You must log in or register to comment.

acorns28 t1_je356ls wrote

I commute from exit 3 to the de bridge. This is a solution to a imagined problem. I have never once sat in congestion traffic north or south during rush hour Only time i hit traffic is getting off exit 3, truck traffic


ManOnShire t1_je3cf92 wrote

If they managed to fix that fucking hell hole of an exit and merge on to 168, things would be smooth sailing. There are some days I'd rather drive past it to Exit 2 and get home from there.


FartFragrance t1_je4iw43 wrote

Isn't "work from home" keeping more cars off the roads? I drove to work the other day on a Monday and thought it was a holiday as there were literally no cars on the road during rush hour.


AnynameIwant1 t1_je7gdsl wrote

That is interesting. I have lived in Deal/West Long Branch (near Asbury Park), Lacey and my girlfriend went to Stockton (Exit 44, I would visit her every weekend). I also go to Wildwood every September. I can't think of a time when I didn't sit in traffic on the GSP at some point. Except maybe for the dead of winter. But that is an interesting perspective.


icecoast_ t1_je2njdr wrote

Widen it and add interchange for 42


takemynerjy OP t1_je307tq wrote



icecoast_ t1_je3cew8 wrote

The absolute catastrophe of traffic that occurs with people and trucks needing to get off at exit 3 then take local roads to get to Philly needs to be addressed.


takemynerjy OP t1_je3cmox wrote

Indeed. I propose alternatives.


icecoast_ t1_je4durt wrote

It seems the only way is to connect the turnpike and 42.

What are your alternatives?


takemynerjy OP t1_je621g1 wrote

The most direct way to reduce congestion is congestion pricing. Tolls that scale in real time to reflect traffic conditions. But that won't happen in NJ soon. Look at the controversy surrounding NYC daring to create the first CP program in the country.

I call for expanding alternatives to driving and better urban planning to make driving less necessary. Public transit, trains, BRT, biking and walking infra, the GCL (expand PATCO tbh), etc.

Remove trucks from the road by linking warehouses to freight rail instead of roads. We already do it in Logan Township. Do it more.


Mr_Matt_K t1_je2ghvj wrote

> Money and labor should be redirected to public transit, transit-oriented development, bicycle infrastructure, and road safety improvements.

...which would nothing to alleviate congestion from long-distance traffic on the affected highway. Are the same people going to complain about continuing traffic on the four-lane Turnpike and the alternate route of I-295?


takemynerjy OP t1_je2hqoe wrote

> would nothing to alleviate congestion from long-distance traffic on the affected highway.

Wider highways don't alleviate congestion.


Mr_Matt_K t1_je2hzgm wrote

Applegarth Road in Monroe Township, Middlesex County would beg to differ.


Pm-ur-butt t1_je2y9tw wrote

There's a lot of research on induced traffic demand, the more accessible something is (like a wider road), the more people will be attracted to it. Eventually congestion will return.


ElderberryExternal99 t1_je2lev6 wrote

Hell yeah and Sucked when the Turnpike narrowed down to 3 lanes just below exit 8a. Every Friday night during the Summer absolute shit show!


takemynerjy OP t1_je2pf50 wrote

In not much time initial relief disappears. Widening only gets more cars on the road and encourages sprawl.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je2ysck wrote

Not completely true.


takemynerjy OP t1_je3067w wrote

Do you mean initially? Relief gone within 5 years. Not a long term solution. Not good planning. Horrible for air quality and the planet.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je30jho wrote

That would be true for most highways except the Turnpike which is used as a thru road as it was always designed.

I know about induced demand and the problems of many lanes causing traffic just by being too wide.


takemynerjy OP t1_je3218a wrote

Do you have research specifically exempting the NJ Turnpike from induced demand? It must be of high enough quality to rule out a causal effect.

Saying "this time is different" doesn't cut it.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je32dcf wrote

Yes we have a major train line that runs much of it. Plus our region is unique to much of the country.


takemynerjy OP t1_je333y2 wrote

>Do you have research specifically exempting the NJ Turnpike from induced demand?



Practical_Argument50 t1_je33zse wrote

My damn eyes. Warehouses were built NOT houses. Com-on this is NJ nothing we do is normal to the rest of the country. We are building infill housing in the north and yes new developments other areas. We have more transit than most areas outside of NJ/NY/CT and people are moving closer to cities not further away.


takemynerjy OP t1_je34dmm wrote

Don't see how this justifies turnpike widening or exempts the turnpike from induced demand.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je34w3l wrote

It was widened down to 6 because of the warehouses and it should be widened due to additional traffic. This is the opposite of induced demand. The demand is already there.


takemynerjy OP t1_je366qn wrote

It's actually the typical induced demand scenario. Congestion (demand already there) -> widening -> initial relief -> induced demand -> congestion. Repeat.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je36dtk wrote

Except very few are moving that far south to commute to NYC or N-NJ.


takemynerjy OP t1_je36y9v wrote

The research on induced demand includes interstates like the NJ Turnpike.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je377xx wrote

Yes but the NJTP is a toll road so traffic can be controlled by increasing tolls vs “freeways”


takemynerjy OP t1_je37om7 wrote

The tolls we have don't reduce congestion. Only congestion pricing reduces congestion by reducing driving. We don't have CP because it's politically toxic. See: NJ politicians reacting to NYC doing CP.

If you want congestion pricing instead of widening the road, I'm with you. It doesn't justify widening though. CP replaces widening, in fact.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je382nr wrote

We do have on peak and off peak pricing right now which is congestion pricing. Except we aren’t sensitive to it. We will pay what ever it take to ride the road. Congestion pricing in NYC I believe will be the same traffic won’t improve. We need to build alternatives.


takemynerjy OP t1_je38ocn wrote

Not congestion pricing. It doesn't scale with real time congestion. NYC's program will be the first in the country.

You can't conclude people will pay whatever it takes to ride the road based on pathetically low tolls relative to the full social cost of driving. CP is another policy with lots of research behind it. It works.

It negates widening.

I propose alternatives in the petition.


baylee13070 t1_je6jn5c wrote

Most widening doesn't help with traffic. But widening were there is a bottleneck because a highway goes from four lanes to three or three to two does make sense sometimes. I'm all for the widening of route 17 between route 4 and where the lights begin because that will get rid of the bottle neck. I'm against the widening of the turnpike extension towards the holland tunnel because the bottle neck is really cause by the tunnel, not the drop off of lanes. (Leavening the tunnel it might make sense).


Practical_Argument50 t1_je6kn40 wrote

For the turnpike extension they only want to move the jam from the tollbooths to further down.


Practical_Argument50 t1_je6kt00 wrote

Also keeping RT 24 at three lanes to 287 would help it from being so slow from the Short Hills mall.


Nexis4Jersey t1_je726pj wrote

The train line runs alongside by about 10 miles north of Trenton, but South of Trenton there's only smaller lines mostly used for freight. If anything, we need to upgrade the network and shift more interstate trucks off the road/highway network onto Rail.


imchasingentropy t1_je4iu5y wrote

I refuse to vote for any politician that talks about road widening before they discuss better train infrastructure.


6Emptybottles t1_je280ay wrote

The petition asks for more rail warehouses and expanded rail services. Both of these topics were on here recently with people complaining about too much of both those proposals! The dichotomy of living in NJ :-)


DileoSlides t1_je38lya wrote

Are they going to take out existing homes to do this because I don’t see how they won’t have to in some spots.