New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) data obtained by TSTC in May shows that traffic volume on the NJ Turnpike has stayed virtually unchanged since 2004, blasting away the NJTA’s bedrock argument for its $2 billion project to add 170 lane miles to the Turnpike between exits 6 and 9. NJTA assumes that Turnpike traffic will rise steeply and unabated for the foreseeable future. Current data, however, does not bear out the agency’s projections.
The state’s core justification for the widening is to address “existing and projected future traffic demand.” Within the project zone, the Environmental Impact Study predicts annual traffic growth of 2.4% northbound and 3.4% southbound through 2032. In reality, every interchange in the project area has seen a leveling off in vehicle entries beginning in late 2004 and running through April 2008, the most recent month for which data is available. (NJTA’s data suggesting that existing demand justifies a widening is also inconsistent – see MTR # 565.)
The flatlining trend holds up Turnpike-wide as well. The NJTA’s growth rate predictions are likely so high because they were based on data from 1990 through 2002, a period when traffic volume on the Turnpike rose an average 2.6% annually. Between 2002 and 2007, however, average annual traffic growth was just 0.7%. In fact, from ‘06 to ‘07, traffic on the roadway actually declined by 1.1%.
What is the rationale for a widening now? The NJTA’s predicted traffic growth has not materialized, and New Jerseyans will likely continue to reduce their driving as high oil prices take their toll. The state faces major fiscal challenges, including a nearly bankrupt Transportation Trust Fund. An increasing number of planners, including many at NJDOT, understand that road widening will worsen congestion in the long run. Simply put, the Turnpike widening project is a dinosaur — based on outmoded numbers, concepts, and trends.
It’s a tremendously expensive lizard as well: last year the NJTA estimated that the project would cost $2 billion – money that the agency simply doesn’t have. Skyrocketing construction costs would likely make the project an even costlier boondoggle. Yet Gov. Corzine and NJTA Chairman/NJDOT Commissioner Kris Kolluri have continued to publicly push for the project. Less expensive and invasive ways to reduce congestion include stronger variable pricing incentives, High-Occupancy Toll lanes, and the establishment of a freight management corridor.
This viewpoint neglects the “existing” part of the need for the widening. It would take a massive drop in traffic levels to remove that existing need, and short of a major economic calamity, that is just not going to happen.
Tri-State’s viewpoint is broader than that. The project EIS doesn’t adequately demonstrate existing need nor does it adequately address alternatives to widening. For background see earlier MTR stories here and here.
Thank you for linking those prior articles.
My comments on that 2nd article (“Kolluri: Thinking Bigger…”) still apply, so there is no need to repeat them here. Tom Marchwinski makes some reasonable suggestions in his post (#12).
The main reason widening the NJ turnpike is needed is because of the construction of the interchange of I95 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the new Delaware River bridge connecting to the NJ Turnpike that will complete I95 between Philadelphia and New Jersey and New York.
The interchange and bridge will increase traffic volumes on the mainline NJ Turnpike.
[...] 2005 and 2032. Yet data we obtained from the Authority show that, since 2004, traffic volumes have leveled off in the project area, calling into question the project’s [...]
[...] And what about the fact that traffic on the turnpike has actually been declining? See here. [...]
[...] the lower current and predicted traffic, an expansion of the variable tolling program already in use on the Turnpike [...]
[...] interchange in the Turnpike’s project area has experienced flat or declining traffic volumes since 2004. The most recent numbers confirm the trend is continuing on both roadways with that seen on the [...]