Mobilizing the Region

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) has posted official responses to public comments made on the NJ Turnpike expansion project, which would complete the dual-dual configuration (two 3-lane roadways in each direction) by adding up to 3 lanes in each direction between exits 6 and 9, an addition of 170 lane miles. Not surprisingly, the response document offers vague platitudes, ignores new data, and continues to refuse any solution to congestion that doesn’t include more pavement – making it the perfect companion piece to the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Tri-State has challenged several aspects of the project’s EIS, which found there would be no significant environmental impact (see MTR # 565). Most unconvincing is the NJTA’s evidence that the project is necessary as proposed and that it will provide sustainable congestion relief. Critically, the Authority ignores and fails to analyze whether additional lanes will fill with traffic due to induced demand and contribute to sprawl development (which leads to more congestion, and so on). These have been the historic consequences of highway construction and widening throughout the U.S.

The NJTA response document can be found here. Some notable passages are summarized below:

Purpose and Need

At the heart of any large project is a demonstrable purpose and need. According to the EIS, the purpose and need for the Turnpike widening is “to service existing and future travel demand.” The project assumes annual traffic growth of 2.4% northbound and 3.4% southbound between 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 premise.

In response to a comment from a private citizen that the traffic data, based largely on numbers from 2005-2006, was stale and did not account for the effects of gas prices and the collapse of the housing market, the NJTA defends the timeliness of its data. It’s true that many large projects use numbers that are further out of date (see the Garden State Parkway widening). However, NJTA goes on to state “there is no strong evidence that these numbers have significantly changed over the last two years due to the economic issues stated in the comment.” This is simply false.

Alternatives to Widening

Large project proposals also require analysis of reasonable alternatives. In response to Tri-State’s comment that the Authority’s alternatives analysis was cursory and sometimes provided no analysis at all, the NJTA issued a blanket denial, stating that “alternatives were considered seriously in the EIS. … Sufficient analysis was included in the EIS to conclude that the alternatives are either not practicable from a feasiblility standpoint or would not reduce the needed additions in lane capacity to meet demand, safety, and operations requirements.” Here is the EIS’s treatment of ridesharing as an alternative in its entirety, which clearly lacks any analysis:

Ridesharing refers to strategies that encourage carpooling and vanpooling. Carpooling refers to the arrangement of a group of commuters that rideshare in a participant’s vehicle. Vanpools are generally similar to a carpool; however, instead of using a participant’s automobile, the group uses a van that can be supplied by employers, non-profit transportation advocacy groups or government agencies, with operating costs typically divided among group members and sometimes subsidized by the state and federal government. Depending upon the type of vehicles used, the capacity of a vanpool can be higher than a carpool. Carpools and vanpools tend to be most effective when they run on pre-determined fixed schedules and the number of occupied vehicle seats is maximized.

» Continue reading…