speed I-476/TPK connection.
I-476 and I-676? No, seriously.
I-676 first. The western third (connecting to I-76) was completed in 1957. The remaining two thirds of the freeway (including the connection to I-95 and the Ben Franklin Bridge) weren't completed until 1991. That's 34 years.
Stakeholder involvement for I-476 (the Blue Route, as the locals call it) began in 1958. Some portions were constructed in fits and starts in the '60s and '70s, all pre-NEPA, and they didn't connect to anything (save a short piece at I-95). Post-NEPA construction didn't begin again until 1985. It was completed in 1992. Again, 34 years.
The I-476/276 connection (the Mid-County interchange) was completed at the tail end of the Blue Route construction. It didn't have nearly the number of stakeholders that either the other portions of the Boue Route had or the PATP/I-95 connection has. And most of the ROW (I believe) was already acquired long before that portion got to construction.
(Full disclosure: I referred to Steve Anderson's Phillyroads site <www.phillyroads.com> and Jeff Kitsko's PA Highways site <www.pahighways.com> to refresh my memory on dates.)
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 12:38:38 PM
If the original double trumpet was built when that segment of I-95 was opened in 1972, at least we would have the connection albeit underpowered. Plus, that could have been upgraded later with two semi-directional ramps.
I agree completely. Too true.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 01:25:03 PM
I-476 and I-676? No, seriously.
I-676 first. The western third (connecting to I-76) was completed in 1957. The remaining two thirds of the freeway (including the connection to I-95 and the Ben Franklin Bridge) weren't completed until 1991. That's 34 years.
Stakeholder involvement for I-476 (the Blue Route, as the locals call it) began in 1958. Some portions were constructed in fits and starts in the '60s and '70s, all pre-NEPA, and they didn't connect to anything (save a short piece at I-95). Post-NEPA construction didn't begin again until 1985. It was completed in 1992. Again, 34 years.
The I-476/276 connection (the Mid-County interchange) was completed at the tail end of the Blue Route construction. It didn't have nearly the number of stakeholders that either the other portions of the Boue Route had or the PATP/I-95 connection has. And most of the ROW (I believe) was already acquired long before that portion got to construction.
PA I-95 --- 1956 to 2012 -- 56 years and the gap still not even under construction.
An interchange was planned from the beginning.
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
PA I-95 --- 1956 to 2012 -- 56 years...
So you're saying there's slow, and there's slo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ow? :-D
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
...and the gap still not even under construction.
Note
quite true. Two bridges have been lengthened and a third is under construction. The PTC claims the mainline toll plaza is still planned to go to construction this year. (We'll see. My attitude with the Turnpike is that they never start anything when they say they will. One of the bridges that is currently being lengthened, for example, was supposed to be started last year but was pushed back to this year.) These are necessary before the actual interchange ramps can be constructed. But you're correct about the actual interchange ramps–none have been begun yet.
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
An interchange was planned from the beginning.
Perhaps, but the the clock was restarted in 1982 by forces over which neither the PTC nor PennDOT had any control. So everything that happened prior to that doesn't count since it all had to be chucked. So
30 years and counting, not 56. (Bad enough, though, IMNTBHO.)
Quoteupon application of the State of New Jersey
did NJ promptly apply for this withdrawal of the unbuilt I-95 in 1982, or was there another delay associated with that?
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 04:12:11 PM
Quote
An interchange was planned from the beginning.
Perhaps, but the the clock was restarted in 1982 by forces over which neither the PTC nor PennDOT had any control. So everything that happened prior to that doesn't count since it all had to be chucked. So 30 years and counting, not 56. (Bad enough, though, IMNTBHO.)
Well, yeah, from 1956 -does- count, as the normal procedure would have contained an interchange when that segment was opened in 1972.
If that was the case then it would have been an upgrade and not a completely new interchange, and the public's conception of the impact of the upgrade project would have been more acceptable on a pre-existing connection.
So, 56 years.
Also, concerning funding, is the NJTPA going to fund half of the cost of the river bridge project (parallel bridge and complete rehab of the existing bridge), as that would be the fair way to fund it?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Quoteupon application of the State of New Jersey
did NJ promptly apply for this withdrawal of the unbuilt I-95 in 1982, or was there another delay associated with that?
Good question, as they might not necessarily see that as a high priority.
If they wanted to use the Interstate substitution program to transfer the federal Interstate highway funds to other highways or to mass transit, then they might have seen it as a high priority.
Where were the funds transferred? That would have been about $500 million in 1982 dollars.
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 05:41:12 PMWell, yeah, from 1956 -does- count, as the normal procedure would have contained an interchange when that segment was opened in 1972.
If that was the case then it would have been an upgrade and not a completely new interchange, and the public's conception of the impact of the upgrade project would have been more acceptable on a pre-existing connection.
So, 56 years.
OK, whatever. I think even 30 and counting is ridiculously, outrageously long, so [insert shrug here].
Quote from: Beltway on May 23, 2012, 05:41:12 PMAlso, concerning funding, is the NJTPA going to fund half of the cost of the river bridge project (parallel bridge and complete rehab of the existing bridge), as that would be the fair way to fund it?
Good question. Don't really know.
Anyone?
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Presumably this meant a new Environmental Impact Statement (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)), complete with the analysis required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1991 and the Clean Water Act. And then whatever requirements are imposed by Pennsylvania state law.
Yes. And there are regulations that prohibit taking park land and even playgrounds and such unless you can prove every which way from Sunday that there is absotively posilutely no other alternative. These factors actually nixed two major configurations and all their sub-variations.
That would be Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50section4f.cfm) (and maybe other provisions, though Section 4(f) is the "famous" one).
QuoteAfter the effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM(These involved routing the connection along the corridor of the PA 413 exit, continuing to a directional (or semidirectional) Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline in two different locations to the east of the point of crossing with current I-95.)
Yeah, I can see with Google Maps a lot of what (appears to be) parkland to the east of Pa. 413. Was that "Y" interchange built like that in anticipation of a connection to the Turnpike? (I infer from previous comments in this thread that it was.)
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Did you have to deal with persons and groups that were absolutely opposed to any alternative except the "no-build" alternative? That has been the theme with projects in and near D.C., including the Wilson Bridge, (especially) the ICC, the 11th Street Bridge and others.
There was only one gentleman who came close. He lives near the point of crossing and served on the CAC. His attitude was actually, in fact, that the high-speed connection should be built elsewhere altogether. As in, "How dare NJ fob this off on us! The interchange and its attendant emissions should be somewhere over there." He really did (and still does) have a point. (I actually agree with him.) But once that 1982 legislation became law, it became awfully hard, nigh impossible, to change. So his involvement became one of "If it's a foregone conclusion, then dammit I'm going to hold everyone's feet to the fire and fight to make the configuration the best possible outcome." He was actually a great guy to work with.
The gentleman did indeed have a
very valid point.
The actions by New Jersey anti-highway activists and elected officials were outrageous (and it is possible that Pennsylvania and other states could have sued New Jersey in the U.S. Supreme Court over the Garden State's actions, though I have no clue as to their chances of success).
Though this is not the first time that anti-freeway actions in one state have impacted other states. The cancellation of the D.C. part of I-95 north of New York Avenue, N.W. (followed by Maryland's decision to cancel its section between the D.C./Md. border and the Capital Beltway) has had long-lasting impacts on the jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia through which the Capital Beltway runs. The Springfield Interchange in Fairfax County, Virginia had to be so big and so complex in part because of the D.C. actions - and the reconstruction of same took a fair number of homes near the interchange. And the Wilson Bridge had to be so wide (partly) as a consequence of those actions.
However, had
I been involved in the discussions (and it's probably best that I wasn't), I would also have told him that it was inexcusable that the Delaware Expressway part of I-95 was built through Lower Bucks County without (at least) a trumpet-to-trumpet connection (perhaps like the one through which I-70 runs in New Stanton, Penna.?).
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
There was some skepticism from some participants early on, but the reason I think that there wasn't more opposition is that the barking lunacy of having two major interstates crossing with no connection at all, not even nearby, is readily apparent to all.
Sounds like we agree.
This also represents a failure by the federal government to point out (early in the design phase of what became the Delaware Expressway) that this was totally nutty.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
The skepticism really represented more of an initial distrust that the design team would come up with a configuration that wouldn't take too many homes and businesses, or affect park land. When the stakeholders saw that the design team was "on their side," so to speak and was working hard to come up with something everyone could live with, it became more a matter of stakeholder input, design iteration, stakeholder input, design iteration, etc.
A lot of people think "Robert Moses" and "Cross Bronx Expressway" (as described in Robert Caro's Power Broker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker)) when
anyone mentions highway design and engineering, especially for a large project like this.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 23, 2012, 12:16:28 PM
Is funding the reason it is taking so long to get the first connection between existing northbound I-95 and the eastbound Turnpike mainline and westbound Turnpike and southbound I-95?
Yes. Securing funding has been quite the challenge. The total cost is/will be immense ($553 million in 1999 dollars; not sure if that includes the twinning of the Delaware River bridge). And they always try to stage these things so that costs are spread out realatively evenly each year and don't spike too much in any particular year.
Though by spreading the project out over so many years (and the twinned bridge is beyond the current funding horizon (at least it was when I read a lot about the I-95 "missing link" some years ago)), it would seem that an agency as large as the PTC could handle this project. And I recall reading someplace that there are some federal dollars involved as well.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 24, 2012, 08:51:14 PM
That would be Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50section4f.cfm) (and maybe other provisions, though Section 4(f) is the "famous" one).
QuoteAfter the effective date of this Act, the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 12:53:12 PM(These involved routing the connection along the corridor of the PA 413 exit, continuing to a directional (or semidirectional) Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline in two different locations to the east of the point of crossing with current I-95.)
Yeah, I can see with Google Maps a lot of what (appears to be) parkland to the east of Pa. 413. Was that "Y" interchange built like that in anticipation of a connection to the Turnpike? (I infer from previous comments in this thread that it was.)
By "Y interchange," I think you're referring to the actual Exit 40 of I-95, the PA 413 exit. (By Y, I was referring to the interchange at the Turnpike mainline, but no matter.)
Two of the major sets of options early on would've followed the alignment of Exit 40, crossed PA 413 (where there would've been an interchange), and continued northeast to a high-speed Y interchange with the Turnpike mainline somewhere between the point of crossing with current I-95 and the Turnpike's Exit 358 (at US 13). So ironically, instead of the double-trumpet design (in the northwest quadrant of the crossing) originally proposed for the connection, this would've resulted in a double-Y design (in the extended southeast quadrant of the crossing).
One alignment would've connected right at the area of Exit 358. That was dropped almost immediately because there's no way to do it without passing through Silver Lake Park, with devastating adverse effects abounding.
The other alignment would've crossed PA 413 and curved to the north to connect with the Turnpike mainline at a point between PA 413 and Oxford Valley Rd. But there was no way to squeeze it in without decimating a neighborhood there and causing adverse effects to another local park. The takings were much higher compared with any of the interchange variations situated directly at the point of crossing.
Another problem with the alignments along Exit 40 was the proximity of ramps from I-95 and ramps at PA 413. No matter what configuration was examined for a PA 413 interchange, geometry problems were too great to be overcome. Weaving and sight distance became unworkable. And the local access at PA 413 needs to be maintained.
So §4(f) and operational problems both conspired to kill all of the options using the Exit 40 alignment.
About a half hour after my last post, it occurred to me: "I don't think we're in Jersey anymore, Toto."
Quote from: qguy on May 25, 2012, 10:21:53 AM
About a half hour after my last post, it occurred to me: "I don't think we're in Jersey anymore, Toto."
Very good!
Thank you for your very informative discussion of the I-95 <---> Pennsylvania Turnpike East-West Mainline connection.
Somewhere on this forum I think is an old thread kicking around specifically on the PA Turnpike/I-95 connection project. If anyone has any questions on the project that as a former CAC member I can possibly add my perspective to, go ahead and bump it and ask away. Can't guarantee I'll have any particular answer you're looking for, but perhaps I may.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Quoteupon application of the State of New Jersey
may cause rashes. seek doctor's attention if the State of New Jersey does not rinse off cleanly.
Quote from: Steve on May 25, 2012, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Quoteupon application of the State of New Jersey
may cause rashes. seek doctor's attention if the State of New Jersey does not rinse off cleanly.
I'll have to remember this if you come out to the Dayton meet in a couple of weeks.
Quote from: Steve on May 25, 2012, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Quoteupon application of the State of New Jersey
may cause rashes. seek doctor's attention if the State of New Jersey does not rinse off cleanly.
Reminds me of something from my college days. (Boy wasn't
that a lifetime ago!)
At that time, I was from the Scranton area. My roomate, who was from north Jersey, once remarked that he always thought the name "Scranton" sounded like a skin ailment. (It sorta does, doesn't it?) He readily volunteered that it probably got that way from its close contact with his part of the state.
Quote from: qguy on May 26, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 25, 2012, 06:47:40 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 23, 2012, 04:14:50 PM
Quoteupon application of the State of New Jersey
may cause rashes. seek doctor's attention if the State of New Jersey does not rinse off cleanly.
Reminds me of something from my college days. (Boy wasn't that a lifetime ago!)
At that time, I was from the Scranton area. My roomate, who was from north Jersey, once remarked that he always thought the name "Scranton" sounded like a skin ailment. (It sorta does, doesn't it?) He readily volunteered that it probably got that way from its close contact with his part of the state.
Scranton, I just call Scantron. Now what happens if you get Scranton on your Scotrun?
Quote from: Steve on May 26, 2012, 12:31:39 PMScranton, I just call Scantron. Now what happens if you get Scranton on your Scotrun?
My kids homeschool via a cyber charter school; many of their tests use an online system through Scantron. Every time I look at that word, I do a double-take.
That last one is always good for a mental chuckle when driving up or down I-81. The ol' brain's just wired that way.
has there been any news on the NJ 55 extension? is it pretty much a pipe dream?
Quote from: YankeesFan on May 26, 2012, 01:08:02 PM
has there been any news on the NJ 55 extension? is it pretty much a pipe dream?
Absolutely, and unfortunately. Nothing's getting built in this state if there's a wetlands area.
Quote from: qguy on May 26, 2012, 10:45:14 AM
At that time, I was from the Scranton area. My roomate, who was from north Jersey, once remarked that he always thought the name "Scranton" sounded like a skin ailment. (It sorta does, doesn't it?) He readily volunteered that it probably got that way from its close contact with his part of the state.
It's the surname of the founders.
"In 1840, brothers Selden T. and George W. Scranton founded what would become the Lackawanna Steel Company."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scranton,_Pennsylvania
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Very common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AMVery common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Given surnames back in the day were based on jobs, what on earth did the guy who named here (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=54.02120,-0.56522&map=OSMap&zoom=8&layer=0&markers=54.01907,-0.57640,) do for a job. ;)
Quote from: english si on May 27, 2012, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AMVery common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Given surnames back in the day were based on jobs, what on earth did the guy who named here (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=54.02120,-0.56522&map=OSMap&zoom=8&layer=0&markers=54.01907,-0.57640,) do for a job. ;)
It's not obvious in English, but if his native tongue was another language, it may have been job-related in that language.
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Very common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Quick, call the networks!
I meant that in the Scranton area, nearly everyone knows that the place was named after the founder(s). Although most don't remember the first names. You may as well have said that you found on Wikipedia that the sky was blue and grass was green. :biggrin:
Well OK, smarty-pants, before I get admonished by an admin for roaming too far from the thread topic, who was Wilkes-Barre named after? (And no googling.) :poke:
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Very common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Quick, call the networks!
I meant that in the Scranton area, nearly everyone knows that the place was named after the founder(s). Although most don't remember the first names. You may as well have said that you found on Wikipedia that the sky was blue and grass was green. :biggrin:
Well OK, smarty-pants, before I get admonished by an admin for roaming too far from the thread topic, who was Wilkes-Barre named after? (And no googling.) :poke:
I only entered the discussion (so called) because of the junior-high like making fun of names.
haha guys there's a Fucking Austria
<<< Pooing: Not perfect, but miles cooler than the alternative. >>>
What is the alternative ... puking ?
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 09:44:55 PM
<<< Pooing: Not perfect, but miles cooler than the alternative. >>>
What is the alternative ... puking ?
Probably. :sombrero:
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:36:45 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Very common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Quick, call the networks!
I meant that in the Scranton area, nearly everyone knows that the place was named after the founder(s). Although most don't remember the first names. You may as well have said that you found on Wikipedia that the sky was blue and grass was green. :biggrin:
Well OK, smarty-pants, before I get admonished by an admin for roaming too far from the thread topic, who was Wilkes-Barre named after? (And no googling.) :poke:
I only entered the discussion (so called) because of the junior-high like making fun of names.
That's what you say
now.
Quote from: qguy on May 28, 2012, 08:45:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:36:45 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Very common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Quick, call the networks!
I meant that in the Scranton area, nearly everyone knows that the place was named after the founder(s). Although most don't remember the first names. You may as well have said that you found on Wikipedia that the sky was blue and grass was green. :biggrin:
Well OK, smarty-pants, before I get admonished by an admin for roaming too far from the thread topic, who was Wilkes-Barre named after? (And no googling.) :poke:
I only entered the discussion (so called) because of the junior-high like making fun of names.
That's what you say now.
That was my reason THEN.
Quote from: Beltway on May 28, 2012, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 28, 2012, 08:45:38 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:36:45 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 05:31:55 PM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 27, 2012, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 26, 2012, 08:17:40 PMIt's the surname of the founders.
Really?!? I never knew that. :rolleyes:
Very common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Quick, call the networks!
I meant that in the Scranton area, nearly everyone knows that the place was named after the founder(s). Although most don't remember the first names. You may as well have said that you found on Wikipedia that the sky was blue and grass was green. :biggrin:
Well OK, smarty-pants, before I get admonished by an admin for roaming too far from the thread topic, who was Wilkes-Barre named after? (And no googling.) :poke:
I only entered the discussion (so called) because of the junior-high like making fun of names.
That's what you say now.
That was my reason THEN.
Just kidding.
It's hard to do good deadpan humor in print. Quite a few of my replies have been deadpan. I should probably just stick to being a straight man. But I can't, I can't...
Quote from: qguy on May 29, 2012, 07:09:01 AM
I should probably just stick to being a straight man. But I can't, I can't...
This forum is a welcoming and open environment for people of all sexualities and genders.
Quote from: qguy on May 23, 2012, 04:12:11 PM
Note quite true. Two bridges have been lengthened and a third is under construction. The PTC claims the mainline toll plaza is still planned to go to construction this year. (We'll see. My attitude with the Turnpike is that they never start anything when they say they will. One of the bridges that is currently being lengthened, for example, was supposed to be started last year but was pushed back to this year.) These are necessary before the actual interchange ramps can be constructed. But you're correct about the actual interchange ramps–none have been begun yet.
It's funny... I read this and thought of my girlfriend. We've had the conversation in the past when she compares the pace at which the 95 interchange/widening/everything else going on east of Route 1 is occurring to how fast it seems the NJTA is getting the 6-9 widening done (and I do find it pretty amazing how much changes every time I ride the NJTP). I pointed out that the PTC has 3x the length of highway to maintain (on the mainline), and currently has several major (and lots more minor) project underway simultaneously. I also speculated that the costs incurred by ACT 44 probably aren't helping matters any, either.
Anyhow... that's off-topic. Umm... NJ freeways. Any chance we could get a I-295/Turnpike Extension (Future I-95) interchange? Pretty please with sugar on top?
Quote from: qguy on May 25, 2012, 08:52:24 AM
Another problem with the alignments along Exit 40 was the proximity of ramps from I-95 and ramps at PA 413. No matter what configuration was examined for a PA 413 interchange, geometry problems were too great to be overcome. Weaving and sight distance became unworkable. And the local access at PA 413 needs to be maintained.
As someone who takes that exit every day, I appreciate keeping that local access, too! :)
My understanding was that one of the reasons for Exit 40 being as massive as it is, was that it was supposed to be the endpoint of I-895, which would have crossed the Delaware River and connected to I-295 at the other end. From what I read about it, it seemed the reason why that never happened was mostly political bs between Bristol and Burlington (and perhaps some NIMBYism as well). I'm guessing that back when I-895 was planned, there would have been less properties to take than there would be for some sort of extension today?
Quote from: Steve on May 29, 2012, 08:30:04 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 29, 2012, 07:09:01 AM
I should probably just stick to being a straight man. But I can't, I can't...
This forum is a welcoming and open environment for people of all sexualities and genders.
Y'know, I thought about that angle even as I was typing that. Wondered if anyone would pick up on it.
Now I know. :-D
Quote from: Compulov on June 05, 2012, 12:13:34 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 25, 2012, 08:52:24 AM
Another problem with the alignments along Exit 40 was the proximity of ramps from I-95 and ramps at PA 413. No matter what configuration was examined for a PA 413 interchange, geometry problems were too great to be overcome. Weaving and sight distance became unworkable. And the local access at PA 413 needs to be maintained.
As someone who takes that exit every day, I appreciate keeping that local access, too! :)
My understanding was that one of the reasons for Exit 40 being as massive as it is, was that it was supposed to be the endpoint of I-895, which would have crossed the Delaware River and connected to I-295 at the other end. From what I read about it, it seemed the reason why that never happened was mostly political bs between Bristol and Burlington (and perhaps some NIMBYism as well). I'm guessing that back when I-895 was planned, there would have been less properties to take than there would be for some sort of extension today?
Would it be possible to mitigate parkland takings in the same manner that wetland takings can be mitigated?
Mike
Quote from: Compulov on June 05, 2012, 12:00:37 AMAny chance we could get a I-295/Turnpike Extension (Future I-95) interchange? Pretty please with sugar on top?
I have not heard of any plans. Perhaps someone else knows otherwise and can inform. Such an interchange would indeed be useful.
Quote from: mgk920 on June 05, 2012, 11:08:36 AM
Quote from: Compulov on June 05, 2012, 12:13:34 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 25, 2012, 08:52:24 AM
Another problem with the alignments along Exit 40 was the proximity of ramps from I-95 and ramps at PA 413. No matter what configuration was examined for a PA 413 interchange, geometry problems were too great to be overcome. Weaving and sight distance became unworkable. And the local access at PA 413 needs to be maintained.
As someone who takes that exit every day, I appreciate keeping that local access, too! :)
My understanding was that one of the reasons for Exit 40 being as massive as it is, was that it was supposed to be the endpoint of I-895, which would have crossed the Delaware River and connected to I-295 at the other end. From what I read about it, it seemed the reason why that never happened was mostly political bs between Bristol and Burlington (and perhaps some NIMBYism as well). I'm guessing that back when I-895 was planned, there would have been less properties to take than there would be for some sort of extension today?
Would it be possible to mitigate parkland takings in the same manner that wetland takings can be mitigated?
Not that I can see. The alignment from the PA 413 interchange to the PATP Delaware Valley interchange cuts right through the middle of Silver Lake Park. There's no way to do it without essentially killing the park.
This was one of the things that killed this alignment even back in the '60s. It will likely never be on the table again. Which is OK even in my not-very-sympathetic-to-extreme-environmentalism book.
Quote from: Compulov on June 05, 2012, 12:13:34 AM
Quote from: qguy on May 25, 2012, 08:52:24 AM
Another problem with the alignments along Exit 40 was the proximity of ramps from I-95 and ramps at PA 413. No matter what configuration was examined for a PA 413 interchange, geometry problems were too great to be overcome. Weaving and sight distance became unworkable. And the local access at PA 413 needs to be maintained.
As someone who takes that exit every day, I appreciate keeping that local access, too! :)
My understanding was that one of the reasons for Exit 40 being as massive as it is, was that it was supposed to be the endpoint of I-895, which would have crossed the Delaware River and connected to I-295 at the other end. From what I read about it, it seemed the reason why that never happened was mostly political bs between Bristol and Burlington (and perhaps some NIMBYism as well). I'm guessing that back when I-895 was planned, there would have been less properties to take than there would be for some sort of extension today?
It became apparent during the design process that the PA 413 exit alignment could not be utilized without eliminating the local access at PA 413. Since the local access was crucial in that location, that was just another nail in the coffin of any of the options using that alignment.
The I-895 proposal for crossing into Jersey would've provided a freeway-to-freeway connection (with local access on both sides of the Delaware River), essentially replacing the severely obsolete Burlington-Bristol Bridge. Some kind of replacement was (and still is) desperately needed, IMO. It was finally killed, though, in 1989 when Burlingtonians voted against it in what was seen as a last chance for public support (even though those on the PA side supported it.) If I recall correctly, those in Burlington thought it would be too disruptive. It would certainly have been a useful connection.
PennDOT has no plans to resurrect the proposal. Although there would've been fewer takings back then, there has been significant development in the area of the alignment and today there would be far too many takings to make it viable.
I-895 would've diverged from I-95 slightly south (west, in real geographic terms) of the PA 413 interchange ramps. You can still see ROW for one of the loop ramps on Bing or Google Maps aerial images. Or go to <www.historicaerials.com> and select 1965 and 1970 for images from those years. (That website features a handy-dandy slide feature you can activate that allows you to see both historic and contemporary images and easily go from one to the other.)
Unfortunately, even when I worked at the PennDOT District 6 office (which would've overseen the design of the facility), I was never able to locate a diagram of the configuration of the proposed I-95/895 interchange.
The images from Historical Aerials also reveal that I-95 was constructed straight in to PA 413 before it was revised and the alignment from there up to the Scudders Falls crossing was constructed.
Quote from: qguy on June 05, 2012, 11:44:40 AM
I-895 would've diverged from I-95 slightly south (west, in real geographic terms) of the PA 413 interchange ramps. You can still see ROW for one of the loop ramps on Bing or Google Maps aerial images. Or go to <www.historicaerials.com> and select 1965 and 1970 for images from those years. (That website features a handy-dandy slide feature you can activate that allows you to see both historic and contemporary images and easily go from one to the other.)
Unfortunately, even when I worked at the PennDOT District 6 office (which would've overseen the design of the facility), I was never able to locate a diagram of the configuration of the proposed I-95/895 interchange.
The images from Historical Aerials also reveal that I-95 was constructed straight in to PA 413 before it was revised and the alignment from there up to the Scudders Falls crossing was constructed.
Wow, that's some really informative history! I never knew that I-895 would have gone south. From what I can see, the 895N-95S and 95N-895S movements wouldn't exist, and neither would the 413-95N and 95S-413 movements. (Those would occur at the next interchange up.) The loop would be 413-895S, and 895N-413 would have come in where the current 95S-413 ramp does more or less.
Yes, I-895 would've been approximately perpendicular to I-95, angling from NW to SE, and crossing the Delaware River at a 90º angle (which I suppose is typical for large bridges–no duh).
Quote from: qguy on June 05, 2012, 11:16:01 AM
Not that I can see. The alignment from the PA 413 interchange to the PATP Delaware Valley interchange cuts right through the middle of Silver Lake Park. There's no way to do it without essentially killing the park.
This was one of the things that killed this alignment even back in the '60s. It will likely never be on the table again. Which is OK even in my not-very-sympathetic-to-extreme-environmentalism book.
Quote from: qguy on June 05, 2012, 11:44:40 AM
The images from Historical Aerials also reveal that I-95 was constructed straight in to PA 413 before it was revised and the alignment from there up to the Scudders Falls crossing was constructed.
Historic Aerials and the scans that the USGS has on their website are great resources in general for seeing the evolution of the highway system. I spent hours on end a few weeks ago looking at maps from the 40s-90s of lower bucks county, watching the evolution of US 1 and 95 especially. I only wish we had high resolution images from back then like we have from Google and Bing over the last several years.
I had suggested the I-295/Turnpike Extension interchange since with the completion of the 95/PA Turnpike Interchange, one half of the work needed to replace the I-895 proposal would be complete. I can only hope that the NJTA isn't petty enough to think that by making the connection that they'd be losing any significant business. As someone who crosses the river daily, I see 295 and the Turnpike as having very different roles. When I take the Burlington Bristol Bridge and head to 295, it's for trips which don't make sense to take the Turnpike. It'd just be nice to be able to cut several traffic lights off my trip. It'd also potentially bring in some more revenue to both the NJ and PA Turnpikes, as they'll have that one-way toll over the bridge as it is. I'm not sure what they'd have to do on the NJ side to handle the end of the ticket system, though, since it'd occur after the barrier toll plaza. I guess even if they went with just a double trumpet, it'd be way better than no interchange at all.
I have a question about NJ pushing mass transit. If NJDOT want you to use trains instead of cars, why did Christie kill the NJ Transit Tunnels under the Hudson River then? That needs to be as the NE Corridor is loaded with trains as well as the old Penn Tunnels only having two tubes and two tracks. During rush hour it is timed that every five minuets a train crosses under the Hudson River.
Because Christie is a teabagger. Duh.
Quote from: NE2 on June 23, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Because Christie is a teabagger. Duh.
So you have personal knowledge of the governor's sexual habits?
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
I have a question about NJ pushing mass transit. If NJDOT want you to use trains instead of cars, why did Christie kill the NJ Transit Tunnels under the Hudson River then? That needs to be as the NE Corridor is loaded with trains as well as the old Penn Tunnels only having two tubes and two tracks. During rush hour it is timed that every five minuets a train crosses under the Hudson River.
Because the proposal was going to fail, we were going to be stuck with 100% of the bill, overruns through the roof, etc.
Even NJ Transit workers have said it was not a great project.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 23, 2012, 02:51:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
I have a question about NJ pushing mass transit. If NJDOT want you to use trains instead of cars, why did Christie kill the NJ Transit Tunnels under the Hudson River then? That needs to be as the NE Corridor is loaded with trains as well as the old Penn Tunnels only having two tubes and two tracks. During rush hour it is timed that every five minuets a train crosses under the Hudson River.
Because the proposal was going to fail, we were going to be stuck with 100% of the bill, overruns through the roof, etc.
Even NJ Transit workers have said it was not a great project.
Maybe the proposed extension of the NYC Subway to Secaucus Transfer may be a better reality.
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 03:38:36 PM
Quote from: english si on May 27, 2012, 08:41:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway on May 27, 2012, 08:21:09 AMVery common, that these "odd sounding" municipality names are merely the surname of some person.
Given surnames back in the day were based on jobs, what on earth did the guy who named here (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=54.02120,-0.56522&map=OSMap&zoom=8&layer=0&markers=54.01907,-0.57640,) do for a job. ;)
It's not obvious in English, but if his native tongue was another language, it may have been job-related in that language.
;) emoticon goes woosh.
The place is called Wetwang - like Fucking, Austria, it would be an amusing surname, especially if linked with a job (and being pretty blatently English meaning 'a moist penis' as Douglas Adams suggested). However, it's not named after some person and his surname - it's perhaps Norse-Saxon hybrid for Wet Field, but there's other possibilities that are wholly Norse.
Most odd place names don't come from surnames, but gave surnames. Pennsylvania is named after William Penn, who sur-named himself after a wrongful claim to be a part of the family that once owned Penn, Buckinghamshire. They were 'of Penn' in days of yore. Penn is 'hill' in Brythonic languages like pre-Roman British (and modern day Welsh).
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2012, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 23, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Because Christie is a teabagger. Duh.
So you have personal knowledge of the governor's sexual habits?
:-D ROTFLMFAO!
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 23, 2012, 02:51:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
I have a question about NJ pushing mass transit. If NJDOT want you to use trains instead of cars, why did Christie kill the NJ Transit Tunnels under the Hudson River then? That needs to be as the NE Corridor is loaded with trains as well as the old Penn Tunnels only having two tubes and two tracks. During rush hour it is timed that every five minuets a train crosses under the Hudson River.
Because the proposal was going to fail, we were going to be stuck with 100% of the bill, overruns through the roof, etc.
A passenger rail transit project that comes in even close to the original construction cost is an
extreme rarity in the United States. I can think of only one that did - the original San Diego County, California "Tijuana Trolley" line from downtown to San Ysidro.
QuoteEven NJ Transit workers have said it was not a great project.
I recall reading that most of the money to fund construction cost overruns was going to be funded out of increased tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway, since the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund is effectively broke.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 23, 2012, 02:51:53 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 23, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
I have a question about NJ pushing mass transit. If NJDOT want you to use trains instead of cars, why did Christie kill the NJ Transit Tunnels under the Hudson River then? That needs to be as the NE Corridor is loaded with trains as well as the old Penn Tunnels only having two tubes and two tracks. During rush hour it is timed that every five minuets a train crosses under the Hudson River.
Because the proposal was going to fail, we were going to be stuck with 100% of the bill, overruns through the roof, etc.
Even NJ Transit workers have said it was not a great project.
Maybe the proposed extension of the NYC Subway to Secaucus Transfer may be a better reality.
Maybe, though if I were a New Jersey elected official, I would be on the lookout for
massive increases in construction cost
after any project to extend the 7 Subway line to Secaucus is approved and under construction.
how about build a new interstate standard highway from I-95 in Hopewell to I-80 somewhere... :clap:
Quote from: YankeesFan on June 23, 2012, 05:52:37 PM
how about build a new interstate standard highway from I-95 in Hopewell to I-80 somewhere... :clap:
We are getting too much into fictional highways here, but I suggested in one fictional forum that I-295 should be extended as relief route to NJ 31.
Quote from: Lyle on June 23, 2012, 04:53:13 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2012, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 23, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Because Christie is a teabagger. Duh.
So you have personal knowledge of the governor's sexual habits?
:-D ROTFLMFAO!
The proper term is "Tea Partier" or more appropriately, "Tea Party movement supporter." There is no political party called the Tea Party. It infuriates the hell out of me to see the term "teabagger," which refers to a sexual practice, used in this manner.
At any rate, Christie is not a popular person within the Tea Party movement. He's viewed as having several positions which are inconsistent with Tea Party principles, including some of his judicial appointments and his positions on 2nd Amendment issues.
Why does everyone want Jersey to have new freeways? This state doesn't have much room, Trenton has too many people with political power, especially in the important areas. Pardoning Hudson County and the shore, we're not exactly bursting at the seams. People may disagree with me, but I don't picture any new freeways in our lifetime.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 23, 2012, 02:30:28 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 23, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Because Christie is a teabagger. Duh.
So you have personal knowledge of the governor's sexual habits?
Yep. I was one of his teabaggees.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 24, 2012, 12:33:43 AM
Why does everyone want Jersey to have new freeways? This state doesn't have much room, Trenton has too many people with political power, especially in the important areas. Pardoning Hudson County and the shore, we're not exactly bursting at the seams. People may disagree with me, but I don't picture any new freeways in our lifetime.
there is plenty of room along and around the NJ 31 corridor...yeah some farmland and whatnot will be lost, but they should have thought about that 50 years ago before they let development run rampant and now wondering why the 50 year old roads can't handle 2012 traffic!
guess you've never been on US 206 or NJ 31, i mean face, NJ is not a farm land state anymore, it's a major metro hub between NY and Philly...it's time to let go of the garden state pipe dream.
Quote from: YankeesFan on June 24, 2012, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 24, 2012, 12:33:43 AM
Why does everyone want Jersey to have new freeways? This state doesn't have much room, Trenton has too many people with political power, especially in the important areas. Pardoning Hudson County and the shore, we're not exactly bursting at the seams. People may disagree with me, but I don't picture any new freeways in our lifetime.
there is plenty of room along and around the NJ 31 corridor...yeah some farmland and whatnot will be lost, but they should have thought about that 50 years ago before they let development run rampant and now wondering why the 50 year old roads can't handle 2012 traffic!
guess you've never been on US 206 or NJ 31, i mean face, NJ is not a farm land state anymore, it's a major metro hub between NY and Philly...it's time to let go of the garden state pipe dream.
I have to agree. NJ is my home and always will be, but sprawl has ruined everything. I remember what US 9 was like in Manalapan before the strip malls came in. Heck, US 1 in North and South Brunswick was rural up until 1988. What happens is you have one developer build and another one wants to get in on the action and compete. The next thing you know you have sprawl until nothing is left like CR 537 between Six Flags and Freehold.
I remember back in the early 80's when an office building was put up on Campus Drive in Somerset. It took months to rent out as there were too many buildings around already and many of them were unoccupied at the time. It has become the corporate state and needs new roads to fit the needs of today's demands.
So we need new freeways, bypasses, etc. to handle the increase of people. Remember, New Jersey is the most populated state per square mile. Like one said here on this forum, NJ is basically one giant suburb of New York and Philadelphia.
I remember being there around the time the northern 20 miles of I-287 was opened. That "missing link" was a big deal when it finally opened in 1993. That and the northern end of NJ 21 are the only brand new freeways I remember opening in the last 20 years in Jersey (unless I'm missing something).
Quote from: swbrotha100 on June 24, 2012, 09:27:22 PM
I remember being there around the time the northern 20 miles of I-287 was opened. That "missing link" was a big deal when it finally opened in 1993. That and the northern end of NJ 21 are the only brand new freeways I remember opening in the last 20 years in Jersey (unless I'm missing something).
Although small, NJ 133 (Hightstown Bypass) is the newest freeway I can think of in NJ. Guess if/when they ever upgrade the GSP's at-grade section in Cape May to full freeway standard, that'll be the newest *section* of freeway in NJ.
Actually, come to think of it, there's also the Super-2 bypass of NJ 33 in Freehold that opened relatively recently (early 2000s).
Quote from: YankeesFan on June 24, 2012, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on June 24, 2012, 12:33:43 AM
Why does everyone want Jersey to have new freeways? This state doesn't have much room, Trenton has too many people with political power, especially in the important areas. Pardoning Hudson County and the shore, we're not exactly bursting at the seams. People may disagree with me, but I don't picture any new freeways in our lifetime.
there is plenty of room along and around the NJ 31 corridor...yeah some farmland and whatnot will be lost, but they should have thought about that 50 years ago before they let development run rampant and now wondering why the 50 year old roads can't handle 2012 traffic!
guess you've never been on US 206 or NJ 31, i mean face, NJ is not a farm land state anymore, it's a major metro hub between NY and Philly...it's time to let go of the garden state pipe dream.
I love these accusations, considering I live in North/Central Jersey and have been on everything in that area. 31 was proposed as a freeway. Still not going to happen, considering it was struck down. 206 is fine with bypassing segments, a cheaper option than a full freeway.
I am going to tell you right now I don't care what you think, mainly because you think you can tell what I believe in. I don't argue that Jersey needs expansion in places, but if we're not going to vote these career politicians out of office (all 121 of them), we're not accomplishing anything. No matter where a transportation proposal shows up, you're going to have NIMBYs in this state. I live in a town that would go ballistic if something was built. Believe me, until we get rid of the career politicians backing up these NIMBYs, we're not going to accomplish anything.
i'm not arguing, you asked why do people want freeways...cause they make sense.
Quote from: Compulov on June 24, 2012, 11:10:22 PM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on June 24, 2012, 09:27:22 PM
I remember being there around the time the northern 20 miles of I-287 was opened. That "missing link" was a big deal when it finally opened in 1993. That and the northern end of NJ 21 are the only brand new freeways I remember opening in the last 20 years in Jersey (unless I'm missing something).
Although small, NJ 133 (Hightstown Bypass) is the newest freeway I can think of in NJ. Guess if/when they ever upgrade the GSP's at-grade section in Cape May to full freeway standard, that'll be the newest *section* of freeway in NJ.
Actually, come to think of it, there's also the Super-2 bypass of NJ 33 in Freehold that opened relatively recently (early 2000s).
NJ 24 also opened within the last 20 years west of Exit 7. 287 and 21 are really the best examples of "newfield" freeways, in that the ROW had to be taken out of urban areas.