NJ Turnpike Construction rolls on

[NJRoadfan]

195 West used to just be signed "Trenton". Completely logical, but I think the reasoning for adding Hamilton is that its population now exceeds Trenton proper!

[MrDisco99]

I'll believe it when construction starts! LOL

Look how long it took for them to get I-676 done in Philadelphia.

Yeah well we're STILL waiting for NJ to build the Somerset Freeway... it's just been delay after delay...

[lepidopteran]

Update:

-- You know how, about 2 miles north of Interchange 8, the turnpike goes up over Hightstown-Cranbury Station Rd. and some parallel railroad tracks?  For that bridge only, the traffic moves over to the new outer lanes while the bridges in the middle are reconstructed.  (Funny how they need such a large overpass for a lightly-used railroad track that dead-ends just south of the turnpike; a "backwards" switch on the south side does lead to a warehouse complex, but the spur was not in use when the widening project began.  The tracks are active nonetheless.  The rail line was cut back to that point in 1983, before which they ran all the way through Hightstown, I think as far as the now-demolished overpass that took the tracks and EB NJ-33 (Mercer St.) under US-130.  Until some time in the 1960s, the tracks were a thru line to Bordentown.)

-- A few miles south of Interchange 8A, the NB traffic moves over to the new outer roadway and stays there all the way through; "Cars Only" traffic has to go left at the current divergence point.  Cars getting on at 8A can go directly to the middle lanes, though.   But for a couple of miles south of 8A, the original inner NB roadway is being dug up and rebuilt.

-- At Interchange 8, a lot of sound wall has already been replaced.  The old trumpet overpass piers are still standing in the turnpike median, but not much else seems to be left of it.  It was hard to get a good look to tell for certain, but the trumpet overpass that served NJ-33 seems to be history.

-- Construction continues on the flyover ramps to and from the SB service plaza near Interchange 7.  Is it just me, or do those exit ramps seem quite long.

[NE2]

There's history in them tracks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_New_Jersey_Railroad_and_Canal_Company#Camden_and_Amboy:_1830-1834

[Steve D]

Update:

-- You know how, about 2 miles north of Interchange 8, the turnpike goes up over Hightstown-Cranbury Station Rd. and some parallel railroad tracks?  For that bridge only, the traffic moves over to the new outer lanes while the bridges in the middle are reconstructed.  (Funny how they need such a large overpass for a lightly-used railroad track that dead-ends just south of the turnpike; a "backwards" switch on the south side does lead to a warehouse complex, but the spur was not in use when the widening project began.  The tracks are active nonetheless.  The rail line was cut back to that point in 1983, before which they ran all the way through Hightstown, I think as far as the now-demolished overpass that took the tracks and EB NJ-33 (Mercer St.) under US-130.  Until some time in the 1960s, the tracks were a thru line to Bordentown.)

-- A few miles south of Interchange 8A, the NB traffic moves over to the new outer roadway and stays there all the way through; "Cars Only" traffic has to go left at the current divergence point.  Cars getting on at 8A can go directly to the middle lanes, though.   But for a couple of miles south of 8A, the original inner NB roadway is being dug up and rebuilt.

-- At Interchange 8, a lot of sound wall has already been replaced.  The old trumpet overpass piers are still standing in the turnpike median, but not much else seems to be left of it.  It was hard to get a good look to tell for certain, but the trumpet overpass that served NJ-33 seems to be history.

-- Construction continues on the flyover ramps to and from the SB service plaza near Interchange 7.  Is it just me, or do those exit ramps seem quite long.

A while back I posted some details of the construction at Hightstown - Cranbury Road.  The old (now inner) lanes bridge had risers to the sides, extending a good 20 or 30 feet away from the Turnpike, over that rail line used to support the third lane built in the 1954 widening.  The risers were chopped off during the early stage of the current widening project while the bridge was supported underneath by temporary supports (causing the local road to be closed to traffic).  Therefore, the old bridge had to be re-constructed which is happening now.  Also, that bridge was determined to be the worst risk on the Turnpike in case of an earthquake, likely due to those risers hanging away from the bridge.  I know a lot about this because I lived in the area when I was a teenager and rode my bike under that bridge many times.

[jeffandnicole]

Construction continues on the flyover ramps to and from the SB service plaza near Interchange 7.  Is it just me, or do those exit ramps seem quite long.

I think the ramps from takeoff point to the current gore area approaching the plaza will be nearly 3/4 mile long. I'm still not clear on the need for such long ramps, especially when the overpass to the north of the plaza appears to be about the same distance away as the overpass to the south, but the ramps are tucked in between the plaza and that overpass.

Also not sure if that Sunoco Gas Price sign approaching the new ramp is in its permanent position, and why they aren't switching to an automated, LED sign.

[roadman65]

Does anyone know what the new Exit 8 signs are going to display (or are dispaying)?  I am curious to know if NJ 133 and Princeton were added in addition to NJ 33 (that was left off the original Exit 8 overhead) and Hightstown- Freehold- East Windsor?

[NJRoadfan]

Nope. http://goo.gl/maps/ETPlr

[J N Winkler]

Does anyone know what the new Exit 8 signs are going to display (or are displaying)?  I am curious to know if NJ 133 and Princeton were added in addition to NJ 33 (that was left off the original Exit 8 overhead) and Hightstown- Freehold- East Windsor?

Per the construction plans for NJTA contract no. T869.120.605 (June 2010), the northbound pull-through is to say say "[NJTP] NORTH/THRU TRAFFIC/NEXT EXIT 6 MILES," while the exit direction sign is to say "[SR 33] [SR 133]/Hightstown/Freehold."  Similar messages are to be used in the southbound direction.  Princeton and East Windsor are not to be mentioned anywhere on the Turnpike mainline.  However, the NJTA is carrying out work on NJDOT infrastructure as part of contract no. T869.120.603 (plans dated April 2010), and the signing on SR 133 references East Windsor and Princeton.  (And before you ask, some signs have the NJDOT black border around state route shields, while some don't, the distinction apparently being based on location in relation to the closed zone where tolls are charged.)

[jeffandnicole]

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/turnpike_connection_bridge_set_to_open_in_east_windsor.html

The SPUI interchange (33/133) at Exit 8 should open next Thursday.  The article neglects to mention anything about the actual SPUI, which will be NJ's first full SPUI (a partial one, in NJDOT's eyes, exists on US 130 near US 1).

[Steve D]

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/turnpike_connection_bridge_set_to_open_in_east_windsor.html

The SPUI interchange (33/133) at Exit 8 should open next Thursday.  The article neglects to mention anything about the actual SPUI, which will be NJ's first full SPUI (a partial one, in NJDOT's eyes, exists on US 130 near US 1).

Like the comment from the mayor--
"The New Jersey Turnpike created many local traffic issues by opening the new East Windsor Interchange 8 earlier this year without the accompanying planned and needed infrastructure and improvements in place, such as this bridge, left-turning lanes and clear signing and road markings,"  Mironov said.

[Alps]

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2013/09/turnpike_connection_bridge_set_to_open_in_east_windsor.html

The SPUI interchange (33/133) at Exit 8 should open next Thursday.  The article neglects to mention anything about the actual SPUI, which will be NJ's first full SPUI (a partial one, in NJDOT's eyes, exists on US 130 near US 1).

I fail to see how NJDOT considers anything about US 130/NJ 171/US 1 to be close to a SPUI instead of a messed-up partial diamond with a frontage road.

[NE2]

I fail to see how NJDOT considers anything about US 130/NJ 171/US 1 to be close to a SPUI instead of a messed-up partial diamond with a frontage road.

The Carolier Lane overpass looks like a duck, but its quack is closer to a honk, and its walk is totally gimpy.

[Alps]

I fail to see how NJDOT considers anything about US 130/NJ 171/US 1 to be close to a SPUI instead of a messed-up partial diamond with a frontage road.

The Carolier Lane overpass looks like a duck, but its quack is closer to a honk, and its walk is totally gimpy.

All I can see is that you can make NB U-turns at the same time as SB left turns. That counts the 130-171 mainline as ramps and the 130-1 ramps as mainline. The side roads are nowhere near set up for SPUI action.

[jeffandnicole]

Per the press release, the Interchange 8 SPUI over NJ 33 is now open:

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2013/091713ta.shtm

[hubcity]

Per the press release, the Interchange 8 SPUI over NJ 33 is now open:

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/press/2013/091713ta.shtm

Fielded a complaint from a friend who drove east on 133 the way he always does; he suddenly found himself on the Turnpike. See, they said it'd be easier.

For the brain-fried commuter, I guess you just can't make a BGS B enough...

[mrsman]

I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

[roadman65]

I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Now all they need to do is connect the Turnpike with NJ 42 and all the NJ Breezwood's would be removed.

[Henry]

I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Now all they need to do is connect the Turnpike with NJ 42 and all the NJ Breezwood's would be removed.

Which might get tricky, considering that the current I-295/I-76/NJ 42 interchange is being redone.

[Alps]

I'm glad to see this.  I drive between NYC and the Washington DC area about 2-3 times a year and often use NJ 133 if there are backups on the turnpike.  This will make it easier and quicker to reach the freeway.

One more Breezewood removed.

Now all they need to do is connect the Turnpike with NJ 42 and all the NJ Breezwood's would be removed.

The Parkway asks why it's so difficult to get to NJ 18.

[NE2]

Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

[jeffandnicole]

Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

Rt. 38 is 14 miles from Rt. 42, and wouldn't serve the needs of those on or near Rt. 42, many of whom use the Turnpike to bypass the congestion that already exists on 295 between 38 & 42.  Motorists can already get directly from the Turnpike to 42 via Exit 7A, and can easily get between the two with just a few traffic lights at 7, 5, 4 & 3.

[1995hoo]

Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

A direct connection between the Turnpike and Route 42 might also face some environmental hurdles. I'm pretty certain there would be wetlands issues to overcome. Heck, VDOT had to get federal approval just to widen barely two-tenths of a mile of road near my house because the road crosses Dogue Creek, which feeds into the Potomac and thence to the Chesapeake. The area around where Route 42 crosses the Turnpike has a lot more wetlands than the area near my house.

[jeffandnicole]

Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

A direct connection between the Turnpike and Route 42 might also face some environmental hurdles. I'm pretty certain there would be wetlands issues to overcome. Heck, VDOT had to get federal approval just to widen barely two-tenths of a mile of road near my house because the road crosses Dogue Creek, which feeds into the Potomac and thence to the Chesapeake. The area around where Route 42 crosses the Turnpike has a lot more wetlands than the area near my house.

There's a very rare project in NJ that doesn't have some sort of wetlands issues.  Even in the example above of taking a parking lot, wetlands issues would be drainage from the parking lot to the retention pond.

Of course, a 42/Turnpike connection would have many more major issues compared to partial taking of a parking lot.  But, it's usually nothing that can't be overcome. It generally requires that wetlands be created (at a 2:1 ratio) to offset the wetlands that are destroyed.  The 295/42/76 project hits a lot of wetlands, but a good majority of the wetlands will be recreated where the Aljo curve currently sits.  The Garden State Parkway Interchange 9-10-11 project was delayed some time due to wetlands mitigation issues, as there was no suitable area nearby to reconstruct wetlands that were affected due to the construction.  The NJDEP finally permitted wetlands to be reconstructed about 7 miles away on land that used to be a formal rail line going into Wildwood.

[Alps]

Again, there's no reason to built direct Turnpike-NJ 42 connections and add a whole bunch of complexity to an area of NJ 42 that already has two closely spaced major interchanges. When the new I-295 ramps are built, there will be direct freeway-to-freeway access between the DMB and NJ 42, and a pair of ramps connecting the Turnpike to I-295 somewhere north of Camden would do the same for the other half of the interchange.

Easiest southbound ramp might be a right turn onto NJ 38 west and then around the existing loop onto I-295 (with a C/D road added and the loop from I-295 north replaced by an at-grade left turn). Northbound could get something similar there, with a loop from NJ 38 east onto the Turnpike where a parking lot currently sits. Total cost: eminent domain for part of a parking lot, two new ramps, and two widened bridges. Versus a bunch of flyovers and complicated braiding with two other interchanges.

A direct connection between the Turnpike and Route 42 might also face some environmental hurdles. I'm pretty certain there would be wetlands issues to overcome. Heck, VDOT had to get federal approval just to widen barely two-tenths of a mile of road near my house because the road crosses Dogue Creek, which feeds into the Potomac and thence to the Chesapeake. The area around where Route 42 crosses the Turnpike has a lot more wetlands than the area near my house.

There's a very rare project in NJ that doesn't have some sort of wetlands issues.  Even in the example above of taking a parking lot, wetlands issues would be drainage from the parking lot to the retention pond.

Of course, a 42/Turnpike connection would have many more major issues compared to partial taking of a parking lot.  But, it's usually nothing that can't be overcome. It generally requires that wetlands be created (at a 2:1 ratio) to offset the wetlands that are destroyed.

Sometimes that becomes a 3:1 ratio. I don't recall the triggers offhand.