I’ll study it for half that!.......................
Work to widen parts of the Turnpike, Parkway take first step forward (3/23/21)
PING!
Did I read that correctly? $48 million for 34 miles of an additional lane (or 2? One in each direction?) and will take 5 years?
Looks Like a Great idea, I see no problems, the people need it,...
Send my Check for $24 million Please, 1/2 OFF!!
I don’t see the need since cars will be pretty much verboten in the next 5 years.
So much for Biden’s $227.314 TRILLION so-called *infrastructure investments* ... the Greenie Marxists wouldn’t even let you cut the lawn in your own front yard, much less allow an expansion of a major highway
Since everyone will be driving ELECTRIC CARS once these projects are finished, why are they objecting to them?
(and if you don’t know the answer, you need to learn a bit more about who this country’s enemies are and just what they REALLY want)
Because it's a road like the New Jersey Turnpike running through developments built right up to the roadway edge, they can't build temporary lanes alongside the active lanes but instead have to do all the work on the active roadway. It's like renovating your house while living in it every day.
All that above is just for the roadway and connecting roadways. Add in nearby rail lines and crossing rail lines and it's a whole other level of pain.
Never thought I would say it, but, I miss the halcyon days when you could drive through much of that s_hole state in a thick red fog of stinking smoke with the headlights on and your eyes burning...
NYC flushed its toilet and dumped its trash directly onto about 20-miles of the open NJ marshlands for burning or burial... Even Jimmy Hoffa is still out there somewhere...
Who would have thought that things could have gotten far worse for NJ in the coming decades...
Multiply by 10 will probably end up being the real cost. Same for doing the work.
Woke up, people!
NJ citizens need to move and live closer to their work, or work from home. This will reduce freeway traffic, eliminating this terrible, terrible red-violet (opposite of green) project.
But if this sad tragedy does happen, I wonder how many Emergency EV Charging Stations (EEVCS) they’ll put in...
One answer: Kalifornia highway history. Judging that history in many places is like trying to say which came first (the chicken or the egg), the highway building and highway expansions (more lanes) or the expansion of the suburbs.
The problem is I know from experience and observation with California that often the expansion (or building) of a highway led to expansion of suburbs that led to expansion of congestion that the highway expansion was supposedly going to relieve.
In time, one highway that was going to relieve congestion relieved from another highway proved to be temporary temporary solution worse.
I time the congestion on both highways grew back to the level the 2nd highway was supposedly going to change. Why? The 2nd highway was built in areas the suburbs were not that expanded into, but it and land in proximity to it stimulated massive new suburb development, which in time merely expanded the geographic range of congestion more than eliminating it. In time both the earlier highway and the later highway had equally bad congestion and even as bad the congestion level that was supposed to be relieved.
Am I saying land use laws should “halt” development every time? No.
I am saying the idea that any highway project to add a highway or expand one is justified on the idea of “relieving congestion” is often not true.
Often it is the real estate interests in gaining “government infrastructure” investment to make their own business model (suburban housing development) more profitable. Their developments will reduce the effectiveness of any relief of congestion.