http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Pulaski-Skyway-Highway-Closures-2014-New-Jersey-Commuters-Holland-Tunnel-186249242.html
Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2013, 07:37:21 PM
Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.
The problem is, the road is not configured to allow for that, since I-78 turns into a NJTP extension, there are free flow ramps from the extension to the turnpike, and toll ramps for traffic exiting the toll system.
They plan on restriping the eastbound shoulder of the Newark Bay Extension as an extra lane to carry the detoured traffic. I don't see why they can't figure out a way to reverse traffic for just the morning hours. The crossovers can be placed completely out of the construction zone.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2013, 07:42:52 PM
They plan on restriping the eastbound shoulder of the Newark Bay Extension as an extra lane to carry the detoured traffic. I don't see why they can't figure out a way to reverse traffic for just the morning hours. The crossovers can be placed completely out of the construction zone.
That's actually been studied as one of the many, many alternatives. This is a lot simpler and, as I've said elsewhere, as long as you adjust the signal timing on Jersey Ave., more traffic using I-78 actually won't make things that much worse. The real bottleneck is NYC constraining traffic through the tunnel and backing up through the tolls. Now, yes, I-78 has its own bottleneck, which hopefully the reinstitution (albeit temporarily) of the third EB lane will help. It could also be a managed lane, open as needed during heavy traffic conditions and kept as a shoulder otherwise, but I have 0 clue as to how far that idea went and who was for or against it.
I'd love to drive (or ride as a front-seat passenger) the Pulaski Skyway.
I'm assuming the seemingly obvious option of making it one lane each way isn't being done due to the roadways being too narrow to install a temporary barrier in the middle?
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 11, 2013, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2013, 07:37:21 PM
Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.
The problem is, the road is not configured to allow for that, since I-78 turns into a NJTP extension, there are free flow ramps from the extension to the turnpike, and toll ramps for traffic exiting the toll system.
Keep the toll booths but charge nothing, like on the Masspike west of Springfield and the NY Thruway to/from I-88.
Seems the plan is getting some flack from the general public: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/01/njdot_responds_to_angry_motori.html
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
I'd love to drive (or ride as a front-seat passenger) the Pulaski Skyway.
Come visit.
Quote from: Duke87 on January 11, 2013, 11:22:02 PM
I'm assuming the seemingly obvious option of making it one lane each way isn't being done due to the roadways being too narrow to install a temporary barrier in the middle?
Definitely. Reversible was the only option for that.
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2013, 11:29:59 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 11, 2013, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2013, 07:37:21 PM
Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.
The problem is, the road is not configured to allow for that, since I-78 turns into a NJTP extension, there are free flow ramps from the extension to the turnpike, and toll ramps for traffic exiting the toll system.
Keep the toll booths but charge nothing, like on the Masspike west of Springfield and the NY Thruway to/from I-88.
Between 14 and 14C, I assume? Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges? How about freezing toll hikes on the Holland Tunnel for the duration of the project instead?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2013, 11:43:11 PM
Seems the plan is getting some flack from the general public: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/01/njdot_responds_to_angry_motori.html
nj.com commentors and Jeff Tittel aren't exactly the best people to give the public's overall opinion on things.
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?
NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?
NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.
You overestimate how much NJDOT cares about traffic issues. They will do their best to accommodate traffic, but I'd be shocked if they threw a bone to the Turnpike unless the NJTA is going to lose revenue. Since, if anything, they stand to gain it, expect no such deal.
Incredible how many people there are recommending mass transit as an alternative, while ignoring the fact that it's just as overcrowded.
Why not just shift the lanes without a barrier? NYSDOT did that with I-390 for a couple years near NY 17.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 12, 2013, 11:56:49 AM
Incredible how many people there are recommending mass transit as an alternative, while ignoring the fact that it's just as overcrowded.
That's a reflexive suggestion in many parts of the world.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?
NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.
Another good argument against having toll road agencies separate from the state DOT.
Quote from: NE2 on January 11, 2013, 07:37:21 PM
Solution: temporarily remove tolls from I-78. Since 139 eastbound will have less traffic, give it less time at the Jersey Avenue light. Build a temporary (almost) free-flow ramp from I-78 east to 139 west next to Jersey Avenue, giving traffic a route to Tonnelle Circle.
That wouldn't work out beacuse I-78 signs from exit 14-14c are in the NJTP authority style, and this scenario would require NJDOT to run I-78 from the PA/NJ border at the delaware river bridge between Williams Township, Pennsylvania, and Phillipsburg,NJ Delaware heights portion to the NJ-139/I-78 approach at Jersey City,NJ. Also this plan requires the fmr tolled section of I-78 from exit 14-14c to have a speed limit of 55mph to match I-78 speed limit from the Bergen ST overpass in Newark up to the Montgomery ST exit in Jersey City.
what the fuck
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2013, 12:45:18 AM
what the fuck
A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.
I wonder if they thought about doing the project in a smaller scale, keeping the road open with 2 lanes (one each way) but decided that doing it two lanes at a time, closing one direction, would cause the least problems.
Close it for 2 years and get 1/2 of it redecked, then do the other side, versus taking 6 or more years to do it any other way, the time scale is just an estimate it could be more or less.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?
NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.
Act -44?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 13, 2013, 01:38:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2013, 12:45:18 AM
what the fuck
A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.
He's probably referring to this:
Quote from: hbelkins on January 12, 2013, 03:58:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?
NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.
Another good argument against having toll road agencies separate from the state DOT.
Which I still stand by.
When you have an independent tolling agency involved, it's more interested in protecting its revenue stream than anything else. Any system-to-system connections -- say, eliminating the "Breezewood" at Breezewood -- takes cooperation of two agencies.
When the toll agency is a part of the overall DOT, as it was in Kentucky when the Division of Toll Facilities was a part of the Transportation Cabinet, then only one set of bureaucrats is making the decision and that decision is being made in the best interests of the traveling public, not in protecting toll revenue. If the Turnpike was a part of NJDOT, then the DOT could just do what was required to keep traffic moving and there would be no worries about losing money, or one agency having to pay another.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2013, 06:56:51 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 13, 2013, 01:38:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2013, 12:45:18 AM
what the fuck
A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.
He's probably referring to this:
No, I'm pretty sure it was in response to Interstatefan78's pile of gobbledygook that I can't make any sense of, and the parts I can make sense of don't have any bearing on this thread. I'd say "what the fuck" was a pretty reasonable response.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 13, 2013, 08:20:36 PM
No, I'm pretty sure it was in response to Interstatefan78's pile of gobbledygook that I can't make any sense of, and the parts I can make sense of don't have any bearing on this thread. I'd say "what the fuck" was a pretty reasonable response.
After reading that aforementioned pile of gobbledygood, I know less than I did when I started.
But given NE2's animosity toward me and my opinions, I'd still say my guess applies as well.
what the fuck
(this one directed at HB's kneejerking, as opposed to the first one, which was bloody obviously in reply to the post immediately above it)
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 11, 2013, 07:09:38 PM
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Pulaski-Skyway-Highway-Closures-2014-New-Jersey-Commuters-Holland-Tunnel-186249242.html
In Keyshawn Johnson's words , "C'MON MAN"!!!!! :banghead:
Quote from: SteveG1988 on January 11, 2013, 07:09:38 PM
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Pulaski-Skyway-Highway-Closures-2014-New-Jersey-Commuters-Holland-Tunnel-186249242.html
Looks like EXIT 15E (TRUCK RT 1-9) from the N.J. Turnpike along with the Turnpike Extension (I-78 EAST to the Holland Tunnel) is about to get a major workout. But then again to avoid this 2 year MESS going into Manhattan, Here's 2 alternate routes you can use via the N.J. Turnpike from Newark. You can just take either the Lincoln Tunnel or the G. Washington Br. to Manhattan. Or, Just take EXIT 13 (I-278 EAST) and cut through Staten Isl. and cross the Verrazano Bridge into Brooklyn and take the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel into Lower Manhattan. And if all else fails; TAKE THE TRAIN!!!
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 11, 2013, 11:43:11 PM
Seems the plan is getting some flack from the general public: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/01/njdot_responds_to_angry_motori.html
Typically, in NJ, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government.
One good example near me: Before the NJ 70/NJ 73 Marlton Circle was replaced with an overpass, the local paper (Courier Post) printed many, many stories from a small group of people that wanted a traditional intersection using some "new technology"...which actually was sensors detecting traffic - you know, the stuff that has been around for 50+ years and used at nearly every intersection. NJDOT, to their credit, even held meetings with them to get their point of view, although their suggestions were ultimately ignored.
The overpass was installed, and traffic gets thru congestion free. The Courier Post has NEVER printed a story announcing the completed construction, nor the fact that congestion has been eliminated. My only guess is because it would actually be an article which compliments NJDOT.
Quote from: NE2 on January 12, 2013, 01:11:27 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 12, 2013, 12:10:46 AM
Why would the Turnpike agree to lose revenue just because NJDOT needs to maintain its bridges?
NJDOT would pay the Turnpike to do it.
NJDOT doesn't have enough money to keep up with the projects to reduce congestion or maintain their own roadways. They certainly don't have enough to pay the NJ Turnpike lost toll money revenue.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:29:04 AM
Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government.
FIFY.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:29:04 AM
Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government.
FIFY.
Not necessary true. When Clinton was President everything defended him, even when "he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski" and was totally against anyone (especially Limbaugh) saying that he was a troublemaker, and being disrespectful to the Office of President.
In fact Clinton was a hero, for cheating on his wife in that regard.
It all depends who you are and what consumer or advocate group you represent will the papers support you.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2013, 07:23:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:29:04 AM
Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government.
FIFY.
Not necessary true. When Clinton was President everything defended him, even when "he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski" and was totally against anyone (especially Limbaugh) saying that he was a troublemaker, and being disrespectful to the Office of President.
In fact Clinton was a hero, for cheating on his wife in that regard.
It all depends who you are and what consumer or advocate group you represent will the papers support you.
I wasn't making a political statement, just an observation that the press always seems to seek out loud angry voices whenever there is a controversy. I've seen it several times, even with small community newspapers on road projects in rural or small-town Kentucky.
It's not good copy to run a story with people saying, "Oh yes, we really need that road/bridge/bypass." It makes a better story to quote people saying, "I hate that project and the SOBs who thought of it."
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2013, 08:10:02 PM
It's not good copy to run a story with people saying, "Oh yes, we really need that road/bridge/bypass." It makes a better story to quote people saying, "I hate that project and the SOBs who thought of it."
[
Emphasis added above]
That is absolutely correct.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on January 13, 2013, 08:20:36 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 13, 2013, 06:56:51 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on January 13, 2013, 01:38:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2013, 12:45:18 AM
what the fuck
A by-product of allowing children on a forum with decidedly adult topics.
He's probably referring to this:
No, I'm pretty sure it was in response to Interstatefan78's pile of gobbledygook that I can't make any sense of, and the parts I can make sense of don't have any bearing on this thread. I'd say "what the fuck" was a pretty reasonable response.
I agree with Kacie Jane. I know after I atempted to to read that mess by Interstatefan78 I said it to myself.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2013, 08:10:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on January 15, 2013, 07:23:29 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 15, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 15, 2013, 08:29:04 AM
Typically, in America, newspapers love to print the views of people angry about a project, especially one that involves the government.
FIFY.
Not necessary true. When Clinton was President everything defended him, even when "he did not have sex with Monica Lewinski" and was totally against anyone (especially Limbaugh) saying that he was a troublemaker, and being disrespectful to the Office of President.
In fact Clinton was a hero, for cheating on his wife in that regard.
It all depends who you are and what consumer or advocate group you represent will the papers support you.
I wasn't making a political statement, just an observation that the press always seems to seek out loud angry voices whenever there is a controversy. I've seen it several times, even with small community newspapers on road projects in rural or small-town Kentucky.
It's not good copy to run a story with people saying, "Oh yes, we really need that road/bridge/bypass." It makes a better story to quote people saying, "I hate that project and the SOBs who thought of it."
I was not making a political statement either. Just to make a point, that it does depend on the cause, the group, and the liking to get either your story followed or hounded by the press.
The simple fact is what stirs the people up is what media outlets like to do. Its called ratings! To be in broadcasting, it is not as simple as printing what you want. You have advertisers who pay the bills for you to find a story and to have it published. If the editor feels that piece will not sell, he sure is not going to print it! Everyone is out to make money as without it the paper, newsroom, etc. will go out of business.
If you were a business owner, what radio station would you want your advertisement to air on? The one that has the poorest ratings, or the one that has the highest? I think you would take the latter over the former. You are not going to invest your hard earned money to make a commercial for hardly anyone to see.
Plus, you have to know the demographics of who are your listeners too as well! That is why laundry detergent commercials are aired mostly during daytime, because most housewives are home watching TV then. They are the ones that buy the stuff, so the soap companies are not going to advertise full force prime time or on Saturdays, because the demographics change to men, children, sports fans, etc.
So anyways.
What work will be conducted on the bridge? Other than it is a rehabilitation.
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 16, 2013, 09:22:31 AM
So anyways.
What work will be conducted on the bridge? Other than it is a rehabilitation.
I think that's it...there is not much you can do other than rehab it.
Maybe "accidentally" collapse it and say "Oops. Well, let's six-lane it!"
It is historic, isn't it?
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 16, 2013, 08:12:33 PM
Maybe "accidentally" collapse it and say "Oops. Well, let's six-lane it!"
It is historic, isn't it?
They were looking into a twin span and keeping this either as one roadway direction or just a ped/bike structure. Keep in mind that original US 1/9 through Newark was converted to express/local lanes in the same direction, but the Skyway would require a total rebuild to have no more than three through lanes in one direction without center ramps.
Those center ramps are what make the Skyway fun. You haven't experienced the best of it unless you've tried to enter from one of them.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 16, 2013, 08:12:33 PM
Maybe "accidentally" collapse it and say "Oops. Well, let's six-lane it!"
It is historic, isn't it?
Only because of its age (although some would argue the fact that the Pulaski Skyway played a role in the 1939 Orson Welles War of the Worlds broadcast should be taken into consideration).
Not sure which category the Skyway presently falls under, but it's most likely (a) already on the National Register; (b) is considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register; or (c) is considered potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
It's a symbol of manliness like none other.
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2013, 05:46:40 PM
Not sure which category the Skyway presently falls under, but it's most likely (a) already on the National Register; (b) is considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register; or (c) is considered potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
I think you are correct.
Now, to stir the pot, is it possible that some segments of the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes or the Garden State Parkway might qualify for inclusion?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 21, 2013, 07:07:29 PM
Now, to stir the pot, is it possible that some segments of the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes or the Garden State Parkway might qualify for inclusion?
For Federally-funded transportation projects, the general rule is that most everything over 50 years old, if it's not already on the National Register or is already considered eligible for inclusion on the Register, is automatically considered to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
Because the GSP, NJ Turnpike, and PA Turnpike are maintained and upgraded primarily with toll revenues and other private funding sources, "historic" significance is less of an issue than with Federally funded roadways. However, as National Register eligibilty is determined by the states, and not the Federal Government, the arguments regarding "historic" signficance of these roads might still be subject to review by the State of New Jersey (or Pennsylvania). And, like with most public environmental processes, it remains incumbent upon the project proponent to disprove any "historic" claims that may arise during the review, instead of having the objectors reasonably prove their claims.
Bear in mind that falling into one of the National Register categories doesn't automatically mean that something can't be significantally rebuilt or demolished. It's just one more hurdle that the NIMBYs can use to delay the design and construction of the project.
As far as the Interstate system (which is now over 50 years old) goes, FHWA actually considers the majority of the system to be exempt from the National Register "50 year" rule. Those elements of the system that are considered to be of historical or environmental significance can be found at:
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp
For the record, Roadman supports the basic concept of historic preservation when such preservation is truly justified by the legitimate history of whatever is being preserved. Roadman does not support arguments like "it's over 50 years old, therefore, it's automatically considered to be of historic significance" or "we shouldn't build this because it will be visible from a 200 year old church."
Many bridges offer lessons: never make a road (or part of one) historic, because if something's old enough, it's almost always not wide enough for the traffic load it gets. :P
Or just mandate that the new bridge has to at least look like the old bridge, or the local area has to approve it or something. Like replacing the Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh with a similar-looking bridge that's six lanes and true freeway.
The NJ Historic Preservation Office does consider the Parkway to be a historic resource, FWIW. Not so the Turnpike because of all the modifications over the years.
Quote from: Steve on January 21, 2013, 08:11:10 PM
The NJ Historic Preservation Office does consider the Parkway to be a historic resource, FWIW. Not so the Turnpike because of all the modifications over the years.
Between Interchanges 1 and 4, the N.J. Turnpike is little changed from its earliest days, with the exception of the mainline barrier at 1 (which represents a
huge improvement from the old barrier). I was not around in 1951 when the original Turnpike was completed, but that's what I have been told by people who were.
But most of the rest of the Turnpike has not been widened, though some of the bridges over and under the Pike have obviously been rebuilt in anticipation of widening from four to six lanes.
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2013, 07:34:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 21, 2013, 07:07:29 PM
Now, to stir the pot, is it possible that some segments of the Pennsylvania or New Jersey Turnpikes or the Garden State Parkway might qualify for inclusion?
For Federally-funded transportation projects, the general rule is that most everything over 50 years old, if it's not already on the National Register or is already considered eligible for inclusion on the Register, is automatically considered to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
Because the GSP, NJ Turnpike, and PA Turnpike are maintained and upgraded primarily with toll revenues and other private funding sources, "historic" significance is less of an issue than with Federally funded roadways. However, as National Register eligibilty is determined by the states, and not the Federal Government, the arguments regarding "historic" signficance of these roads might still be subject to review by the State of New Jersey (or Pennsylvania). And, like with most public environmental processes, it remains incumbent upon the project proponent to disprove any "historic" claims that may arise during the review, instead of having the objectors reasonably prove their claims.
Seems backward, doesn't it?
I did not think that source of funding mattered in making these determinations mattered. And besides, most the funding to construct the "original" Pennsylvania Turnpike
was a loan from the federal government.
I read someplace that the service plazas along the "original" Pennsylvania Turnpike (e.g. Midway and Somerset) are either eligible or listed.
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2013, 07:34:16 PM
Bear in mind that falling into one of the National Register categories doesn't automatically mean that something can't be significantally rebuilt or demolished. It's just one more hurdle that the NIMBYs can use to delay the design and construction of the project.
Like claims about species covered by the Endangered Species Act being present near a proposed project.
Quote from: roadman on January 21, 2013, 07:34:16 PM
As far as the Interstate system (which is now over 50 years old) goes, FHWA actually considers the majority of the system to be exempt from the National Register "50 year" rule. Those elements of the system that are considered to be of historical or environmental significance can be found at:
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/highways.asp
For the record, Roadman supports the basic concept of historic preservation when such preservation is truly justified by the legitimate history of whatever is being preserved. Roadman does not support arguments like "it's over 50 years old, therefore, it's automatically considered to be of historic significance" or "we shouldn't build this because it will be visible from a 200 year old church."
That is an interesting link.
The entries for Maryland seem to make sense to me.
Curious that there were no entries on it for Virginia (I would propose all of I-66 between Front Royal and Gainesville for inclusion as a good example of beautiful, almost parkway-like highway engineering and design).
Agreed with you regarding preservation criteria.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 21, 2013, 09:20:01 PM
I read someplace that the service plazas along the "original" Pennsylvania Turnpike (e.g. Midway and Somerset) are either eligible or listed.
I think you might be right about Midway (though I'm not 100% sure). I don't know if Somerset
was, but it seems a moot point now since both Eastbound & Westbound plazas have been replaced recently with modern facilities.
I'm not sure what their plans are for any upgrades (or possible rebuilds) @ Midway.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 21, 2013, 07:58:25 PM
Or just mandate that the new bridge has to at least look like the old bridge, or the local area has to approve it or something. Like replacing the Liberty Bridge in Pittsburgh with a similar-looking bridge that's six lanes and true freeway.
I've never thought of the Liberty Bridge as
that special. Though I guess in just the downtown area, one might think so. A six lane replacement might be useful when it's time, though the downtown connections & the McArdle Rd. intersection & Liberty Tunnels might negate any "true freeway" improvements.
*On Topic - I had the "pleasure" once of driving the Skyway on my way from the Holland Tunnel to I-78. (and have been on it a couple more times as a passenger). Living in Pittsburgh, I'm used to old, sub-standard roads, so it was nothing too out-of-the-ordinary.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/studies/pulaski/
I was reading this project summary put out by NJDOT about the Skyway's upcoming rehabilitation project. In addition to the Skyway being worked on, it has the Route 139 Hoboken and Conrail Viaducts slated as part of a separate project, but yet included with the work to be done as phase 2. Not only did I find it interesting, but it did raise a few questions regarding that the Hoboken Viaduct will be upgraded as is, and not torn down.
I do not know about many of you, but you have the Bergen Arches running parallel to the Hoboken Viaduct, where it gives more ROW to Route 139. Would it not be more practical to take advantage of that and rebuild a new wider depressed freeway instead? I would think that NJDOT would bring it up to date giving it three lanes each way and placing Hoboken Avenue on both sides of the highway instead of above it. It would also allow for modern day safety improvements such as wider lanes and shoulders, as the current tunnel is so ancient.
I am guessing that this is not part of historic preservation, as it is not part of the historic Skyway, unless someone had the old structure declared a landmark already that it is being done that way. I also know, too, that a former Jersey City mayor did once want to build a wider or new freeway in the arches, but the plan was rejected, which would have this project bring that back to life. This I read in Wikipedia somewhere in the write up on abandoned rail ways. The project even received funding for it and then Governor Tom Kean was even behind it as he was instrumental in its proposal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Arches
Quote from: roadman65 on February 14, 2013, 05:06:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Arches
The very article you quote has the answer...
Quote from: Steve on February 14, 2013, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 14, 2013, 05:06:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Arches
The very article you quote has the answer...
To me it seems like their trying to figure out the options for its use. The Pulaski Skyway project already has the plans for the current NJ 139 just being rebuilt as is, and not using the Arches. Even if there is hope for it being expanded later, which seems promising, I was suggesting that someone should have just settled for using the abandoned Erie ROW already instead of wasting all that effort to study the concept of its use.
BTW, I forgot I asked this one and I have been quite busy lately so I have not been around lately.
N.Y. Times: Drivers in New Jersey to Lose Link as Pulaski Skyway Route Closes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/nyregion/drivers-in-new-jersey-to-lose-link-as-pulaski-skyway-route-closes.html)
QuoteOn Saturday, northbound traffic on the skyway will be shut down for an estimated two years for a reconstruction project, severing a critical link for roughly 40,000 vehicles in and around Jersey City and Newark and complicating commutes to New York City for those who use the bridge to reach the Holland Tunnel.
QuoteThe integrity of the structure, which opened in 1932, has grown increasingly worrisome in recent years, officials said; its roadbed and concrete railings are so frayed that the state installed netting to catch the falling debris.
Quote from: Alps on February 14, 2013, 06:56:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 14, 2013, 05:06:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_Arches
The very article you quote has the answer...
It has some answers. Over the years, I've also heard of a truck-only freight road (like the South Boston Haul Road), and a pedestrian walking path. The latter, in the neighborhood it's in, sounds like a pretty great place to get shanked.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
I'd love to drive (or ride as a front-seat passenger) the Pulaski Skyway.
So would I. Till then, there's https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8460.0 (thanks to the driver for having WCBS-AM on). He uploaded a westbound PS video too.
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on April 10, 2014, 07:46:05 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 11, 2013, 09:26:57 PM
I'd love to drive (or ride as a front-seat passenger) the Pulaski Skyway.
So would I. Till then, there's https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8460.0 (thanks to the driver for having WCBS-AM on). He uploaded a westbound PS video too.
ixnay
I have a video up too, at www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9 (I forget whether NB or SB, I think SB). The music choice is apropos.
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2014, 12:21:54 AM
I have a video up too, at www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9 (I forget whether NB or SB, I think SB). The music choice is apropos.
Would not run when I just tried it.
FreewayJim made a northbound video of the Skyway: Pulaski Skyway, Newark to Jersey City, NJ - Sopranos Style (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNcyRRXFdj0)
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2014, 12:21:54 AM
I have a video up too, at www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9 (I forget whether NB or SB, I think SB). The music choice is apropos.
That video seems older than me. :-D Especially compared to the Trenton tunnel one, as well as the Ben Franklin Bridge one.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2014/041014.shtm
Yesterday's press release regarding the closure. Interesting to note everything that has been done to try to reduce the traffic headaches:
Converting the shoulder lane to a travel lane on a portion of the NJ Turnpike
Adjusted traffic signal timings
Additional trains on several NJ Transit lines
Additional buses, including express buses
Additional PRIVATE buses
Enlarged/additional park-n-ride spots
Additional ferry runs
New ferry routes
And there's probably a few more items I've missed.
I'll guess that after the first few weeks of this major detour, traffic will adjust and find its own rhythm, just like it has during major transit strikes in the New York area in years past.
All those remedial actions listed above will help soften the blow so to speak. But is the Turnpike Authority really going to allow traffic to use shoulder lanes? That would be a first; something the NJTA has always refused to do citing safety issues which I agreed with.
Yep, on the Hudson Bay Extension (I-78). The shoulder is already in use, and its usage is controlled via green arrows/red Xs.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Man_Lane_System_operation.pdf
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2014, 08:14:49 PM
I'll guess that after the first few weeks of this major detour, traffic will adjust and find its own rhythm, just like it has during major transit strikes in the New York area in years past.
All those remedial actions listed above will help soften the blow so to speak. But is the Turnpike Authority really going to allow traffic to use shoulder lanes? That would be a first; something the NJTA has always refused to do citing safety issues which I agreed with.
Virginia DOT has allowed use of the (full-depth) shoulder on I-66 in Fairfax County between U.S. 50 at Fair Oaks (Exit 57) and I-495 (Exit 64) for many years during peak-demand times in the peak-flow direction.
There are
a few "emergency pull-off" areas, but most of the way there are not. The key to success seems to be having a lot of Safety Service Patrol (as VDOT calls them) freeway service patrol trucks deployed and looking for (and proactively dealing with) problems, especially minor crashes and disabled vehicles.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 11, 2014, 09:13:14 PM
Yep, on the Hudson Bay Extension (I-78). The shoulder is already in use, and its usage is controlled via green arrows/red Xs.
http://www.state.nj.us/turnpike/documents/ADVISORY_Man_Lane_System_operation.pdf
That is the system that VDOT uses to inform motorists on I-66 if the right shoulder is open or closed to traffic. Seems clear enough.
There are scofflaws that use the shoulder when it is closed, and unfortunately, I have seldom seen the Virginia State Police pull such violators over.
NJ.COM: Assemblymen to propose slashing toll fares on Turnpike during Skyway shutdown (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2014/04/assemblymen_to_propose_slashing_toll_fares_on_turnpike_during_skyway_shutdown.html)
QuoteWith the Pulaski Skyway to be shut down in one direction for the next two years, a pair of state assemblymen plan to propose slashing the toll fares on one of the major alternate routes.
QuoteAssemblymen Jason O'Donnell, D-Bayonne, and Joseph Cryan, D-Union, say their plan will ease the burden on commuters when the northbound lanes of the Skyway are closed, starting April 12, as part of the ongoing work to replaced the aging, decaying span.
QuoteUnder legislation they say they will introduce next month, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority would be required to reduce, by half, the tolls at Exits 14, 14a, 14b, 14c, and 15e on the Turnpike extension until the Pulaski Skyway reopens.
QuoteThe state Department of Transportation, which is overseeing the Skyway project, has advised motorists that the Turnpike extension is one of the possible alternate routes to get to Jersey City and New York.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2014, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2014, 12:21:54 AM
I have a video up too, at www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9 (I forget whether NB or SB, I think SB). The music choice is apropos.
Would not run when I just tried it.
It runs for me. And yeah, it is several years old.
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2014, 12:28:17 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2014, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2014, 12:21:54 AM
I have a video up too, at www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9 (I forget whether NB or SB, I think SB). The music choice is apropos.
Would not run when I just tried it.
It runs for me. And yeah, it is several years old.
It runs for me, too. And yes, good choice of music.
ixnay
N.Y. Times: True Test of Pulaski Skyway Route Shutdown to Come During Monday Rush (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/nyregion/pulaski-skyway-shutdown.html)
QuoteNew Jersey drivers are enduring the first weekend of a two-year shutdown of the northbound lanes on the Pulaski Skyway, relying on alternative paths and public transportation as possible workarounds.
QuoteThe shutdown, which began on Saturday and is part of a reconstruction project, will affect roughly 40,000 vehicles daily in and around Jersey City and Newark, disrupting a key link for commuters who use the bridge to reach New York City through the Holland Tunnel.
QuoteThe effects of the closing have been modest so far this weekend, but the first true test will arrive with the Monday morning rush. The nearly 10,000 vehicles that ordinarily use the Skyway will have to find alternative routes. The New Jersey Department of Transportation has proposed several, including the New Jersey Turnpike's Newark Bay-Hudson County Extension, where the eastbound shoulder will be converted into a third lane during the morning and evening rush. Travelers can also turn to a truck route adjacent to the Pulaski Skyway.
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2014, 12:28:17 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 11, 2014, 10:46:00 AM
Quote from: Alps on April 11, 2014, 12:21:54 AM
I have a video up too, at www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9 (I forget whether NB or SB, I think SB). The music choice is apropos.
Would not run when I just tried it.
It runs for me. And yeah, it is several years old.
Tried it in Internet Exploder. Worked fine there. Not sure why it would not run under Firefox.
Thanks for sharing.
Probably has something to do with the video being a WMV file.
News 12 New Jersey on at the Prestige Diner this morning. Talking a lot about the Skyway shutdown and alternative routes. Doesn't appear to be any "oh-my-God-we're-all-gonna-die" traffic jams, but it's also almost 9am.
nj.com reports reasonably light traffic as well. Because Easter is so late this year, many schools have off this week for spring break, so there's probably a lot of vacationing going on, resulting in decreased volume.
That said, the articles over the past week had a lot of "This week will be hell" type statements and predictions. The newspaper articles today are suddenly switching their tone a little bit...and suddenly trying to backtrack on their statements a bit. Over the weekend they had a blog going that basically could only offer updates that mostly stated "Traffic is flowing fine".
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2014, 09:23:49 AM
nj.com reports reasonably light traffic as well. Because Easter is so late this year, many schools have off this week for spring break, so there's probably a lot of vacationing going on, resulting in decreased volume.
That said, the articles over the past week had a lot of "This week will be hell" type statements and predictions. The newspaper articles today are suddenly switching their tone a little bit...and suddenly trying to backtrack on their statements a bit. Over the weekend they had a blog going that basically could only offer updates that mostly stated "Traffic is flowing fine".
Carmageddon East?
Here's why I don't think this is as big a deal as some people expect it to be: if you are looking at the Skyway as an approach road to the Holland Tunnel (which it probably is for a lot if not the majority of the traffic on it), it is two lanes for that purpose that you have lost. The turnpike spur is another two lanes for the same purpose which remain operational. The tunnel itself is... two lanes. And even then, those two lanes likely operate less than optimally inbound during rush hour since your rate limiting step isn't even necessarily the tunnel itself so much as it is the ability to distribute traffic amongst the streets in Manhattan once you get out of the tunnel (which of course get equally jammed up regardless).
So, closing the Skyway doesn't really create a new choke point, since it's redundant capacity so far as getting traffic to the tunnel is concerned. The people that the closure really hurts are the people heading to Tonnele Avenue and/or coming from the Ironbound.
This is also why it makes sense for the operational half of the Skyway to be outbound for the whole course of the project. Closing it outbound would likely cause more trouble since in that direction the capacity constraints are different.
PM rush traffic much lighter than usual. They lucked into a good week to do this, with spring break as has been said. By the time the full traffic is back, people will be used to the patterns.
You ever notice that whenever the news harps on about an impending closure that would strangle traffic under sudden circumstances, traffic doesn't seem to be affected? People are finding other ways around it. NJT ridership might just see an uptick for a while, but I hardly believe that you'll end up seeing all the roads choked with the trade-off to I-78 and side streets. Remember Los Angeles and Atlanta?
Quote from: CrystalWalrein on April 21, 2014, 06:53:48 PM
You ever notice that whenever the news harps on about an impending closure that would strangle traffic under sudden circumstances, traffic doesn't seem to be affected? People are finding other ways around it. NJT ridership might just see an uptick for a while, but I hardly believe that you'll end up seeing all the roads choked with the trade-off to I-78 and side streets. Remember Los Angeles and Atlanta?
a) Media publicity goes a long way toward people pre-selecting alternate routes to help cushion the burden. If the news DOESN'T harp about the closure, then you run into problems. It's an intentional strategy.
b) A lane was added to the worst part of I-78 across Newark Bay and a whole host of signals were retimed (I-78 at NJ 139, the US 1&9 Truck corridor in general) to try to favor the diverted traffic as much as possible.
c) The closure was intentionally implemented on an "off" week - Easter/Passover and schools' spring break. That gave the remaining lighter traffic a full week to adjust, before the "off" traffic came back and adjusted. Two-stage adjustment runs a lot smoother than hitting everyone at once.
Feel free to ask me more questions, this is my wheelhouse.
Quote from: Alps on April 21, 2014, 08:14:23 PM
a) Media publicity goes a long way toward people pre-selecting alternate routes to help cushion the burden. If the news DOESN'T harp about the closure, then you run into problems. It's an intentional strategy.
It helps if you have a media that likes to sensationalize stuff. Part of my job is trying to publicize road closures. We don't have anything approaching the level of the Skyway, or anything that carries anything near the traffic in that area (heaviest-traveled road in my area is 32K VPD) but the most important road in the world to any one person is the road they live on or use every day. If the press fails to publicize a preplanned closure for something like a drainage pipe replacement, people get upset if they didn't know about the closure so they could plan for a longer trip into town.
Reminds me of an interesting story from NYC, 50 years ago when I was a kid. Grand Central Pkwy. in Queens was undergoing a major widening/modernization/reconstruction. Without telling the public it was going to happen, on a Monday Morning DOT closed the westbound lanes at the 168th St. exit diverting all traffic to the parallel service road with traffic lights, to enable construction thru the open cut from 168 St. to Union Tpke. about a mile-and- a-half. The ensuing fiasco caused the news media to go nuts. The newspapers noted that every city agency had been informed, but not the public. A hard lesson was learned by NYC government and NYS DOT that week in 1963 I think it was.
Today was expected to be the first really, really big test of the closure, as most schools are now reopen after Easter, people are returning from vacations, etc. The worst condition that was reported was a mis-timed traffic light on 1-9 Truck. And it affected people getting onto 1-9T West more than it affected the detoured traffic.
But otherwise, traffic appears to have moved relatively smoothly...with the understanding that smooth traffic is generally expected to include a certain amount of congestion anyway.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/032415.shtm
Full Skyway closures coming up during several weekends this spring.
Has there been any regional-scale analysis of how the transportation network is doing in North Jersey without the northbound lanes of the Skyway?
Perhaps especially including Turnpike Exits 14?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2015, 10:08:11 PM
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/032415.shtm
Full Skyway closures coming up during several weekends this spring.
Okay, so this weekend is obviously the first, but what are the other seven? Is it simply the next eight weekends, i.e every weekend until May 16/17?
Eight weekends is probably all but one of the next eight weekends, since the next would be Memorial Day, which brings confused out-of-towners.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 12:42:07 AM
Eight weekends is probably all but one of the next eight weekends, since the next would be Memorial Day, which brings confused out-of-towners.
3/28, 4/4, 4/11, 4/18. 4/25, 5/2, 5/9, and 5/16 make eight weekends, with the following weekend after being Memorial Day. I am assuming that is what's happening but it would be nice if they explicitly stated so in advance.
More to the point, I have an event in New Jersey on one of those eight weekends, and if the Skyway is closed then that will cost me extra in tolls.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 26, 2015, 12:51:03 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 26, 2015, 12:42:07 AM
Eight weekends is probably all but one of the next eight weekends, since the next would be Memorial Day, which brings confused out-of-towners.
3/28, 4/4, 4/11, 4/18. 4/25, 5/2, 5/9, and 5/16 make eight weekends, with the following weekend after being Memorial Day. I am assuming that is what's happening but it would be nice if they explicitly stated so in advance.
More to the point, I have an event in New Jersey on one of those eight weekends, and if the Skyway is closed then that will cost me extra in tolls.
Sorry, my quick glance at the calendar failed to notice that the Monday after the last weekend in May is June 1.
3rd May is Mother's Day. That is one of the busiest travel days of the year on the Turnpike.
NorthJersey.com: Pulaski Skyway found to be more deteriorated, adding to repair cost and time (http://www.northjersey.com/news/pulaski-skyway-found-to-be-more-deteriorated-adding-to-repair-cost-and-time-1.1306088)
QuoteThe Pulaski Skyway is even more deteriorated than state inspectors originally realized. That, plus an exceptionally cold winter, will add to the cost of rehabbing the bridge and will delay completion of the project, state Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox said Thursday.
QuoteThe delays and cost overruns appear to be modest, Fox said, especially given the size and complexity of the project. The original plan, to replace 4.25 miles worth of roadway along the Pulaski Skyway and Route 139, was to cost $1.8 billion and last two years. Weather-related delays, plus replacing steel beams below the bridge deck that were in much worse shape than expected, will cost an extra $14 million and delay the project, Fox said.
QuoteConstruction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet.
Quote"We're still planning to be done in 2016, but later," Fox said.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 10, 2015, 02:46:19 PM
NorthJersey.com: Pulaski Skyway found to be more deteriorated, adding to repair cost and time (http://www.northjersey.com/news/pulaski-skyway-found-to-be-more-deteriorated-adding-to-repair-cost-and-time-1.1306088)
QuoteThe Pulaski Skyway is even more deteriorated than state inspectors originally realized. That, plus an exceptionally cold winter, will add to the cost of rehabbing the bridge and will delay completion of the project, state Transportation Commissioner Jamie Fox said Thursday.
QuoteThe delays and cost overruns appear to be modest, Fox said, especially given the size and complexity of the project. The original plan, to replace 4.25 miles worth of roadway along the Pulaski Skyway and Route 139, was to cost $1.8 billion and last two years. Weather-related delays, plus replacing steel beams below the bridge deck that were in much worse shape than expected, will cost an extra $14 million and delay the project, Fox said.
QuoteConstruction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet.
Quote"We're still planning to be done in 2016, but later," Fox said.
Honestly, 2017 would be a pretty good result based on what I've heard from various civil engineering industry sources. 2016 may be overly optimistic. If the overrun is 8 digits or less, it might qualify as a minor miracle.
$14 million in a $1.6 billion project is a very reasonable overrun. The question, of course, is how many more of them there are.
In any case, I don't think anyone should be surprised.
I'm almost starting to wonder if it's time to have that bridge replaced. What really hurts is that the thing is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a New Jersey Registered Historic Place, and it's in that sorry a condition.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 10, 2015, 06:53:46 PM
I'm almost starting to wonder if it's time to have that bridge replaced. What really hurts is that the thing is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a New Jersey Registered Historic Place, and it's in that sorry a condition.
Too expensive, plus environmentalists, I would never see that happening.
A bigger question would be where do you put a new bridge? It's not like it's surrounded by grass and trees where they could build a parallel span. And it was a huge issue just to shut down one direction of the bridge for the current project. If you replace the entire bridge in its current location, you would need to detour both directions of traffic for no less than 5 or 6 years in an area that really has no place to detour such a large amount of traffic.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 10, 2015, 10:22:39 PM
A bigger question would be where do you put a new bridge? It's not like it's surrounded by grass and trees where they could build a parallel span. And it was a huge issue just to shut down one direction of the bridge for the current project. If you replace the entire bridge in its current location, you would need to detour both directions of traffic for no less than 5 or 6 years in an area that really has no place to detour such a large amount of traffic.
South Kearny's not exactly NIMBYville. Nobody not at that one motel even lives there. You could get a new alignment through there.
Yeah, good luck with that. There are businesses and properties that would cost quite a lot to buy up. And good luck coming up with the $5 billion or more to build a new bridge.
I think a state buyout would be the best offer some of these places will ever get. Nonetheless, it's irrelevant because it's not going to happen, but a big problem would end up being the same reason so much of that land is derelict to begin with–every shovelful of soil will need remediation.
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
The Turnpike Extension isn't particularly in need of physical improvements. However so long as it is tolled and the Skyway is free, people will use the Skyway to shunpike. Only correcting this price imbalance will divert traffic off the Skyway.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
The Turnpike Extension isn't particularly in need of physical improvements. However so long as it is tolled and the Skyway is free, people will use the Skyway to shunpike. Only correcting this price imbalance will divert traffic off the Skyway.
Absolutely correct.
In my fantasy world, the NJTA would get the Skyway (especially since there is already a bannered "free" truck alternate route in place for commercial vehicles), and encourage them to set tolls that would assure free-flow at all times.
I would wait until the NJDOT project is complete, then tell the Turnpike Authority to take good care of it, which I believe they would.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 16, 2015, 02:54:06 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
The Turnpike Extension isn't particularly in need of physical improvements. However so long as it is tolled and the Skyway is free, people will use the Skyway to shunpike. Only correcting this price imbalance will divert traffic off the Skyway.
Absolutely correct.
In my fantasy world, the NJTA would get the Skyway (especially since there is already a bannered "free" truck alternate route in place for commercial vehicles), and encourage them to set tolls that would assure free-flow at all times.
I would wait until the NJDOT project is complete, then tell the Turnpike Authority to take good care of it, which I believe they would.
What i would have done is similar to what Florence NJ has, a discount for the Newark Bay Extension. Ezpass transponders registered in that area get a discount during the construction period for travel in the closed direction of the skyway.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 10, 2015, 06:53:46 PM
I'm almost starting to wonder if it's time to have that bridge replaced. What really hurts is that the thing is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a New Jersey Registered Historic Place, and it's in that sorry a condition.
I've read that the price tag to make a new Skyway happen would be beyond prohibitive. Several billion at the least, and that's probably underestimating this. You're talking about a 3.5 mile elevated roadway with 2 high level river crossings. The billion and change that they're spending on rehabbing the existing roadway is a bargain in comparison.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
The Turnpike Extension isn't particularly in need of physical improvements. However so long as it is tolled and the Skyway is free, people will use the Skyway to shunpike. Only correcting this price imbalance will divert traffic off the Skyway.
The Turnpike Extension is definitely in need of improvements, foremost being complete structural overhaul due to having been built over 60 years ago. It also badly needs to be widened between the mainline and Exit 14A.
Quote from: storm2k on April 18, 2015, 10:47:21 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 10, 2015, 06:53:46 PM
I'm almost starting to wonder if it's time to have that bridge replaced. What really hurts is that the thing is on the National Register of Historic Places, and a New Jersey Registered Historic Place, and it's in that sorry a condition.
I've read that the price tag to make a new Skyway happen would be beyond prohibitive. Several billion at the least, and that's probably underestimating this. You're talking about a 3.5 mile elevated roadway with 2 high level river crossings. The billion and change that they're spending on rehabbing the existing roadway is a bargain in comparison.
They do not make roads like that anymore.
Yes the road is very outdated, but its also all we got. We have to learn to live with it.
Quote from: Alps on April 19, 2015, 11:38:19 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
The Turnpike Extension isn't particularly in need of physical improvements. However so long as it is tolled and the Skyway is free, people will use the Skyway to shunpike. Only correcting this price imbalance will divert traffic off the Skyway.
The Turnpike Extension is definitely in need of improvements, foremost being complete structural overhaul due to having been built over 60 years ago. It also badly needs to be widened between the mainline and Exit 14A.
I was over the Turnpike Extension last weekend. I don't know what work they're doing on the Newark Bay Bridge, but it must be important to be doing it on a day when the inbound Skyway is closed AND the Bayonne was closed. A lane closed amid all these factors had predictable results–very long backups.
I was surprised the shoulder doesn't open to traffic under those circumstances. It's all electronic signage opening or closing it. Shouldn't be too complicated to open.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 02, 2015, 06:04:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 19, 2015, 11:38:19 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on April 11, 2015, 09:43:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on April 11, 2015, 08:12:13 AM
There is a "new" Skyway already...honestly i consider the newark Bay Extension to be a secondary route for this, improve that road to take traffic off the existing skyway.
The Turnpike Extension isn't particularly in need of physical improvements. However so long as it is tolled and the Skyway is free, people will use the Skyway to shunpike. Only correcting this price imbalance will divert traffic off the Skyway.
The Turnpike Extension is definitely in need of improvements, foremost being complete structural overhaul due to having been built over 60 years ago. It also badly needs to be widened between the mainline and Exit 14A.
I was over the Turnpike Extension last weekend. I don't know what work they're doing on the Newark Bay Bridge, but it must be important to be doing it on a day when the inbound Skyway is closed AND the Bayonne was closed. A lane closed amid all these factors had predictable resultsvery long backups.
I was surprised the shoulder doesn't open to traffic under those circumstances. It's all electronic signage opening or closing it. Shouldn't be too complicated to open.
I'm sure they can't go 2 or 3 years without any work on the bridge.
As far as opening the shoulder, I'm not sure what they are permitted to do, based on the agreements in place. Sometimes, intentionally slowing traffic down in a work zone is the desired result, especially if the construction workers have no barrier and limited room to work.
Quote from: Duke87 on March 26, 2015, 12:13:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 24, 2015, 10:08:11 PM
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/032415.shtm
Full Skyway closures coming up during several weekends this spring.
Okay, so this weekend is obviously the first, but what are the other seven? Is it simply the next eight weekends, i.e every weekend until May 16/17?
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/060515.shtm
This is the 6th full closure. The original press release said 8 closures, concluding in May. Between weather delays, deciding (smartly) not to close it on Mother's Day weekend and whatever other reasons they had, it's running a little behind schedule. Assuming the other 2 closures occur within the next few weekends, running a month late isn't terribly bad in the long run.
NJDOT updates their project website every month with a few new pics. This one from April shows the top deck of Rt. 139 gone, to be replaced soon. The caption for the picture states "While the deck is off, motorists on Route 139 Lower Roadway can enjoy the daylight until the deck is replaced." While they have daylight, I'm not sure they are enjoying the crawl thru the construction zone!
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/pulaski/photos5.shtm
I see on NJDOT website they have all kinds of photos of the Pulaski Skyway project including an old photo of the SB exit ramp signage for Kearney exit.
Also for the present time those on NJ 139, get to be out in the open as workers dismantled the deck above that carried Upper level NJ 139 EB while they work on building new collumns for a new viaduct above.
https://instagram.com/pulaskiskyway/
Quote from: roadman65 on June 21, 2015, 03:40:05 PM
I see on NJDOT website they have all kinds of photos of the Pulaski Skyway project including an old photo of the SB exit ramp signage for Kearney exit.
Also for the present time those on NJ 139, get to be out in the open as workers dismantled the deck above that carried Upper level NJ 139 EB while they work on building new collumns for a new viaduct above.
https://instagram.com/pulaskiskyway/
Oh my god, it's the UNCOVERED ROADWAY!
More weekend full closures throughout the summer now scheduled... http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2015/071615.shtm
I figured the weekend closures would continue. They haven't been causing TOO much of a problem (I would hope), and they can get a heck of a lot more work done. When it comes time to rebuild the southbound side I'd assume the previous work they did with the cross beams would reduce construction time.
Man oh man, stay away from 1-9 South approaching Tonnele Circle during these closures. I was headed across Belleville Turnpike the other day and it was a huge mistake with heavy backups nearly to County Rd. and all the way around the loop at what used to be Charlotte Circle. Probably wasted 20 minutes there.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 20, 2015, 05:32:06 PM
Man oh man, stay away from 1-9 South approaching Tonnele Circle during these closures. I was headed across Belleville Turnpike the other day and it was a huge mistake with heavy backups nearly to County Rd. and all the way around the loop at what used to be Charlotte Circle. Probably wasted 20 minutes there.
Prior to the reconstruction of the Charlotte Circle area, backups on Tonnele Ave. south going into the circle were commonplace (I've been stuck in it many times). If its only that bad with the Skyway closed, I'm actually impressed.
It also looks like the new Wittpenn Bridge will launch off that new loop, which would have relieved a measure of that traffic.
Looks like the Streetview car got a look at the UNCovered Roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/kPzgp
Southbound Truck 1&9 isn't as bad as northbound, mostly because one doesn't have to deal with that left turn at 440/Communipaw Ave. and can bypass Tonnele circle from NJ-139.
Funny how Tom Kaminski refers to "One-Nine" throughout their multiplex but mentions "the 46 approach" to the GWB when it's actually the 1-9-46 approach. At least he gets 80-95 right in that context...
ixnay
Quote from: ixnay on July 21, 2015, 07:33:19 AM
Funny how Tom Kaminski refers to "One-Nine" throughout their multiplex but mentions "the 46 approach" to the GWB when it's actually the 1-9-46 approach. At least he gets 80-95 right in that context...
ixnay
It's a straight through shot for 46, so it "feels" more like 46 than it does 1-9, which enters via prosaic little ramps from Broad Ave. 1-9 in general is not a through route at this point in the way 46 is.
Most of the on-ramps on 1-9-46 only have US-46 shields for some reason.
We're talking decades ago, but is there a possibility that it's called the "46 approach" because it was originally only 46, and 1/9 were added to that stretch of road later?
Otherwise, what Pete said.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 22, 2015, 06:18:04 PM
We're talking decades ago, but is there a possibility that it's called the "46 approach" because it was originally only 46, and 1/9 were added to that stretch of road later?
Otherwise, what Pete said.
Nope. 1/9 originally went through the Holland Tunnel, but 46 followed what's now NJ 5 to Edgewater. By the time the GWB was built in 1939-1940, US 9 was sent up that way and joined US 46 where it does now. US 1 followed shortly thereafter.
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2015, 11:44:39 PM
Nope. 1/9 originally went through the Holland Tunnel, but 46 followed what's now NJ 5 to Edgewater. By the time the GWB was built in 1939-1940, US 9 was sent up that way and joined US 46 where it does now. US 1 followed shortly thereafter.
The GWB opened in 1931. By 1934 (when they were finally posted in NYC) US 1-9 crossed it. US 46 was created several years later.
But the road is logically part of US 46.
Quote from: Alps on July 22, 2015, 11:44:39 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on July 22, 2015, 06:18:04 PM
We're talking decades ago, but is there a possibility that it's called the "46 approach" because it was originally only 46, and 1/9 were added to that stretch of road later?
Otherwise, what Pete said.
Nope. 1/9 originally went through the Holland Tunnel, but 46 followed what's now NJ 5 to Edgewater. By the time the GWB was built in 1939-1940, US 9 was sent up that way and joined US 46 where it does now. US 1 followed shortly thereafter.
The GW was finished in 1931. Is the reference simply from 1939, or was 9 moved then?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 20, 2015, 08:24:45 PM
Looks like the Streetview car got a look at the UNCovered Roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/kPzgp.
They also got this of people making Left Turns where there are clearly two signs saying No Left or U Turn both before and after the intersection. Anyway, like the temporary (or what seems to be temporary) roadway to the south (or SW being NJ 139 runs SE to NW) while the normal EB upper level roadway is taken apart exposing the lower level to the sun and sky.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.731877,-74.052939,3a,75y,146.54h,62.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJXmolXIXW_FB_ieAbggnMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i665
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 05:11:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 20, 2015, 08:24:45 PM
Looks like the Streetview car got a look at the UNCovered Roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/kPzgp.
They also got this of people making Left Turns where there are clearly two signs saying No Left or U Turn both before and after the intersection. Anyway, like the temporary (or what seems to be temporary) roadway to the south (or SW being NJ 139 runs SE to NW) while the normal EB upper level roadway is taken apart exposing the lower level to the sun and sky.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.731877,-74.052939,3a,75y,146.54h,62.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJXmolXIXW_FB_ieAbggnMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i665
I'm guessing they don't want you turning because of the lack of storage room, but clearly when people think the restriction is stupid, they're not going to obey it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2015, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 27, 2015, 05:11:27 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on July 20, 2015, 08:24:45 PM
Looks like the Streetview car got a look at the UNCovered Roadway: https://goo.gl/maps/kPzgp.
They also got this of people making Left Turns where there are clearly two signs saying No Left or U Turn both before and after the intersection. Anyway, like the temporary (or what seems to be temporary) roadway to the south (or SW being NJ 139 runs SE to NW) while the normal EB upper level roadway is taken apart exposing the lower level to the sun and sky.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.731877,-74.052939,3a,75y,146.54h,62.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJXmolXIXW_FB_ieAbggnMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i665
I'm guessing they don't want you turning because of the lack of storage room, but clearly when people think the restriction is stupid, they're not going to obey it.
Absolutely.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/port_authority_facing_federal_probe_into_diversion.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured
This here is a story I find interesting. To all of you who want to see Christie out of the race, you will probably enjoy this one here. That toll money crossing the Hudson is going to fund other road projects just like PA doing the same with Turnpike tolls.
So any word when the bridge will be completed? From driving by it last week not much as changed in two years.
Quote from: longhorn on July 06, 2017, 09:47:39 AM
So any word when the bridge will be completed? From driving by it last week not much as changed in two years.
They keep finding things wrong that add time to the project. they've shifted from one side to the other for repaving.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2017/04/a_bridge_too_late_a_pulaski_skyway_timeline_1.html
Now they want to replace retaining walls, so 2018 reopening. Hey, best time to do it is when stuff is closed
Quote from: longhorn on July 06, 2017, 09:47:39 AM
So any word when the bridge will be completed? From driving by it last week not much as changed in two years.
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/pulaski/
Spring 2018, apparently.
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2018/06/at_last_dot_commits_to_skyway_reopening_date_but_i.html
July 2nd.
Opened June 30th.
Drove northbound over the skyway last week. Smooth concrete roadway, and it feels safer (probably because it's not visibly crumbling away anymore). The median has a metallic-looking jersey barrier that I've never seen before.
Awfully long time for what most people will only notice as repainted guide rail and new surfacing, but I'm sure there was more structural work behind the scenes.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 14, 2018, 03:47:39 PM
Drove northbound over the skyway last week. Smooth concrete roadway, and it feels safer (probably because it's not visibly crumbling away anymore). The median has a metallic-looking jersey barrier that I've never seen before.
Awfully long time for what most people will only notice as repainted guide rail and new surfacing, but I'm sure there was more structural work behind the scenes.
TON of structural work. They basically rebuilt a lot of it. Completely new deck. The median barrier is lightweight to reduce stress on the structure.
I can remember a time as a young kid in the 1950's when the Skyway had no divider. Just double white lines.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 14, 2018, 03:47:39 PM
Drove northbound over the skyway last week. Smooth concrete roadway, and it feels safer (probably because it's not visibly crumbling away anymore). The median has a metallic-looking jersey barrier that I've never seen before.
Awfully long time for what most people will only notice as repainted guide rail and new surfacing, but I'm sure there was more structural work behind the scenes.
To piggyback on the post following yours, the metal barrier has been used to retrofit some NYC area bridges to save weight as well, or to add a barrier to a bridge that didn't have one (in concert with trimming weight elsewhere).
From what metal are these barriers fabricated?
Quote from: Alps on July 14, 2018, 11:56:42 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on July 14, 2018, 03:47:39 PM
Drove northbound over the skyway last week. Smooth concrete roadway, and it feels safer (probably because it's not visibly crumbling away anymore). The median has a metallic-looking jersey barrier that I've never seen before.
Awfully long time for what most people will only notice as repainted guide rail and new surfacing, but I'm sure there was more structural work behind the scenes.
To piggyback on the post following yours, the metal barrier has been used to retrofit some NYC area bridges to save weight as well, or to add a barrier to a bridge that didn't have one (in concert with trimming weight elsewhere).
Yeah, they're doing the same on the Castleton Bridge as we speak. That WAS the only undivided 65 MPH road in New York.
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on July 15, 2018, 06:50:59 AM
From what metal are these barriers fabricated?
Alps can probably answer this better than I can, but I'm assuming aluminum or lightweight steel. I know from my time building small bridges with ASCE that there are a few types of steel that, while expensive, are insanely light without losing strength.
Are they CRES? If not, how is oxidation handled?