New Jersey Turnpike

[qguy]

Yes,  except for Midway, which has historic designation, they were all complete tear-downs and rebuilds from scratch, including the two on the Northeast Extension.

[cpzilliacus]

Many truckers would disagree with such and not just because of tolls.  The Somerset Freeway would've been a more efficient (i.e. closer) way to connect to many western NJ points as well as I-287 & the NY Thruway than the NJ Turnpike.  Such was why many trucks were using US 206 & NJ 31 as a means of going between the Trenton area and I-287.  Then-Gov. Whitman put that all to an end by prohibiting through-truck-traffic along those roads (those NO 102 prohibition signs popped up as a result of such).

But such is another topic for another thread.

Had the Somerset Freeway been built (even as part of the N.J. Turnpike), it would have been shorter, of course.  But widening the N.J. Turnpike ended up being less environmental impact than an entirely new freeway-class road, and it is reasonably straight and flat (I was on it this past weekend, and the 85% speed from Exit 7A to Exit 6 was better than 75 MPH).

Should the Somerset have been built?  IMO, yes.  But IMO not as a "free" road, for it would have damaged the finances of the NJTA pretty badly. 

[PHLBOS]

Should the Somerset have been built?  IMO, yes.  But IMO not as a "free" road, for it would have damaged the finances of the NJTA pretty badly.

It should be noted that most toll roads were originally supposed to have their toll booths removed once the bonds that initially built those roads were fully paid off (via the tolls).  The tolls weren't supposed to be there indefinitely. 

Such was probably the rationale behind having serveral toll roads and turnpikes designated as Interstates and being grandfathered into the system.

[cpzilliacus]

Should the Somerset have been built?  IMO, yes.  But IMO not as a "free" road, for it would have damaged the finances of the NJTA pretty badly.

It should be noted that most toll roads were originally supposed to have their toll booths removed once the bonds that initially built those roads were fully paid off (via the tolls).  The tolls weren't supposed to be there indefinitely. 

Such was probably the rationale behind having serveral toll roads and turnpikes designated as Interstates and being grandfathered into the system.

All correct - New Jersey was pretty explicit that the Turnpike would become "free" once the bonds were paid-off.

Of course, the New Jersey Turnpike's bonds were paid-off, but new ones were issued to fund expansion, and, in recent years, reconstruction of the existing Turnpike infrastructure (such as the I-78 Hudson County spur, which is undergoing a large reconstruction project right now).

[jeffandnicole]

The huge unknown is what would've occurred if the Somerset Freeway was built.  It's extremely likely the Turnpike wouldn't be the main strip thru the state it is now.  But it would have also affected I-95 in PA - that probably would be wider now as well to accommodate the traffic, or if not, it would be more congested than it currently is.

Undoubtedly, the turnpike wouldn't be as wide between Exits 6 - 10.  Many of the developments - both commercial and residential, probably wouldn't exist in that stretch.  And that has an effect down the line...would there be less development south of Exit 6, since there wouldn't be as many jobs in that area?  Would the area along the proposed Somerset Freeway be more congested because of the additional growth a highway would have brought?

The variables are almost endless, really.

All correct - New Jersey was pretty explicit that the Turnpike would become "free" once the bonds were paid-off.

Are you sure about that?  I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually present any proof that the road would become toll free.  Somewhere along the line, there would've been wording from the bond agreement, or a press release, or an interview, or something that said that.  Yet, no one has ever seen such a statement, as far as I know.

[cpzilliacus]

Are you sure about that?  I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually present any proof that the road would become toll free.  Somewhere along the line, there would've been wording from the bond agreement, or a press release, or an interview, or something that said that.  Yet, no one has ever seen such a statement, as far as I know.

I think I read it in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike, by Angus Kress Gillespie and Michael Aaron Rockland, which I consider a credible source.

[NJRoadfan]

See http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz122/njroadfan/NJTP%20Booklet/njtp_p2_zps08f56270.jpg~original

The loophole is that more bonds were issued for expanding the highway. Also, just because the law gives the provision to hand the road back, doesn't mean they have to. I'm sure some of the laws were altered, particularly when the NJ Highway Authority was merged into the Turnpike Authority.

[briantroutman]

Are you sure about that?  I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually present any proof that the road would become toll free.  Somewhere along the line, there would've been wording from the bond agreement, or a press release, or an interview, or something that said that.  Yet, no one has ever seen such a statement, as far as I know.

I think I read it in Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike, by Angus Kress Gillespie and Michael Aaron Rockland, which I consider a credible source.

I can't speak for the New Jersey Turnpike, but in the case of Pennsylvania, such was widely reported in press coverage before and at the time of the road's opening.

UPI Article: "New Pennsylvania Road Uses an Old Rail Route"  - 2 July 1939

After the bonds are liquidated the express route will become part of the state's free highway system

The need to expand the two-lane tunnels and rehabilitate road surfaces–after the original engineering and construction standards proved inadequate for the unexpected and overwhelming postwar traffic volumes–served as an easy rationale for not retiring the tolls, however.

[cpzilliacus]

See http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz122/njroadfan/NJTP%20Booklet/njtp_p2_zps08f56270.jpg~original

The loophole is that more bonds were issued for expanding the highway. Also, just because the law gives the provision to hand the road back, doesn't mean they have to. I'm sure some of the laws were altered, particularly when the NJ Highway Authority was merged into the Turnpike Authority.

Then there's the matter of paying to maintain the Turnpike (and the Garden State Parkway) if it were to be handed-over to the NJDOT. 

How much would New Jersey have to raise its motor fuel tax rates if those taxes had to pay for the maintenance of both toll roads?

I realize there is a "free" section of the Parkway (Exits 129 to 140?), but I understand that the Turnpike Authority maintains all of the Parkway these days without help from NJDOT.

[jeffandnicole]

I realize there is a "free" section of the Parkway (Exits 129 to 140?), but I understand that the Turnpike Authority maintains all of the Parkway these days without help from NJDOT.

In fact, NJTA has been giving NJDOT several hundred million dollars a year recently.  It's pretty much like the PA Turnpike's turning over revenue to PennDOT, except there's no true act or legislation mandating such.

There may be some minor funding agreements on occasion (ie: NJDOT may request to do an improvement which touches on NJTA's right-of-way, which NJTA has to give permission for), but nothing substantial.

[storm2k]

I realize there is a "free" section of the Parkway (Exits 129 to 140?), but I understand that the Turnpike Authority maintains all of the Parkway these days without help from NJDOT.

In fact, NJTA has been giving NJDOT several hundred million dollars a year recently.  It's pretty much like the PA Turnpike's turning over revenue to PennDOT, except there's no true act or legislation mandating such.

There may be some minor funding agreements on occasion (ie: NJDOT may request to do an improvement which touches on NJTA's right-of-way, which NJTA has to give permission for), but nothing substantial.

If I'm not mistaken, that's something that started in the Corzine years as a trick to maintain the TTF without adding a gas tax. A number of projects are guaranteed by future NJTA toll revenue as their funding source. The problem is that there's a fine line here. NJTA needs a certain amount of money to maintain their roads and do capital improvements. You can only count on so much toll money every year. Too many bond issues and you end up where the TTF is today, drowning from too many bond issues.

[jeffandnicole]

So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?

[cpzilliacus]

So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?

I don't smoke, and never have!

[Jim]

So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?

I have never smoked and never will.  Can anyone who does comment on why it seems so widely accepted to throw cigarettes out car windows?  For some reason, it's one of those things that really bothers me.  I would never even think about throwing trash out my car window, especially not trash that's on fire!

[roadman65]

As a former smoker I can tell you I did to keep my car clean and to prevent my ashtray from smelling up the car.

I am not excusing myself for what I did, but just answering why others may do it to as smoking does control you!  You do things out of the ordinary without even thinking about it.  Until you quit you do not realize how bad your habit really was until you view it from the other angle.

[The Nature Boy]

I'm always surprised that there aren't fires on the roadway from a lit cigarette coming into contact with the many flammable fluids that would be present on a road. I've never seen or heard of it happening and that's actually quite shocking.

[roadman65]

I am surprised that gas stations have not blown up yet as many people love to have that cigarette lit when pumping gas.  True, it has nothing to do with New Jersey as Jersey has full serve, but it happens in the other 48 who have self serve legal and it is surprising in the same manner.

[slorydn1]

So, who has an ashtray anymore anyway?

I have never smoked and never will.  Can anyone who does comment on why it seems so widely accepted to throw cigarettes out car windows?  For some reason, it's one of those things that really bothers me.  I would never even think about throwing trash out my car window, especially not trash that's on fire!

I never understood why people throw lit cigarettes out of a window either, and I have smoked pretty much all of my life.

I use one of those capped smokeless ashtrays in my car and dump it when I get gas. I never really used the ashtray that the cars were equipped with when they had them because it really made the inside of the car look nasty, and I am guessing maybe that's why others don't use them, but to just throw it out the window, that's nuts.

Littering is littering, whether its a used cigarette or a Mcdonalds wrapper-and most states have fines for littering that far exceed the fine for a speeding ticket.

[PHLBOS]

As a former smoker I can tell you I did to keep my car clean and to prevent my ashtray from smelling up the car.

It's worth noting that ashtrays (if equipped) on todays cars are plastic, and have been for at least two decades.  Couple that with most vehicles being equipped w/A/C plus today's aerodynamic exterior designs translating into more road noise at highway speeds when the windows are open; and one can easily see why (I am not condoning such actions) many will toss their used butts out the window.

In contrast, older cars (up through the early 80s) had metal ashtrays (typically one on the front, the other on the back of the front seat) and more people drove around with their windows (not every car had A/C) open to keep the smell down to a minimum.   

Tid bit: it used to be considered a luxury feature to have individual cigarette lighters and ashtrays on the armrests of every passenger door.  Both my brother's '74 Mercury Marquis and my '85 Mercury Grand Marquis were equipped with such.

[jeffandnicole]

Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window. Pretty much like a transportation public meeting where numerous people complain they don't want a widened highway; they would rather see more mass transit options, carpooling, etc...and then watch everyone leave and realize everyone in attendance drove their own vehicle to the meeting, even if people were neighbors and/or had mass transit options available to get to/from the meeting.

[PHLBOS]

Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window.

It's not just a highway thing.  I've seen people do similar at train & bus station platforms (they'll throw them on the ground or train/trolley tracks); even at ones that have NO SMOKING signs posted throughout.

Pretty much like a transportation public meeting where numerous people complain they don't want a widened highway; they would rather see more mass transit options, carpooling, etc...and then watch everyone leave and realize everyone in attendance drove their own vehicle to the meeting, even if people were neighbors and/or had mass transit options available to get to/from the meeting.

One word description for such: hypocrites.

[Zeffy]

It's not just a highway thing.  I've seen people do similar at train & bus station platforms (they'll throw them on the ground or train/trolley tracks); even at ones that have NO SMOKING signs posted throughout.

I despise people that litter, mainly because it just makes the area around you look shittier until someone picks up your mess.

[cpzilliacus]

Even those against litter don't give it a second thought about throwing cig butts out the window. Pretty much like a transportation public meeting where numerous people complain they don't want a widened highway; they would rather see more mass transit options, carpooling, etc...and then watch everyone leave and realize everyone in attendance drove their own vehicle to the meeting, even if people were neighbors and/or had mass transit options available to get to/from the meeting.

Virginia used to have signs on its primary highways that read DRIVERS SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR LITTER THROWN FROM VEHICLE, and that included cigaret and cigar butts.

I think that should be a moving traffic offense everywhere (and maybe it is, but I do not think it is enforced very much).

[SignBridge]

Back when I was a kid in the 1950's & 60's littering was considered a bigger problem and there was some enforcement, anti-littering commercials on TV, etc. Today I think littering is less common, and regrettably there probably isn't much enforcement.

[Mr_Northside]

From today's Monday Morning Quarterback (by Peter King) article.

MR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK

I kept wondering what the GPS in my car was trying to say over the weekend as we left New York City headed for my nephew's college graduation dinner in Baltimore. You know how the female voice in those GPS systems can mispronounce with the best of them? Well, as we drove onto the New Jersey Turnpike and headed south, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsley, or something like that.

Carsley? Could it be Carlstadt? Wrong direction. Kearney? Maybe.

A mile or so later, the voice said, Merge left and head south toward Carsonley.

There is no Carsonley. Now I was getting confused.

Here came the sign, as we approached the lovely area of the Turnpike north of Newark Airport, for the highway that was about to split in two going south. On the left-hand side of the road, the New Jersey Turnpike south, it read:

CARS ONLY