New Jersey Turnpike

[jeffandnicole]

Now if they ever complete the interchange at I-295 and NJ-42, that could handle these movements.

Hopefully by 2024/2025 that entire interchange, with full movements, will be finished.

I see that the I-295/I-76/Route 42 Direct Connection project will be completed in 2025.
https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/contracts.shtm

According to this article the Missing Moves Project was just awarded at $180 million.
https://www.42freeway.com/bellmawr-missing-moves-project-awarded-starts-spring-2020-180-million-project-to-connect-42n-to-295s-and-back-aerial-video/
. . . . . . . . . . .

It would still be much more effective to have a connection between the Turnpike and NJ-42 freeway, rather than have to slog thru all those miles of a local freeway with closely spaced interchanges.

Yep, yep...I've already mentioned this on those specific threads!  :-)

But going back to the interchange - I noticed that you highly recommended an EIS study...but yet already seem to know exactly what movements are the priority movements.

I disagree with those movements.  While people on here (meaning, those with knowledge of roads and best options) often have recommendations, it's amazing what motorists, and even GPS mapping systems, utilize instead.  When I use the NJ Turnpike to Exit 3 during rush hours, to my eye there's nearly an equal number of motorists coming from or going to NJ 168 North and South, and if I were to give it the edge one way or another, I would say more people take the NJ Turnpike South to NJ 168 North during the rush hour.  After they're on 168, some head over to Benigno Blvd but the majority stay on 168 North.  After that, it's tough to determine how most motorists travel, but it appears quite a number will take 168 North to 295 South.  But all options are in play, even the NJ Turnpike South to 295 North is fairly normal.

On the Turnpike side of the toll plaza, most motorists are heading to or coming from the North in my observations, as well as my history of working this plaza, and that all makes sense.  There's still a sizable number of vehicles going to or coming from the NJ Turnpike south of Interchange 3 though!

During rush hour, there's quite a number of motorists that take Interchange 3 to 4 and 4 to 3, especially in the afternoon rush, but any issues on 295 will cause a significant number of motorists to use the Turnpike between those two interchanges in the morning as well.  While using 73 to get to the Turnpike is (relatively speaking) painless, motorists are stuck with 168 to get to and from Exit 3.  If the issue is on Rt. 42, that's a long ride to get from 42 North to 168 North to the Turnpike, which motorists do just to get up to Exit 4 and hope to reclaim some of the time lost.

So, this is just a small taste of how motorists will utilize the entire existing road network as it is currently built, and of course I wouldn't have any data to further detail movements to/from these interchanges.  But in my daily commuting in this area, a motorist observing from outside the area and utilizing it on rare occasion will definitely have a different opinion of the functionality of it, compared to a daily driver!

[Beltway]

It would still be much more effective to have a connection between the Turnpike and NJ-42 freeway, rather than have to slog thru all those miles of a local freeway with closely spaced interchanges.

Yep, yep...I've already mentioned this on those specific threads!  :-)
But going back to the interchange - I noticed that you highly recommended an EIS study...but yet already seem to know exactly what movements are the priority movements.
I disagree with those movements. 

[I've read all of what is snipped]

I wouldn't say "exactly," I was responding to what you estimated to be "a $500mm to $1 bn interchange."

In that case I suggested prioritizing one or two quadrants, to provide a lower cost initial project.  Perhaps like you said in overall volume there might not be major differences between the 4 quadrants.

Given where I live (well south of N.J.), I was thinking first of the long-distance movements.
-- Philadelphia and SE PA is now fully accessed north-south by I-95.
-- From/to northern N.J. and north, the GSP provides direct access to the coastal parts of N.J.
-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE.

Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.

In any event, a EIS/location study could analyze the alternatives and compile hard data to document the advantages and disadvantages of each.

[jeffandnicole]

-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE.

Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.

What are the clear benefits?

From the NJ Turnpike North, it'll be all 65 mph driving.  A NJ Turnpike North to 42 South ramp may provide access to 55 South if it can be designed that way, along with access to 42 South and the ACX.  This will also be the movement with the least amount of revenue (and thus payback) potential.

From 295 North, it'll be all 65 mph driving.  The 295 North to 42 South ramp provides traffic access to 55 South, 42 South and the ACX.  Plus traffic from the Commodore Barry Bridge can easily jump on 130 North to 295 North before the ramp as well.

[Beltway]

-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE.  Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.

What are the clear benefits?
From the NJ Turnpike North, it'll be all 65 mph driving.  A NJ Turnpike North to 42 South ramp may provide access to 55 South if it can be designed that way, along with access to 42 South and the ACX.  This will also be the movement with the least amount of revenue (and thus payback) potential.
From 295 North, it'll be all 65 mph driving.  The 295 North to 42 South ramp provides traffic access to 55 South, 42 South and the ACX.  Plus traffic from the Commodore Barry Bridge can easily jump on 130 North to 295 North before the ramp as well.

What is the typical rush hours congestion, and what is the typical summer weekend congestion, and what is the typical holiday congestion?

15 intervening interchanges on that section of I-295, and one interchange on NJTP, a local access freeway and a long-distance express freeway.  For a long distance traveler who does not have local knowledge of typical traffic conditions, the obvious choice would be NJTP, to avoid local congestion.

[jeffandnicole]

-- From/to Delaware and south, the quadrant needed for the mid- and south-coastal parts would be between southerly NJTP and southerly NJ-42/ACE.  Even with the Missing Moves Project connection, I can see clear benefits of using the NJTP to make that latter connection as compared to using I-295.

What are the clear benefits?
From the NJ Turnpike North, it'll be all 65 mph driving.  A NJ Turnpike North to 42 South ramp may provide access to 55 South if it can be designed that way, along with access to 42 South and the ACX.  This will also be the movement with the least amount of revenue (and thus payback) potential.
From 295 North, it'll be all 65 mph driving.  The 295 North to 42 South ramp provides traffic access to 55 South, 42 South and the ACX.  Plus traffic from the Commodore Barry Bridge can easily jump on 130 North to 295 North before the ramp as well.

What is the typical rush hours congestion, and what is the typical summer weekend congestion, and what is the typical holiday congestion?

15 intervening interchanges on that section of I-295, and one interchange on NJTP, a local access freeway and a long-distance express freeway.  For a long distance traveler who does not have local knowledge of typical traffic conditions, the obvious choice would be NJTP, to avoid local congestion.

295: Rush hour: No congestion along most of 295 between the Del. Mem. Bridge and 26 (I-76). May be some congestion for a few miles northbound approaching Exit 26  especially if there's an incident on 76 or north of 76 on 295.

Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekends

NJ Turnpike: Rush hour - No congestion between 1 & where 42 crosses over the Turnpike.  Non-rush hour - No congestion except on holiday or summer weekends, then there can be very heavy congestion.

The additional exits on 295 is irrelevant. They are generally all low volume exits that aren't adding or talking away traffic at heavy rates.  The highway volume entrance during rush hours appear to be at 130, and due to traffic narrowing down from 2 lanes to 1 on 130 itself prior to 295, along with 295 widening from 2 to 3 lanes there, it effectively meters traffic anyway. Traffic speed monitors on 295/130 just north of this interchange frequently record some of the highest highway speeds in NJ, with the 85th percentile speed sometimes above 80 mph (in a 65 zone)

It is quite often the case in the summer and holiday weekends that it takes longer on the Turnpike to go from the Del. Mem. Bridge to 168 due to Turnpike congestion.

A long distance traveler not from the region won't know how many exits are on 295 or that Turnpike so that's irrelevant as well. If anything, travelers that know most highways are mileage based exits may be surprised that NJ Tpk Exit 3 is about 26 miles north of entering the Turnpike. Travelers that enter the Turnpike going north at Exit 1 by accident (it happens due to some poor signage) aren't too happy to learn they have about 10 miles to go to the next exit to turn around!

[Beltway]

295: Rush hour: No congestion along most of 295 between the Del. Mem. Bridge and 26 (I-76). May be some congestion for a few miles northbound approaching Exit 26  especially if there's an incident on 76 or north of 76 on 295.

So there is at least some congestion at times.  With continued suburban development that will increase in the 20-year design horizon of the EIS/location study.

Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekends
NJ Turnpike: Rush hour - No congestion between 1 & where 42 crosses over the Turnpike.  Non-rush hour - No congestion except on holiday or summer weekends, then there can be very heavy congestion.

That doesn't spill over onto I-295?  Just from reading posts over the years on various highway forums, both highways can get very congested on holiday weekends, as I-295 and I-195 provide an alternate freeway route to staying on the NJTP.

The additional exits on 295 is irrelevant. They are generally all low volume exits that aren't adding or talking away traffic at heavy rates.  The highway volume entrance during rush hours appear to be at 130, and due to traffic narrowing down from 2 lanes to 1 on 130 itself prior to 295, along with 295 widening from 2 to 3 lanes there, it effectively meters traffic anyway. Traffic speed monitors on 295/130 just north of this interchange frequently record some of the highest highway speeds in NJ, with the 85th percentile speed sometimes above 80 mph (in a 65 zone)

Again, in a EIS/location study they will be evaluating projected development and impacts on interchanges over a 20-year horizon.

It is quite often the case in the summer and holiday weekends that it takes longer on the Turnpike to go from the Del. Mem. Bridge to 168 due to Turnpike congestion.
A long distance traveler not from the region won't know how many exits are on 295 or that Turnpike so that's irrelevant as well. If anything, travelers that know most highways are mileage based exits may be surprised that NJ Tpk Exit 3 is about 26 miles north of entering the Turnpike. Travelers that enter the Turnpike going north at Exit 1 by accident (it happens due to some poor signage) aren't too happy to learn they have about 10 miles to go to the next exit to turn around!

Of course the number of interchanges is relevant, I notice immediately on a map if a highway has closely spaced (as in ~2 miles on average) interchanges as opposed to a turnpike that has ~15 mile average interchange spacing.  I-295 looks like a "local freeway" on a map.

[jeffandnicole]

295: Rush hour: No congestion along most of 295 between the Del. Mem. Bridge and 26 (I-76). May be some congestion for a few miles northbound approaching Exit 26  especially if there's an incident on 76 or north of 76 on 295.

So there is at least some congestion at times.  With continued suburban development that will increase in the 20-year design horizon of the EIS/location study.

Slow down. You asked me what conditions are; I was honest with you.  But clearly you're gonna exaggerate my claims here.  You also keep bringing up proper engineering protocol such as "an EIS study is needed", but then you also say opinions as fact such as "continued suburban development will increase congestion".  An EIS study will review potential growth in the study area.  It will also review current volumes.  If growth is expected, it would be weighed against current volumes and highway capacity.

For what it's worth - I'll tell you the largest concern for traffic volumes in the area - down between Interchanges 10 (Center Square Road) and 11B (US 322) of I-295.  NJDOT is currently working on improving some of that with a new fixed-span overpass on US 130.  There's also a project that will widen US 322 between 295 & 130. 

Non-rush hours...no congestion, even in the summer or holiday weekends
NJ Turnpike: Rush hour - No congestion between 1 & where 42 crosses over the Turnpike.  Non-rush hour - No congestion except on holiday or summer weekends, then there can be very heavy congestion.

That doesn't spill over onto I-295?  Just from reading posts over the years on various highway forums, both highways can get very congested on holiday weekends, as I-295 and I-195 provide an alternate freeway route to staying on the NJTP.

Occasionally it does...between 195 and 76/42.  Once below 42, it's free-sailing.  Also remember that the NJTA clearly is planning to widen the Turnpike between Interchanges 1 - 4 to 3 lanes per direction, which should reduce or eliminate much of the Turnpike congestion, which should reduce or eliminate the spillover to 295.   Lots at play here.

The additional exits on 295 is irrelevant. They are generally all low volume exits that aren't adding or talking away traffic at heavy rates.  The highway volume entrance during rush hours appear to be at 130, and due to traffic narrowing down from 2 lanes to 1 on 130 itself prior to 295, along with 295 widening from 2 to 3 lanes there, it effectively meters traffic anyway. Traffic speed monitors on 295/130 just north of this interchange frequently record some of the highest highway speeds in NJ, with the 85th percentile speed sometimes above 80 mph (in a 65 zone)

Again, in a EIS/location study they will be evaluating projected development and impacts on interchanges over a 20-year horizon.

It is quite often the case in the summer and holiday weekends that it takes longer on the Turnpike to go from the Del. Mem. Bridge to 168 due to Turnpike congestion.
A long distance traveler not from the region won't know how many exits are on 295 or that Turnpike so that's irrelevant as well. If anything, travelers that know most highways are mileage based exits may be surprised that NJ Tpk Exit 3 is about 26 miles north of entering the Turnpike. Travelers that enter the Turnpike going north at Exit 1 by accident (it happens due to some poor signage) aren't too happy to learn they have about 10 miles to go to the next exit to turn around!

Of course the number of interchanges is relevant, I notice immediately on a map if a highway has closely spaced (as in ~2 miles on average) interchanges as opposed to a turnpike that has ~15 mile average interchange spacing.  I-295 looks like a "local freeway" on a map.

Look...this ain't my first rodeo with you.  You obviously have your mind made up that the most needed ramps are those that would benefit you the most.  You are also clearly ignoring what someone who lives in the area sees on a daily basis, and instead is relying on a few blurbs on internet forums or websites, and the few personal instances you've drive in the area.  I also think you are way-over estimating what an EIS will review.  I have the EIS for the 295/76/42 interchange sitting right next to my computer here (NJDOT surprised me with a mailing of it...quite a huge document).  Other than a regional overview regional map which shows much of Gloucester County,  Camden County, Burlington County, and the City of Philadelphia, the EIS only covered a very small portion of that area: I-295 from Interchanges 25 to 28, NJ 42's Interchange 14 to I-76's Interchange 1D, a portion of US 130 and NJ 168 near 295 and 76, and some county/municipal roadways with direct or instrumental ties to the highway network.  Believe it or not it didn't expand much from that area - you're not going to find the expected housing/warehouse growth of Turnersville, Cherry Hill or Paulsboro in the report.  It's here online if you want to view more: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/studyarea.shtm . 

So I'm not sure what you believe a Turnpike Interchange EIS may cover, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's much less than what you're imagining.  Clearly, *if* they were to engage such a project, they would look at the area right around the intersection of 42 and the Turnpike, and how such a project could tie into 55 and 295 in the immediate area.  And they'll review potential trips via a possible interchange, and may even look to see if it will add or take away trips from other interchanges.  But the level of info you're believing an EIS will cover in this area isn't gonna be close to what you believe they'll look at.  Otherwise, we would be able to pull that up for the NJ Turnpike's 6 - 9 Expansion.  I'll love to see it if you know where it exists though.

[Beltway]

So there is at least some congestion at times.  With continued suburban development that will increase in the 20-year design horizon of the EIS/location study.

Slow down. You asked me what conditions are; I was honest with you.  But clearly you're gonna exaggerate my claims here.  You also keep bringing up proper engineering protocol such as "an EIS study is needed", but then you also say opinions as fact such as "continued suburban development will increase congestion".  An EIS study will review potential growth in the study area.  It will also review current volumes.  If growth is expected, it would be weighed against current volumes and highway capacity.

No, it is only a sharing of ideas with whoever might want to contribute something.

I do like EIS/location studies, to flesh out hard data on what the impacts and benefits are for a proposal, but I am not saying that it is "needed," just that I can see some benefits from such a study.

If there is -not- going to be continued suburban growth, then that is a factor as well.

Occasionally it does...between 195 and 76/42.  Once below 42, it's free-sailing.  Also remember that the NJTA clearly is planning to widen the Turnpike between Interchanges 1 - 4 to 3 lanes per direction, which should reduce or eliminate much of the Turnpike congestion, which should reduce or eliminate the spillover to 295.   Lots at play here.

It might be as simple as having clear advance signing that I-295 is the way to connect between the Delaware Memorial Bridge and NJ-42 and the ACE.  After completion of the Missing Moves Project, that is, when to install that.

Of course the number of interchanges is relevant, I notice immediately on a map if a highway has closely spaced (as in ~2 miles on average) interchanges as opposed to a turnpike that has ~15 mile average interchange spacing.  I-295 looks like a "local freeway" on a map.

Look...this ain't my first rodeo with you.  You obviously have your mind made up that the most needed ramps are those that would benefit you the most. 

Nope, again I am merely a supporter of engineering studies that compile all the costs and benefits.  That quadrant may or may not carry the largest volumes of the 4.

You are also clearly ignoring what someone who lives in the area sees on a daily basis, and instead is relying on a few blurbs on internet forums or websites, and the few personal instances you've drive in the area.

Like I said I welcome the comments of whoever is reading this thread.  I am very familiar with my area but also have limited knowledge about some parts.

Now if the I-95/I-295 interchange in Henrico County had missing moves, that would be a topic of concern for people who even live in a different state or even several states away.

The fact that I-295 and NJTP -still- don't connect to southerly NJ-42 and ACE, is a topic of issue for motorists from other states.

I also think you are way-over estimating what an EIS will review.  I have the EIS for the 295/76/42 interchange sitting right next to my computer here (NJDOT surprised me with a mailing of it...quite a huge document).  Other than a regional overview regional map which shows much of Gloucester County,  Camden County, Burlington County, and the City of Philadelphia, the EIS only covered a very small portion of that area: I-295 from Interchanges 25 to 28, NJ 42's Interchange 14 to I-76's Interchange 1D, a portion of US 130 and NJ 168 near 295 and 76, and some county/municipal roadways with direct or instrumental ties to the highway network.  Believe it or not it didn't expand much from that area - you're not going to find the expected housing/warehouse growth of Turnersville, Cherry Hill or Paulsboro in the report.  It's here online if you want to view more: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/roads/rt295/studyarea.shtm . 

They can cover pretty much whatever scope that they decide to cover.

A Tier I EIS/location study 2003-2006 covered the entire 325 miles of I-81 in Virginia, for example.

[storm2k]

NJ.com has an article about the proposed rates for the toll increases by the Turnpike Authority. Turnpike increase is going to be around 36%, for both cash and EZ-Pass transactions, both peak and off peak. Bus discounts are changing as well and will be a flat 40% discount. Toll increases are expected to raise 500MM revenue for the next capital plan.

[Beltway]

Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876

Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s.  See the map several pages down.

The connector near where the two freeways cross, would be an interchange complex tying into the NJ-42/NJ-55 interchange, and connecting to the turnpike about 1/2 west of where the two highways cross.  It looks like it has provisions for a ticketed toll plaza.  The cost is estimated at $170 million.

Given today's economic conditions, that cost would at least triple.  Given the trend toward All-Electronic Tolling (AET), perhaps they should not build a ticketed toll plaza design, but wait until the AET conversion date is known, and if they want to study an interchange consider a conventional free-flowing design.

One of the other alternates connects to the turnpike about 2 miles west of there and to NJ-42 about 4 miles south of there, and crosses NJ-55 about 2 miles south of there.

[jeffandnicole]

Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876

Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s....

As proposed, the 42/55/Tpk interchange won't happen because of a shopping center and a large scale residential community located where those ramps would have gone. And knowing the political climate in the area I would be almost certain those projects were designed in such a way to prevent the Turnpike from building those ramps.

The backlash against the cross-county expressway options was swift and strong. A lot of people were going to lose their properties. The project didn't happen not because of the cost, but there was almost no community support and no political support.

Looking at the proposals I didn't realize how close one of them would have been to my parents house, where I grew up. It wouldn't have affected it directly, but would have gone thru a house on the historical registry just outside that development.

With more development in the area, there would even be less of a chance of getting this pushed thru.

In NJ, most projects need town and county support.  Without it,  they generally don't happen. After the Turnpike proposal for this went south real quick, they completely abandoned it.

[Beltway]

Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876
Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s....

As proposed, the 42/55/Tpk interchange won't happen because of a shopping center and a large scale residential community located where those ramps would have gone. And knowing the political climate in the area I would be almost certain those projects were designed in such a way to prevent the Turnpike from building those ramps.

I drew this today using current Google Maps Satellite View.  I will do more work to somewhat lessen the curve on two of the ramps I drew, but this overall scheme is similar to Alternate 1 on the report.  A toll plaza could be included on the connector highway, and could be removed in the future with AET.

The shopping center doesn't lose any buildings, home acquisitions would be 50 or less, and minimal wetlands impacts would occur, with bridge ramps used in two places east of NJ-42.  It is buildable by modern urban freeway standards.

[Alps]

Here is a 1995 study of Proposed Atlantic City Expressway - New Jersey Turnpike Connector.
http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=3876
Alternates range from a connector near where the two freeways cross, to something similar of the US-322 Expressway proposal of the 1970s....

As proposed, the 42/55/Tpk interchange won't happen because of a shopping center and a large scale residential community located where those ramps would have gone. And knowing the political climate in the area I would be almost certain those projects were designed in such a way to prevent the Turnpike from building those ramps.

I drew this today using current Google Maps Satellite View.  I will do more work to somewhat lessen the curve on two of the ramps I drew, but this overall scheme is similar to Alternate 1 on the report.  A toll plaza could be included on the connector highway, and could be removed in the future with AET.

The shopping center doesn't lose any buildings, home acquisitions would be 50 or less, and minimal wetlands impacts would occur, with bridge ramps used in two places east of NJ-42.  It is buildable by modern urban freeway standards.

50 is probably a no go in today climate.

[jeffandnicole]

That's a no-go for a few reasons: The development along Rt. 55 is a 55+ Senior community.  No one will allow several dozen homes to be wiped out.  That is the very community that I believe was built specific to get in the Turnpike's way in the 1995 proposals. The community along the turnpike won't be wiped out either.  Deptford is the town thru this entire area, and officials won't even consider such a proposal.

Also it's not very apparent due to the trees, but there's some wetland issues there as well.

You'll have to do a lot more within the immediate intersection of the Turnpike and 42.  The ballfields, if they could be replaced in the general area, may be able to be scarified a bit.

[DrSmith]

It's been 18 years since I lived in the area, but an interchange for the Turnpike just wasn't that critical of a need. In my travels back to visit my parents from New England, it's relatively simple enough to still get off/on at Exit 3.  In South Jersey, the turnpike is the thru-route and 295 is the local route. While traffic may be heavier along 295, the frequency of interchanges make it more practical for most travel. If you are heading further north, it's reasonable enough to get on the Turnpike either from the Black Horse Pike or by jumping over at Route 73 or wherever else you prefer. While some of the local delays at the Turnpike interchanges during rush hour has been noted, it probably doesn't amount to heavy local traffic and more a reflection of toll collection. Furthermore, once the 42-295 interchange project finally finishes and makes it a much more functional interchange, local commuting should improve. There are far more important things for the NJTA to be considering way above this.

[Beltway]

It's been 18 years since I lived in the area, but an interchange for the Turnpike just wasn't that critical of a need. In my travels back to visit my parents from New England, it's relatively simple enough to still get off/on at Exit 3. 

Sounds like the defense of the status quo at Breezewood.  But then a quite a bit lower quality connection than that.

Furthermore, once the 42-295 interchange project finally finishes and makes it a much more functional interchange, local commuting should improve. There are far more important things for the NJTA to be considering way above this.

It will be a big help to get the I-295/NJ-42 interchange completed, and the offset interchanges problem fixed by providing an Interstate-standard thru movement for I-295.

Still, NJ-42 is part of the freeway between central Philadelphia and the mid-coast area of New Jersey.  A pretty important crossing with the NJTP.

That's a no-go for a few reasons: The development along Rt. 55 is a 55+ Senior community.  No one will allow several dozen homes to be wiped out.  That is the very community that I believe was built specific to get in the Turnpike's way in the 1995 proposals. The community along the turnpike won't be wiped out either.  Deptford is the town thru this entire area, and officials won't even consider such a proposal.

Small impacts by urban freeway standards.  I could adjust the alignment to miss all or nearly all of those houses.

Ditto for the ramp just north of the turnpike, those houses could be avoided.

Let's see what happens in 2024 when the missing moves are completed.  Maybe with good advance signing most everyone will be satisfied with using I-295 to connect to NJ-42 and the ACE.

[jeffandnicole]

Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange. 

It also baffles me how the some people will say the Turnpike/42 Intersection is like a Breezewood. Yet there's a true chance to talk about it with Turnpike officials, and suddenly the situation is ok with some people. If that's the case,  then I'll point out  this discussion in the future, and any reference to Turnpike/42 being a  Breezewood shall cease.

[cpzilliacus]

It was mentioned above, so pardon the redundancy, but any proposed Exit 2A on the Turnpike should be designed as a cashless interchange, so that a "double trumpet" or similar that would be required issuing tickets and with cash toll collection is eliminated. 

Does that mean that a simplified interchange could be built? Are all movements between NJ-42/NJ-55/ACE and the Turnpike mainline needed?

I think that a Turnpike Exit 2A helps in terms of network redundancy, which is a good thing for everyone.

The current Breezewood-type non-connection via Turnpike Exit 3, NJ-168 and I-295 would seem to be something that residents of Bellmawr would want to be rid of. 

Maybe they are used it it?

[Roadsguy]

Exit 2A Exit 24

FTFY

[cpzilliacus]

Exit 2A Exit 24

FTFY

Is that really going to happen?  I have heard no mention from credible sources that the NJTA (or NJDOT, if they have some say-so over such things) is going to renumber the Turnpike interchanges.

[Roadsguy]

Exit 2A Exit 24

FTFY :bigass:

Is that really going to happen?  I have heard no mention from credible sources that the NJTA (or NJDOT, if they have some say-so over such things) is going to renumber the Turnpike interchanges.

I haven't heard of any plans to go mileage-based, but since it's probably more likely to happen than an interchange with NJ 42, then we might as well go all the way with it. :P

[jeffandnicole]

It was mentioned above, so pardon the redundancy, but any proposed Exit 2A on the Turnpike should be designed as a cashless interchange, so that a "double trumpet" or similar that would be required issuing tickets and with cash toll collection is eliminated. 

Does that mean that a simplified interchange could be built? Are all movements between NJ-42/NJ-55/ACE and the Turnpike mainline needed?

I think that a Turnpike Exit 2A helps in terms of network redundancy, which is a good thing for everyone.

The current Breezewood-type non-connection via Turnpike Exit 3, NJ-168 and I-295 would seem to be something that residents of Bellmawr would want to be rid of. 

Maybe they are used it it?

Agree on most points.

A full interchange I believe is the only way to go.  NJTA is resolving, as part of this toll hike, to complete nearly every partial interchange on the GSP.  Nearly every interchange on the NJ Turnpike is a complete interchange, including duplicate interchanges for every exit from 6 - 14.  There are two exceptions: Exit 17 and Exit 19W, both of which have their own nuances.  I wouldn't foresee them just doing a partial interchange here, especially as the partial 295/42 interchange has long been a sore point for the region.

I don't know if the residents of Bellmawr (and Runnemede) are used to it; maybe they simply put up with it.  Before the 295/76/42 project commenced they had a separate phase to redesign the traffic light system on NJ 168 & US 130 to accommodate traffic volumes better.  IMO it's not a completely great system - if there's a sensor failure it usually gives the minor street way too much time, and NJDOT takes way too long to resolve the issue.

A perfect interchange would need to involve the Turnpike, 42, 55 AND I-295, especially in relation to the new 295-42 missing move ramps coming.

Mileage-based exits aren't currently being mentioned, although the net cost will be relatively minor in nature.  Several million dollars to update/replace/modify every exit sign, along with temporary "Former Exit" signage.  The Turnpike will probably convert only when they are absolutely forced to do so.

[Beltway]

Theres still a bigger picture here: 10-14 mile backups on 295 in the morning and afternoon, with no easy way to get to/from the Turnpike at Exit 3. It appears the Turnpike will be widened. The "long distance traffic" (and commuting in this area can be a long distance affair) can be spread around with a Turnpike interchange. 

I thought you had said that the congestion was fairly minor on I-295.  What exact parts back up like that?

It also baffles me how the some people will say the Turnpike/42 Intersection is like a Breezewood. Yet there's a true chance to talk about it with Turnpike officials, and suddenly the situation is ok with some people. If that's the case,  then I'll point out  this discussion in the future, and any reference to Turnpike/42 being a  Breezewood shall cease.

Probably better comparable to I-95 and the PA Turnpike crossing before the interchange project.

[cpzilliacus]

Mileage-based exits aren't currently being mentioned, although the net cost will be relatively minor in nature.  Several million dollars to update/replace/modify every exit sign, along with temporary "Former Exit" signage.  The Turnpike will probably convert only when they are absolutely forced to do so.

In most cases, I think that the switch to exit numbers based on mileposts is a good idea.  Not so much with the New Jersey Turnpike (and I realize that many state toll roads, including the Penn Pike, have made the switch). 

But the New Jersey Turnpike's exit numbers are IMO near iconic and many of them date to the opening of the road, and are fine just the way they are. My only gripe is that the U.S. 130 interchange on the NJTA's Penn Pike connector should get its own exit number (presumably 6A, following the pattern of 14 A-B-C).

If the NJTA were to go to milepost-based exits, do they start the numbering on the Penn Pike connector and count  up to present-day Exit 6? 

What happens with the exit numbers on the NJ-700 part of the Turnpike?

[Beltway]

But the New Jersey Turnpike's exit numbers are IMO near iconic and many of them date to the opening of the road, and are fine just the way they are. My only gripe is that the U.S. 130 interchange on the NJTA's Penn Pike connector should get its own exit number (presumably 6A, following the pattern of 14 A-B-C).

I have postulated before that some highways are even more prominent than the Interstate Highways.  These were typically built prior to the 1956 federal highway act.

The New Jersey Turnpike is certainly one of them.