Comments on: Where's the Traffic Growth? Not on NJ Turnpike.

By: Maine Puts the Brakes on Highway Widening, While NJ Drives Toward the Cliff | Mobilizing the Region

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:13:24 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: New Report Confirms: Turnpike Widening Still a Turkey « Mobilizing the Region

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:01:25 +0000

[...] the lower current and predicted traffic, an expansion of the variable tolling program already in use on the Turnpike [...]

By: How We Drive, the Blog of Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic » Blog Archive » Talkin’ N.J. Turnpike Capacity Blues

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:51:08 +0000

[...] And what about the fact that traffic on the turnpike has actually been declining? See here. [...]

By: Contradictions and Non-Answers, Part 2: NJTA Responds to Turnpike Widening Comments « Mobilizing the Region

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:54:54 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:10:34 +0000

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.

By: G P Olsen

G P Olsen — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:39:14 +0000

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).

By: Steven Higashide

Steven Higashide — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:38:57 +0000

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.

By: G P Olsen

G P Olsen — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:20:27 +0000

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.