I agree that the Turnpike widening is not the typical roads vs. transit situation. It is about sprawl and policies that default to capacity expansion without so much as a cursory glance to alternatives. You admit yourself that sprawl probably will result without proper management.

Not to make too fine a point, our position is not that capacity expansion is inherently wrong. Rather that the preference should be for alternatives that solve congestion while avoiding many of the adverse effects of widening, e.g. induced demand, habitat destruction, increased emissions, and could do so at a fraction of the cost. In the case of the Turnpike, these alternatives were not given adequate study. We do not know, for example, whether a HOT lane could adequately relieve the merge, because it wasn’t seriously approached as a solution.

Now, with traffic volumes falling, the case for widening as the only solution is weakened. Even if the connector to Philadelphia adds traffic, would traffic demand management address the traffic? And with declining volumes, what increase from the connector is now projected? These are very important and unanswered questions.

As the for the toll hike and the money raised for ARC. We have, of course, supported ARC and the use of toll revenue for funding for this and other transit projects. However, I don’t share your view that the toll hike and the widening of the turnpike were inextricably linked. A toll hike was long overdue, regardless of capacity or volumes. And if we accept that the best way to sell the toll hike politically is to tie it to road improvements, are we also to accept that the only road improvement to fit the bill is a widening? Road improvements come in many forms, so long as congestion is mitigated. Why, then, did the state ignore potential solutions that relieve the congestion, raise tolls and does so without the years of increased congestion due to frustrating construction delays?

Again, I’m not saying I know what the silver bullet is, I’m saying that it is very clearly worth study – study that was not done. Instead, we have an unsustainable capacity expansion based on numbers and projections that no longer comport with reality.

The worst traffic I’ve experience on that section of the Turnpike (dead stop to stop and go for miles) has been on Sunday nights, not exactly prime commuting time. That being said, the widening will probably result in worsening sprawl if land use is not properly managed (we’ve had a decidedly mixed record in that area).

As the Turnpike widening is pretty much a done deal at this point, I think it would be better for the Campaign to focus on transit issues on the corridor. In particular, the lack of direct NJ Transit service to 30th st on the NEC is a deterrent for transit use for those that have a car and deal breaker for many of those who don’t. With this new freeway link, it will be an even greater deterrent.

On a final note, I think you are being a little harsh on the Corzine administration with this. The Turnpike and Parkway widenings were sold as a package with ARC in order to raise the tolls. This is in part because the FTA said that NJ needed provide a local match from a more stable source than our almost insolvent Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). Given that our legislators have shown very little interest in actually addressing the TTF problem and that raising the gas tax is heresy in NJ politics, raising the tolls on the toll roads was the most practical solution. If you are going to do that, tying it to road “improvements” is the best way to sell it politically. Is this the best solution from a transit advocate’s perspective? Probably not. Is one that works in the (sur)real world of NJ politics? I this so.

Without the funding from the Turnpike Authority, ARC might not have been approved or at the very least, would have a cloud of uncertainty hanging over its figurative head similar to that of the Second Avenue Subway.