Submitted by takemynerjy t3_1251ljz in newjersey
Practical_Argument50 t1_je34w3l wrote
Reply to comment by takemynerjy in Petition: Don’t widen the NJ Turnpike in South Jersey by takemynerjy
It was widened down to 6 because of the warehouses and it should be widened due to additional traffic. This is the opposite of induced demand. The demand is already there.
takemynerjy OP t1_je366qn wrote
It's actually the typical induced demand scenario. Congestion (demand already there) -> widening -> initial relief -> induced demand -> congestion. Repeat.
Practical_Argument50 t1_je36dtk wrote
Except very few are moving that far south to commute to NYC or N-NJ.
takemynerjy OP t1_je36y9v wrote
The research on induced demand includes interstates like the NJ Turnpike.
Practical_Argument50 t1_je377xx wrote
Yes but the NJTP is a toll road so traffic can be controlled by increasing tolls vs “freeways”
takemynerjy OP t1_je37om7 wrote
The tolls we have don't reduce congestion. Only congestion pricing reduces congestion by reducing driving. We don't have CP because it's politically toxic. See: NJ politicians reacting to NYC doing CP.
If you want congestion pricing instead of widening the road, I'm with you. It doesn't justify widening though. CP replaces widening, in fact.
Practical_Argument50 t1_je382nr wrote
We do have on peak and off peak pricing right now which is congestion pricing. Except we aren’t sensitive to it. We will pay what ever it take to ride the road. Congestion pricing in NYC I believe will be the same traffic won’t improve. We need to build alternatives.
takemynerjy OP t1_je38ocn wrote
Not congestion pricing. It doesn't scale with real time congestion. NYC's program will be the first in the country.
You can't conclude people will pay whatever it takes to ride the road based on pathetically low tolls relative to the full social cost of driving. CP is another policy with lots of research behind it. It works.
It negates widening.
I propose alternatives in the petition.
baylee13070 t1_je6jn5c wrote
Most widening doesn't help with traffic. But widening were there is a bottleneck because a highway goes from four lanes to three or three to two does make sense sometimes. I'm all for the widening of route 17 between route 4 and where the lights begin because that will get rid of the bottle neck. I'm against the widening of the turnpike extension towards the holland tunnel because the bottle neck is really cause by the tunnel, not the drop off of lanes. (Leavening the tunnel it might make sense).
Practical_Argument50 t1_je6kn40 wrote
For the turnpike extension they only want to move the jam from the tollbooths to further down.
Practical_Argument50 t1_je6kt00 wrote
Also keeping RT 24 at three lanes to 287 would help it from being so slow from the Short Hills mall.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments