NEW JERSEY | LOW-RISE / GENERAL Development News + Construction

1 Like

It’d be an absolute failure of the state government to allow the NJ Turnpike to be widened. It’ll do nothing to solve the issue of traffic and it’ll only get worse as with any road widening project and it’ll require the acquisition of privately owned land.

I do like the renderings for the replacement for the dilapidated Newark Bay Extension though. That bridge needs to be replaced. It’s falling apart and on borrowed time.

(Paywall Bypass)


I like the replacing of the bridges, but why do they feel the need to widen the roads again?


“because its congested”


Real answer is that both road contractor executives and road construction unions were big donors to Murphy’s campaign and have been lobbying hard for this plum $14 billion contract.

One thing I’m confused about is…why do they keep revealing these designs of these bridges that look too much like Tappan Zee? Another example is Goethal’s Bridge. I swear there’s even a smaller one in LIC. Lets make new designs…or at least something different

This is madness. Expand transit. The core of by far the most transit-oriented metro in the U.S. doesn’t need even wider highways. $14 billion could massively expand/upgrade NJ Transit rail. If the issue is the port traffic, take existing lanes and make them exclusive intermodal lanes.


Thankfully Jersey City and I believe Newark are pushing hard to block the road expansion. Expanding the light rail and transit should be priority 1.


Bayonne politicians are in favor. Newark and JC are opposed.

1 Like

This isn’t surprising. Widening these roads will lead to more traffic without providing a proper solution.

1 Like

Just one more lane bro…


Lol at them interviewing Soho & Tribeca residents. Per one of the articles posted above, the reality is:

Turnpike officials say that they found only 21% of eastbound traffic goes to the tunnel. The majority, 56%, goes to Jersey City, and another 17% to Bayonne.

Do people think the Turnpike is lying about these figures? The bottom line is the Newark Bay Bridge NEEDS to be replaced. The stretch of road from Bayonne to JC is literally decrepit & also needs to be fully replaced. They already found that rehabilitation of the existing structures is not an option (which should be obvious) and the congestion is insane, as someone who used to drive it daily (not going into NYC). Why would they replace it with only 2 lanes each direction again? The shoulder is already scary and too narrow. The environmental argument is also moot, as new car sales will be increasingly electric until they are all electric likely within a decade.

This roadway is within one of, if not the densest areas in the country. Two lanes each way simply does not cut it at this point. People seem to forget how many commuters there are from Hudson County to other parts of North Jersey which is full of employment centers. Not to mention the industrial/commercial space in JC/Bayonne right off this roadway. Also, there should be minimal displacement from the widening (from same article):

There would be no residential displacement because of the project, though Navarro said they “might have to take a little bit of land at the edge of a property,” which will be discussed with property owners in the next phase of final design.

The Holland Tunnel & environmental arguments are red herrings. I 100% agree there need to be drastic investments in HBLR, PATH, NJTransit, etc. expansions but that will take decades. With the population growth, nearby ports/airports & the future of e-commerce, warehouses, trucking, electric cars, etc. we can’t just ignore & get rid of vital roadways like this.

Rehabilitating a crumbling road is fine. Wouldn’t argue against that.

But widening roads does the following:

  1. Temporarily relieves traffic because there’s increased capacity.
  2. Once people realize it’s a less congested route, they will do one of the following:
    a. Switch Routes: People who used to take a different, maybe longer, route to avoid the congestion will now travel on this newly improved road. (This could also include people who move to the area because of “improved connectivity.”
    b. Switch Times: People who used to leave their homes super early to avoid rush hour traffic will now realize they can sleep in a little later because the road has more capacity.
    c. Switch Modes: People who don’t like waiting for the train or cramming into a bus at rush hour will decide to drive on the road with newly increased capacity.

Over time, all of these factors come together and just bring congestion right back to the level it was at before the expensive project (and many times the congestion is actually worse).

Also, electric vehicles may not run on fossil fuels, but a significant component of pollution from cars is actually the rubber and metal from tires and brake pads that are cast onto the surrounding neighborhood. Not to mention, these cars are being charged on a grid that’s still mostly run by fossil fuels.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against electric cars or fixing a decrepit bridge. That bridge and road SHOULD be rehabilitated. But we have a century of highway widening in this country to show us what road widening does and it always results in the picture I posted above.

I know people have to get to their jobs but people also have the ability to choose different modes, routes, and times they travel. They can also choose where to live in relation to a job. It’s not like if this road isn’t widened, people will literally be falling off the sides of it. They’ll just make other life choices.


Fair points. I do share the concerns about induced traffic (to some degree). With the IRA I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire auto supply chain is sustainably manufactured a decade from now, but we will see!

I just think this isn’t the same as adding lanes to some 7-lane monstrosity in Houston or something. 3-4 lanes in each direction I think is appropriate for this stretch given the high (and growing) traffic volumes.


The first NJT Multilevel III train is expected to arrive for testing later this year, around two years late. Lets hope they don’t suffer the issue the current generation MultiLevels have with the windows becoming frosted and fogged from UV damage.

1 Like

That’s too bad. I like the single-level cars, especially the ones where the passengers can manually flip the direction of the seats.

1 Like